In the 1980s I was a precautionary principle proponent, before the word was jargonized. It was logical to not foul the nest with obvious pollutants without knowing the consequences, at least to a reasonable extent. Lead and carcinogenic particulates for example.
<Beneath this dispute is a relatively new, very postmodern environmental idea known as "the precautionary principle." As defined by one official version: "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." The global-warming establishment says we know "enough" to impose new rules on the world's use of carbon fuels. The dissenters say this demotes science's traditional standards of evidence. >
A very annoying argument which I constantly heard was "There is no evidence that such and such is harmful". My answer was that that was because no investigation had been done so of course there was no evidence of harm. There was also no evidence of safety. It should have been obvious that the absence of evidence was NOT evidence of absence. It was annoying the people would come out with the argument "there's no evidence of harm" when there was zero evidence of safety.
But now the so-called scientists involved in climatology are abusing the idea of precautionary principle.
The big faulty premise they make is that Gaia is loving and benign and wants only the best for Bambi and the happy creatures proliferating on the planet. They say we should, based on the precautionary principle, do no harm to the happy idyll created by nature.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. They call it a pollutant so that in itself shows they are clueless or liars.
Gaia in fact is a suicidal maniac and the climate and the ecosphere are NOT in balance, never have been and is heading for catastrophe irrespective of people burning carbon or not. Gaia has been burying carbon, stripping it from the ecosphere for eons, burying it in stupendously huge graves of coal, limestone, shale, oil, tars and gas, denuding the atmosphere, leaving homeopathic amounts of CO2 for plants to breathe making it a struggle for them to exist.
Plants have suffered a tragedy of the commons since the carboniferous era, with each plant having to strip what CO2 they can for their own benefit and to Hell with the collective good and survival of all. Plants have not organized a quota system to maintain CO2 at healthy levels. They have battled for survival like Easter Islanders stripping their environment of anything that could sustain life, then fighting each other to the death for the remnants.
The precautionary principle doesn't mean people shouldn't burn carbon and that what level it was at was a good level. It does say it would be wise to keep it without the limits of what the atmosphere has been at over a few hundred million years, which is somewhere between 2000 ppm and 280 ppm [the all-time low before people starting rescuing carbon from its graves].
So far, CO2 is up to 380 ppm and plants are loving it, needing less water and breathing easier, increasing production. 500 ppm seems unlikely to be a problem. Nor 1000 ppm. But it would be worth doing some real science to see what will happen as CO2 levels increase. Not fake science by fake scientists. Real science. With data available on-line to anyone, not held "in trust" by priests in a self-dealing climate religion which threatens people who take a different point of view.
What is needed is to figure out a good level of CO2. The suitable level is of course a political question because there are competing interests. Crop growers like CO2, some people won't. Aerobically limited athletes for example do better with lower CO2 levels. 2000 ppm would reduce their performance compared with 280 ppm. But it would be even for everyone so that's no problem really.
There is nothing meritorious about 280 ppm instead of 380 ppm or 480 ppm or 580 ppm. There's no doubt that crops grow better with more. The precautionary principle doesn't apply to low levels of CO2.
Mqurice |
