|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 20:59:35 GMT
The European Union, the UN and the IPCC accept and employ the Precautionary Principle for governance. The U.S. administration and its EPA have done the same. The IPCC an UNFCCC have guided their efforts by the philosophy of Post Normal Science. The Precautionary Principle ( PP) and Post Normal Science ( PNS) are intertwined. Post Normal Science justifies abnormal methods; the Precautionary Principle justifies implementing policy based upon the results of abnormal methods. The result leads to a dilemma of their own making. This post addresses the nature of the dilemma, including some of the main concepts of Precautionary Principle and Post Normal Science. Summary:Cass Sunstein ( Formerly now Regulatory Czar) wrote: “Precautions, in other words, themselves create risks - and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires†( Sunstein, 2008). The current situation is a case in point. - Multiple current observations suggest we could be entering a cold spell capable of reversing warming and introducing a cold period. Some suggest that period could last 30-50 years. We may find we zigged when we should have zagged.
- Under the Precautionary Principle (PP) and Post Normal Science (PNS), “Global Warming†policy action is contradicted by precursors and observations of steady or cooling trends. Historically, cooling adversely affects both environment and the human population. PNS and the PP principles would have governments act to prevent global warming and global cooling simultaneously. However, EPA carbon regulations will cripple the U.S. economy and its citizens, reducing our means to adapt to either.
- Applying PNS and PP criteria, the correct (“no regretsâ€) policies are to abandon regulatory mandates for fossil fuel reductions and encourage unbiased, more comprehensive climate research. Citizens, on the other hand, are at liberty to choose adaptive actions such as more efficient automobiles, insulation, sealing and heating and cooling systems when and if they find it desirable.
What follows does not require that either cooling or warming scenarios be “scientifically provenâ€. Indeed, each scenario requires opposite policy actions under the Precautionary Principle and Post Normal Science. A PDF of this thread, as originally posted by Pooh, has been added as an attachment. Although you have to log in as a member in order to fetch it, becoming a member of this Forum is free and simple. The attachment is available here:solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=1948&post=80698
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 20:59:58 GMT
Warm Spell or Cold Spell?
The prospect of a cold period meets many criteria for invoking the strong form of the Precautionary Principle. Governments have already accepted that Global Warming is plausible. A cold period is also plausible, even possible; the required threshold for plausibility is minimal. A cold period would have adverse effects, which need not be serious or irreversible. The exact mechanisms bringing on a cold spell are not, and need not be, fully scientifically understood or established.
Historically, cold periods have adverse effects: deaths from cold and disease, descent of frost lines, crop failures, scarcity, famine, forced migration, inflation and even revolutions. (Hence Hobbes’ contemporary insight: “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and shortâ€.) The stakes are high. For a post identifying many of these, see Curry, 2011.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:00:25 GMT
Conclusions
Under the Precautionary Principle, the burden of proof is now on policy makers and scientists to produce sound scientific evidence that a cold period will not occur. (The strong version of PP reverses and strengthens the burden of proof.)
In this case of opposite scenarios (warming vs cooling), the rational “precautions†are 1) to abandon government attempts to limit availability and use of fossil fuels and 2) focus upon understanding the climate. Fossil fuels comprise ~70% of U.S. energy sources. Economic collapse due to energy constraints exacerbate effects of cooling by reducing the ability of citizens to adapt. Greater understanding of the climate, on the other hand, would reduce uncertainty, properly focus responses and limit the tendency of policy makers and regulators to exploit incomplete science.
Considering Post Normal Science, the possibility of cold period would meet the criteria of complexity, uncertainty, high stakes and disputed values. The extended peer community has obviously been at work in the blogosphere: public debate in practice. Controlled and repeatable experiments remain unavailable, but nature has substituted reality for scientific experiment. Last, Climategate has damaged science’s reputation of trust, integrity and truth.
