And in reality?

"Precautionary principles are the foundations for policy when it has to deal with weakly understood causes of potential catastrophic or irreversible events, and where protective decisions require certain and costly policy interventions that may not solve the problem that they are designed to correct."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/precautionary-...

Climate models - They don't predict accurately. They don't do clouds well. They don't do sea surface temperature well.

They are mere computer games .

And what are these things that cost a lot of money and don't do things well? Renewables, apart frmo Nuclear for a start. They are costly. But don't even mention the subsidies for them.

Carbon Capture and Storage? There are no large scale methods in place - nor planned.

Everyone knows Google. They were going to go completely renewable. The result?

"According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE;

    “At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

    Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-...

So Google engineers couldn't do it. Hands up those who can.

Although I love one caption -

"Yet because CO 2 lingers in the atmosphere for more than a century, reducing emissions means only that less gas is being added to the existing problem. Research by James Hansen shows that reducing global CO 2 levels requires both a drastic cut in emissions and some way of pulling CO 2 from the atmosphere and storing it. "

James Hansen lied. The turnover time for CO2 is less than 10years, according to most scientific studies.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 7:03pm:



I can't help it if you can't quote the Precautionary Principle correctly. I wonder why that is? Something to do with your serial lying probably.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 7:19pm:



No petal. it is Climate Establishment at science direct as the link said. You are a person, a lying person but a person none the less. That you can't quote from texts is certainly a problem for you.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 7:44pm:



No petal. Merely a liar through the three threads. You made up your own Precautionary Principle and treated it as real.

We can't take the risk with our environment -
that's why we need to go all out into research
for large commercial Thorium reactors.
Clean, cheap, safe - cannot melt down - walk away safe -
unlimited energy for the next 10,000 years.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

You are full of crap Lee.

Congratulations on finding their website. I appreciate that must have been a challenge for you. Do you realise that what you quoted is not even a definition of the precautionary principle?

https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Satellite data from 1979 to 2016 suggest a warming by the year 2100 of 1.07°C.

So we don't have to spend billions of dollars of tax payers money on the stock exchange and giving 10% of this money over to the United Nations to try and keep the temperature to under a 2°C warming by end of 2100.

This will happen all by itself.

This warming is not out of the natural range of warming that is to be expected, coming out of the little ice age.