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.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 6:39pm:


Indeed. Needless (?) to say, it works both ways.  There is little to no understanding of the consequences of 'climate action', not least because there is no understanding of what the concept itself entails. Like so much else, it is politicised out of all proportion by agitators and activist with axes to grind, axes largely unrelated to the climate itself. Carbon dioxide is confused with air pollution and even water vapour (know-nothing media plonkers love to illustrare 'carbon pollution' with cooling towers billowing steam).

Most climate predictions by experts over the last 50- 100 years went unfulfilled. Strangely, however, they continue to boldky make gloomy predictions. They evidently do not know the consequences of their prescriptions for action since their predicted consequebces for no action are not materislising.

Not understanding the consequences of what they are advocating should make them less confident about proscribing them, not more. Only a moron would argue the opposite.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2021 at 8:31am:


What have economists got to do with the principles of science....?!?!

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2021 at 8:31am:

Well,  it's all sorted then, nuffin' to see here. The science and the economics are settled.

Sorry? What IS the settled science and settled economics, you ask?

Oh, well, that's  just such an ignorant question, beneath for any climate doom goblin to stoop to answering it.

Cuppa?

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2021 at 6:20pm:



So just how much storage should there be? One day, 7 days?

Australia 265TWh (that's 726,000 MWh/day) of electricity. 79% of it fossil fuelled. In 2019.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2021 at 6:20pm:


Human economics is man made and only exists because people co-operate with in a certain set of rules and laws.

The problem is the economy is run by a hand full of people that can only see dollar signs in their eyes.

You think economists really worry about climate or are they worried about that trillion dollar carbon derivatives market.

Once all countries jump on board the ETS or carbon tax system then CO2 and climate change will slowly die out on MSM and news.

Once all countries are paying for the air above their land there will no longer be a need to scare the sheep.

Quote:

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2021 at 7:46am:


How about storage because of renewables - ex hydro? You know for when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow.

As for gas petal. NO. It is a Source of CO2.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2021 at 5:38pm:



You're the one crapping himself about CO2.

BTW - What source for your magical mystery precautionary principle?

Your own from the sounds of it.

lee wrote on May 10^th, 2021 at 6:02pm:


You are the one crapping yourself every time you open your mouth.

Do you have a point or not?

It's a principle Lee. Are you disputing it's existence, or just being full of crap?

lee wrote on May 8^th, 2021 at 11:53am:


What is your point Lee, other than to be full of crap?

You are full of crap Lee.

Quote:


For most people it is common sense Lee. If you did not know how a toaster worked, but a bunch of boffins told you not to stick a knife in it as it might kill you, would you use your ignorance of how it worked to convince yourself to stick a knife in to get your toast out?

Quote:


Yes Lee. Think about what you are saying for once.