Originally, the alarmists relied on the "Precautionary Principle". That is an old chestnut favoured by those without a logical argument and/ or cogent evidence.
Now they move on to " the cost of inaction". That is also a logical furphy. Like the Precautionary Principle it could be used as a flawed justification to spend billions on preventing any unlikely catastrophe.
As you say, it is very sophisticated messaging but directed at a very unsophisticated target audience.
- Forums
- Political Debate
- Cost of action versus inaction
Originally, the alarmists relied on the "Precautionary...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 35 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)