Precautionary Principle doesn't fit CO2 emissions

Willis Eschenbach has some powerful words. Throw them at those screaming scaremongers who soak up the airwaves, the "we-are-all-going-to-die-of-global-warming-unless-you-give-us-your-trillions-now" types-

The claim is that in fifty years, we’ll be sorry if we don’t stop producing CO2 now. However, we don’t know whether CO2 will cause any damage at all in fifty years, much less whether it will cause serious or irreversible damage. We have very little evidence that CO2 will cause “dangerous” warming other than fanciful forecasts from untested, unverified, unvalidated climate models which have not been subjected to software quality assurance of any kind. We have no evidence that a warmer world is a worse world, it might be a better world. The proposed remedies are estimated to cost on the order of a trillion dollars a year … hardly cost effective under any analysis. Nor do we have any certainty whether the proposed remedies will prevent the projected problem. So cutting CO2 fails to qualify for the PP(Precautionary Principle) under all three of the criteria.

Read it all.