Faktaförnekande och utvecklingshindrande feel-goodsymbolism

[…] Earth Hour teaches all the wrong lessons, and it actually increases CO2 emissions. Its vain symbolism reveals exactly what is wrong with today’s feel-good environmentalism.

– Björn Lomborg

Det här ligger i linje med miljövänsterns politicering av begreppet risk. Allt de vill förbjuda och reglera sker alltid enligt den paralyserande Försiktighetsprincipen.

Ronald Bailey, säger i artikeln, ”Why Do People Believe Scientifically Untrue Things?”:

”Kahan identifies the ideological left as people who tend to have egalitarian or communitarian views. Egalitarians want to reduce disparities between people, and communitarians believe that society is obliged to take care of everyone […] When the results of scientific research are perceived to perturb (störa) those values, it should be no surprise that left-leaners have a greater tendency to moralize them, to favor government intervention to control them, and to disdain conservatives who resist liberal moralizing. […] One particularly powerful moralizing tool that is chiefly deployed by progressives is the precautionary principle. […] Beliefs about how much risk people should be allowed to take or to be exposed to are moral views. […] the strong urge to avoid scientific and technological risk is far more characteristic of people who have egalitarian and communitarian values. The precautionary principle is not a neutral risk analysis tool; it is an embodiment of left-leaning moral values.

När man ser på vänstern ur det här utvecklingshindrande och moraliserande perspektivet förstår man lättare varför de försöker kidnappa vetenskapen och göra om den och dess oberoende resultat till moraliserande principer om vad som MÅSTE eller BÖR göras baserat på objektiva och neutrala forskningsresultat.

Vetskapen att något är sant betyder inte per automatik att det samtidigt talar om för oss vad vi skall eller måste göra, hur vi måste agera, t.ex. politiskt.

[…] Scientific research may identify some problems that truly require a collective response but for social peace, the default response toward most issues should be social and political tolerance of individual choices. Texas A&M researcher Chris Ferguson gets it right on how scientists should respond to any efforts to moralize scientific findings. “Put simply, it may be best (!) for scientists to remain committed to the production of objective information,” he writes. He adds,“Deciding how such information ‘should’ be used arguably strays into advocacy and becomes problematic.”

———   ———-   ———

The problem with the Precautionary Principle is not that it leads in the wrong direction, but that – if taken for all it is worth – it leads in no direction at all.

If we avoid actions that carry a small risk of significant harm, then we should not spend a lot of money to reduce risks because those expenditures carry risks.