> On 11 Sep, 22:14, Derek miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 00:08:55 -0700 (PDT), Doug riseup.net>
>> wrote:

>

>>>But the point I keep on making is that even if there is still some
>>>disagreement as to predictions and mechanisms that is no good reason
>>>to ignore theprecautionaryprinciple

>

>> If " there is still some disagreement as to predictions and
>> mechanisms"

>

>> Then there is no goodprecautionaryprinciple to hang your hat on.
>> What if you got it wrong and made it worse?

>

>> You could use the same argument to justify eveyone existing on a diet
>> of lentils boiled in Witch-Hazel.

>

>> Oh, wait a minute ...

>

>>>and keep on taking carbon from
>>>the earth and releasing it into the atmosphere in vast quantities,

>

>> The earth is also "vast".

>

>>>with the possibility of killing many millions of people in the future,

>

>> You have no proof of that or even of any similar (lesser) outcome.

>
> "The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which
> states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible
> harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a
> scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof
> falls on those who would advocate taking the action."
>
> So, polluters like yourself have to prove that your actions are not
> harmful.

>>>just so that the present populations can maintain their extravagant
>>>and wasteful lifestyles.

>

>> Move out of that preposterously wasteful house and quit your
>> preposterously wasteful lifestyle, create the wherewithall to support
>> the nauseous & miserable lifestyle you enjoy yourself  without relying
>> on others (whom you criticise) to support it, in a way that you propse
>> for everyone else and then we might listen to you.  

>
> Rubbish. If you have a car you are more harmful than me.