Friday, 20 April 2012

Physicist's View of "The Precautionary Principle."

Dr Gordon Fulks
by Dr Gordon J Fulks

In all of these arguments of a political nature, what is overwhelmingly lost is the real science and hence the real truth as best we know it. Science has NOTHING to do with how many supporters you can count amongst those you deem worthy in the scientific profession. In 1905 Albert Einstein stood against the entire classical physics world with his new ideas on relativity. A few years later, a high school biology teacher from Seattle (Harlen Bretz) stood against the entire geological profession with his explanations of Pacific Northwest geology. And just a few years ago, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren stood against the entire medical profession to explain the real cause of peptic ulcers.

It is as Galileo said many centuries ago: "The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."

In truth most scientists who are paid to support Global Warming do and most who are not do not. That should not be difficult to understand.

Hence the fundamental issue for me is the survival of science as an objective profession. Continuous spin from highly political non-scientists does not help. And complicity among many scientists who want the government grants to continue is very destructive.

If the "Precautionary Principle" is to be applied, it surely needs to be applied far more broadly than Global Warming advocates imagine. That includes efforts to address the massive conflicts of interest evident in climate science today as well as the massive economic costs of proposed "solutions" to a non-problem.

The proper application of the "Precautionary Principle" involves taking all reasonable precautions without going to extremes. In automobile safety, for instance, that involves wearing a seat belt but not giving up driving altogether. In Global Warming it involves addressing all of the self-serving hysteria long before undertaking any "remedies" for what is objectively a non-problem.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA

Dr Gordon J Fulkes received a BS in Physics in 1967 and went on to get an MS and Ph.D. in Physics, all from the University of Chicago. He worked initially for the Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research at the Enrico Fermi Institute of the University of Chicago doing experimental research on the solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays. 

See also James Delingpole and the Precautionary Principle.


  1. pretty cool post, thanks

    1. CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition, 1/7th the absorber of IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 80 times as many molecules captures 560 times as much heat making 99.8% of all "global warming." CO2 does only 0.2% of it.

      Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

      The Two Minute Conservative at for political analysis, science and humor. Daily on Kindle.

    2. There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been peer reviewed by Ph.D physicists . Ph.D. Chemical engineers and others. The experiment is found on the web-site click on the blog tab. It is titled "The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillion-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist"

  2. UK National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies -2012 edition
    Volcanic hazards Risk
    3.25 ...There are a range of volcanoes across Europe (such as SANTORINI in the Aegean Sea) which could have consequences for the UK...
    3.27 ...Significant eruptions of this type can emit gases and particles into the stratosphere, above weather systems, where they may also have subsequent CLIMATIC effects.

    Solar flares tigger earthquakes
    Jain, R., Physical Research Laboratory.
    Each of the 682 >4.0 earthquakes under study was preceded by a solar flare of GOES importance B to X class by 10-100 hrs.

    Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays
    Toshikazu Ebisuzaki, Hiroko Miyahara, Ryuho Kataoka, Tatsuhiko Sato, Yasuhiro Ishimine

    Nature 482, 77–80 (02 February 2012)
    "If you had a big [volcanic] eruption of this sort [globally devastating], let's say in the middle of Europe today, the effects would be enormous and a few months might not be enough to get your act together." SO:
    Worldwide Lightning-rod Nets URGENTLY to save humankind from cannibalic collapse
    by galactically driven, devastating quakes/volcanic winters,
    as happened to Mayas, Aztecs, Incas

  3. A necessary condition for the AGW theory is a "hotspot" in the troposphere. Not there, and not for lack of searching via both satellites and thousands of weather balloons.

    Mann (hockey stick infamy) is one investigator of the MWP and LIA, among thousands (peer-reviewed documents all accessible via He claimed that both the MWP and LIA were merely regional. The rest of the studies, and new confirming studies continue to come in regularly, show that those two eras were a global phenomenon. About 200 of those studies, where either quantitative or qualitative temperature measurements could be established, all but a few conflict with Michael Mann's basically arbitrary shrinking of temperature amplitude for both eras.

    Disregarding Mann's study, in favor of (literally) hundreds of others, one can only conclude that our current warming began around 1680 at the bottom of the LIA. (The end date of the LIA is completely arbitrary and certainly not the lowest temperature point.) Since 1680 is some 200 years BEFORE co2 began increasing, and also long before our industrial revolution, it is clear that the first two centuries of warming were natural climate variation.

    Not only that, co2 is a trace gas, currently around 400ppmv and its annual increase, even now, is about 2ppmv. That implies that many more years would have passed before co2 increase could have had any measurable impact on the temperature. That brings us to the mid 1900s. From the 40s to the 70s was a cooling period, from about 1975 to about 1998 the temperature increased once again. From about 1998 to now, there has been NO further statistically significant increase in the temperature.

    Furthermore, while co2 may have been constant for the past several hundred thousands years (up to the industrial revolution), it has been 10 to 20 times higher for hundreds of millions of years before that. It has been much higher during two ice ages and going into once ice age. We know that lifeforms not unlike our own had no trouble surviving in those higher levels of co2. In fact a crowded gymnasium with poor venting may show a co2 level of 1000ppmv, and submarine crews live in 3000 to 5000 ppmv.

    Claims of anthropogenic warming are BOGUS.

  4. The Precautionary Principle says that if the outcome of something is horrendous and non-reversible, we should act as if the outcome will occur, even if the actual outcome has some low probability of it occurring. But that is also applicable to the Precautionary Principle itself: if by acting in defense of an environment that most likely will not be harmed (but it would be horrendous if it was going to be) we are even somewhat likely to cause horrendous damage to our economies and societies, then we must act on that, too. Which says that we should NOT move on CAGW.

    When two sets of mutually incompatible propositions arise, one must act on the one that has the most likelihood of happening. In this case our social and economic harms are far more real, though no less alarming, from the carbon taxes, government regulation and global governance required to address the alleged global warming that may or may not happen, and may or may not have significant negative consequences for the Earth.

    I suggest the PC says that we must be not PC, but stand still and avoid falling into the trap of others' PC demands (Political Causes).

  5. The "Precautionary Principle" says whatever argument people want it to say... and the more ignorant of science the more retarded the argument the "Precautionary Principle" produces.

    Lets take CO2... if viewed through the "Precautionary Principle" we MUST produce more CO2. This is because all plant life pretty much dies at/below 150 ppm CO2, but humans along with pretty much everything else on the plant can easily withstand 10,000 ppm CO2.

    So clearly according to the "Precautionary Principle" we need to get CO2 up to at least a above 1,000 ppm. This is of course because all life dying off(from lack of CO2) is far worse then some increases in flooding, blah, blah, blah.

  6. Even if it is not true, the claims of global warming, we are still going to run out of fossil fuels eventually. So why not prepare in a green way? Just incase.
    Otherwise, nice post.
    Read my post on the importance of sustainability

  7. I dο not drop a lot of гespοnses, howеvеr i did
    a fеw searching and wound up herе "Physicist's View of "The Precautionary Principle."".

    And I actuаlly do have а couple of questions for you if you
    tend not to mіnԁ. Could it be ѕіmρly me or ԁoes it appеar like а few
    of these comments loοk like thеy are left bу brain dead people?

    :-P Anԁ, if уou are posting on additional places, I
    woulԁ liκe to keeр up with anything fresh you have to
    pоst. Ϲould you make a list of all оf аll youг shared pagеѕ like your twitter feed,
    Faсebook page οr linkеdіn
    Feel free to visit my web blog Walking Shoes Men


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!