Post Normal Science enables invocation of the Precautionary Principle. On the other hand, policy decisions are not urgent. If a cold period is in the works, it is naturally reversible; the question is "how long would it last?". Regulation of CO2 will not help. Ultimately, reality should guide policy.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:00:44 GMT
Indications of a Cold Spell- The Sun is in a funk (h/t Watts)
- Global Temperatures are flat or declining
- ENSO, PDO and AMO Indices are in a cold phase (as of Mar 28, 2012)
- A Dalton Minimum is possible
- The effects of a Cold Period are harmful
- IPCC Warming Scenarios are not happening
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:01:02 GMT
The Sun is in a funk (h/t Watts)
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:01:21 GMT
Global Temperatures are flat or declining- Nova, Joanne. “Dr David Evans: The Skeptic’s Case.†Scientific. JoNova, January 25, 2012. joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/ See Hansen’s 1988 Prediction vs. NASA Satellite Data - Global Air Temperature Graph: jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/hansen-1988-a-b-c-scenarios.gif
- UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere – Feb. 2012 www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2012.png
- Global Mean Temperature's 30-Years Trends for 1850-2011 (hadcrutv3.txt) orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GMT30YearTrend.PNG
- D’Aleo, Joseph. “2008 Coldest Year Since 2000 and Clearly Not a Top Ten Warmest Year.†Opinion. Icecap, January 9, 2009. icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/2008_coldest_year_since_2000_and_clearly_not_a_top_ten_warmest_year/
- Watts, Anthony, and Roger A. Pielke, Sr. “Global Lower Tropospheric Temperature Report: December 2009 And For The Year 2009.†Scientific Blog. Watts Up With That?, January 8, 2010. wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/09/global-lower-tropospheric-temperature-report-december-2009-and-for-the-year-2009/#comment-286212 Comment by Smokey Sep 01, 2010 @ 05:01:00:
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:01:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:01:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:02:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:02:42 GMT
IPCC Warming Scenarios are not happening
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:03:05 GMT
Characteristics of The Strong Precautionary Principle- It is triggered by Adverse Effects to the public or environment (Sunstein, 2002), (Wikipedia, n.d.)
- These may be potential (Sunstein, 2002), plausible (Sunstein, 2002), raise threats of harm (Sunstein, 2002), suspected (Wikipedia, n.d.), a possibility (Wikipedia, n.d.)
- It is not limited to threats of serious or irreversible damage (Sunstein, 2002)
- It need not be fully understood (Sunstein, 2002); extensive scientific knowledge may be lacking (Wikipedia, n.d.)
- Cause and effect need not be scientifically established (Sunstein, 2002)
- The plausibility threshold is minimal (Sunstein, 2002)
- It applies unless there is sound scientific evidence of no harm (Wikipedia, n.d.) This reverses the burden of proof. The proponent of an activity must prove the activity is not harmful (Sunstein, 2002), (Wikipedia, n.d.)
- It has become a staple of regulatory policy (Sunstein, 2002)
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:03:25 GMT
Selected Precautionary Principle References: Sunstein, 2002 Sunstein, 2002 Sunstein, Cass R. “The Paralyzing Principle.†Regulation 25, no. 4 (2002): 32–37. www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-9.pdf Or www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog_data/sunstein.pdfStrong version “The weak versions of the Precautionary Principle are unobjectionable and important…. Because the weak versions are sensible, I will not discuss them here. Instead, I will understand the principle in a strong way, to suggest that regulation is required whenever there is a possible risk to health, safety, or the environment, even if the supporting evidence is speculative and even if the economic costs of regulation are high. To avoid palpable absurdity, the idea of “possible risk†will be understood to require a certain threshold of scientific plausibility. To support regulation, no one thinks that it is enough if someone, somewhere, urges that a risk is worth taking seriously. But under the Precautionary Principle as I shall understand it, the threshold burden is minimal, and once it is met, there is something like a presumption in favor of stringent regulatory controls.
