|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
1 members (Russ Tanner),
8,858
guests, and
97
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 266
Veteran Member
|
I am wading through some trending agricultural conference proceedings. Each year they add new words and concepts. This year is based upon the Precautionary Principle. Wikipedia defines the Precautionary Principle as:
"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action."
Which means that we, as the public, because the government has not been forthcoming with scientific evidence that geo-engineering is harmful, we (the public)are relegated to providing the burden of proof that geo-engineering is harmful and take action.
From the trenches,
Celeste
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 9,874
Master Elite Member
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 9,874
Master Elite Member
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
