In Response to Mr Welker; I would strongly suspect that a person who disapproves of the "precautionary principle" would be a man of action, a man of his word......which is why we should expect you to be the person who volunteers to take untested pharmaceuticals before they have undergone the FDA testing procedures and approval process.
This wry little comment hopefully points out the difficulty with "Science Contrarianism"....when it comes to human impacts on the planet, much is at stake. We don't necessarily have all the "data, science, and logic" of which you speak, that would be necessary to make highly informed, rational decisions in every case. Nonetheless, the body of evidence is rapidly growing which supports the implementation of precautionary actions in regard to climate change. And make no mistake; we will never have "all the data". Should we, consequently, force the untested pill of unabated greenhouse gas emissions on future generations? I think not. C Rosamond > Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:21:20 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Risk assessment in climate change > To: [email protected] > > All, > > The Precautionary Principle is flawed and can be used inappropriately by > agenda pushers. Check out this article that explains how and why: > http://www.reason.com/news/show/30977.html. We do not want to use > speculation, emotion, conjecture, opinion and abstract reasoning to set > conservation agenda. We want to use data, science, logic, reason, > understanding, reality and fairness. We also don't want to use it to take > away the Constitutional rights of American citizens. You can't take away the > rights of folks because you "feel, think, or believe." > > Mike Welker > El Paso, TX > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Maiken Winter" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:48 PM > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Risk assessment in climate change > > > > The precautionary principle is probably THE best all-encompassing argument > > to act in the face of climate change. > > > > For those interested in further exploring this argument, and for great > > short movies on the issue of risk management, please see > > > > The Manpollo Project (http://www.manpollo.org/). > > > > As for the argument that nature will survive - of course it will. That is > > why it is wrong to say that we want to save the planet. The planet will > > take care of itself - in its own time frame of 1000s and millions of > > years. > > > > The issue is about us, and our children. And about our responsibility to > > take care of our home. > > > > Maiken _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_032009