“In 1982, the United Nations World Charter for Nature apparently gave the first international recognition to the strong version of the principle, suggesting that when “potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed.
"The widely publicized Wingspread Declaration, from a meeting of environmentalists in 1998, is another example of the strong version:
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not established scientifically. In this context the proponent of the activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. Unlike the weak version of the Precautionary Principle, the strong version is not limited to threats of serious or irreversible damage and reverses the burden of proof. Belief in the strong version of the Precautionary Principle is not limited to any particular group. All over the world, the idea has been a staple of regulatory policy for several decades. In the United States, both Congress and the federal courts, without using the term explicitly, have built in a notion of precaution in some important cases, allowing or requiring regulation on the basis of conservative assumptions. The Precautionary Principle has played a significant role in international documents, to the point where it has become ubiquitous.â€
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:03:44 GMT
Selected Precautionary Principle Reference: Sunstein, 2008Sunstein, 2008. Sunstein, Cass R. “Throwing Precaution to the Wind: Why the ‘Safe’ Choice Can Be Dangerous.†Opinion. Boston.com - The Boston Globe, July 13, 2008. www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_windMain point: "Yet the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent. It is of course true that we should take precautions against some speculative dangers. But there are always risks on both sides of a decision; inaction can bring danger, but so can action. Precautions, in other words, themselves create risks - and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires.
"In the context of climate change, precautions are certainly a good idea. But what kinds of precautions? A high tax on carbon emissions would impose real risks - including increased hardship for people who can least afford it and very possibly increases in unemployment and hence poverty. A sensible climate change policy balances the costs and benefits of emissions reductions. If the policy includes costly (and hence risk-creating) precautions, it is because those precautions are justified by their benefits.
"The nations of the world should take precautions, certainly. But they should not adopt the precautionary principle."
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:03:59 GMT
Selected Precautionary Principle References: Ravetz, 2004Ravetz, 2004. Ravetz, Ph.D., Jerome. “ The Post-normal Science of Precaution.†Futures 36, no. 3 (2004): 347–357. www.iris.ufsc.br/projetopar/docs/RAVETZ.PDF“Science now finds itself in a new and troubled situation. The traditional optimistic picture is problematic and compromised at every turn. The scientific system now faces a crisis of confidence, of legitimacy and ultimately of power. We can usefully distinguish two sorts of science. The 'mainstream' is reductionist in style, and increasingly linked to industry. By contrast, the 'post-normal' approach embodies the precautionary principle. It depends on public debate, and involves an essential role for the 'extended peer community'. It is based on the recent recognition of the influence of values on all research, even including the basic statistical tests of significance. It is the appropriate methodology when either systems uncertainties or decision stakes are high; under those conditions the puzzle-solving approach of 'normal science' is obsolete. This is a drastic cultural change for science, which many scientists will difficult to accept. But there is no turning back; we can understand post-normal science as the extension of democracy appropriate to the conditions of our age.â€
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 28, 2012 21:05:14 GMT
Selected Precautionary Principle Reference: Trenberth, 2011Trenberth, 2011. Trenberth, Dr. Kevin E. “Abstract: Promoting Climate Information and Communication of Climate Change (91st American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting)â€. Scientific, January 26, 2011. The full manuscript is available from this link: ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Paper180230.htmlNote that Trenberth’s attempt to reverse the Null Hypothesis (to prove CAGW is not true) is explicitly encouraged by the strong version of the Precautionary Principle, which reverses the burden of proof. Some discussion of Trenberth's notion of that reversal: Curry, Judith A. “Climate Null(?) Hypothesis.†Scientific. Climate Etc., November 3, 2011. judithcurry.com/2011/11/03/climate-null-hypothesis/ Curry, Judith A. “Null Hypothesis Discussion Thread.†Scientific. Climate Etc., May 16, 2011. judithcurry.com/2011/05/16/null-hypothesis-discussion-thread/
|
|