We will not convict this man unless you can prove he did kill his wife. It is impossible to prove a negative, as all scientists know, so the precautionary principle is bad science and bad law.
Extract 4
As well as environmental issues we can also look at another area in which the precautionary principle can be put into practice. Here, I’m going to explain how countries have often used it to justify their interventionist policies. If you think there is a risk posed by another country, you can take action on the grounds that it’s better to be safe than sorry. This may result in large numbers of civilian casualties but these can be justified because you claim that the consequences of not intervening are
likely to be far more serious. This is, of course, pure speculation and under these circumstances can never be proved. It is impossible to know what these dire consequences of non-intervention would be, as the country has already intervened! I think this is the same situation with global warming. People use the most extreme forecasts about the terrible effects of global warming and use those to justify the actions that need to be taken because not to take them would pose an even greater risk. I would argue that taking steps to limit global warming actually has a major effect on the economic growth of countries that can least afford it and could result in the loss of just as many lives as in a war against terrorism, if you can ever have a war against terrorism.
