Let us look at how the politicians and bureaucrats want to apply the precautionary principle.

The purpose of the principle, says the UK's Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment, is "to create an impetus to take a decision notwithstanding scientific uncertainty over the nature and extent of the risk". In other words, to give regulators excuses to act, even if the risk addressed may be minimal or non-existent.

To apply the principle, they make "assumptions about consequences and likelihoods to establish credible scenarios". That's what they want to base their decisions on. Not on facts, not even on honest and realistic projections, but on assumptions! They want to apply the principle "even when the likelihood of harm is remote". And absence of evidence of risk is not to be taken as evidence of absence of risk. In other words, we are still to be found guilty, even if there is no hard evidence at all against us.

Furthermore, when there is uncertainty about whether or not there is a real problem, that is exactly when they want to use the precautionary principle! Make ghastly enough assumptions about what might happen, and then you can use the precautionary principle to apparently justify almost any action. For example, Tony Blair used the precautionary principle to try to justify invading Iraq.

Another way in which the precautionary principle is used is to reverse the burden of proof. When it is applied to the safety of new drugs, for example, instead of regulators having to prove that a drug is unsafe, the producer has to prove that it is safe. Applied to global warming, it forces on to us human beings the burden of proving that our economy and our way of life do not threaten longer-term human prospects. To establish such proof is very hard, perhaps not even possible. Yet the politicians also want to deny those who can speak up for us the chance to do so! That is very suggestive. We're being had, aren't we?

The precautionary principle is one-sided. For it always works in the direction of political action. It always works in the interests of the political class, never in the interests of human freedom or progress. It always works for the state, and against the individual.

The precautionary principle is also undemocratic. For, if global warming really is the biggest threat facing us as claimed, then surely any decisions on what if anything to do about it should be taken by the people, not by politicians or bureaucrats? Shouldn't we be the ones who decide which is the greater risk to us, a possibly warmer world far in the future, or yet another increase in the power of a lying, thieving, bullying, scheming political class?

Consider: Are the supporters of the green agenda a minority or a majority? If they are a minority, and democracy has any value at all, then we must be able to prevent them imposing their agenda on the rest of us. But if they are a majority, why don't they just practise what they preach, and cut back hard on their own emissions, while leaving the rest of us alone? Wouldn't that go a long way towards resolving the supposed problem?

But no. Voluntary action is not even on the menu for discussion. Instead, the warmers promote big scares, then use the precautionary principle to demand political Action!

And we can easily guess what kind of Action. Not, for example, planting more trees to absorb more carbon dioxide. Nor using technology to increase cloud cover and so cool the planet. No, nothing so easy on us. The warmers want to force us to make sacrifices, through taxes and carbon rationing. But they haven't proved that those sacrifices would make any significant difference to the climate at all. For those who can see, it's obvious the whole thing is a set-up.

And what if the scares about sea levels, droughts, storms and the rest prove to be unfounded? Would the green activists and their politician friends then compensate us for all the green taxes we had been forced to pay, and the hassles they imposed on us? Fat chance.

When we try to understand the mind-set of those promoting the global warming agenda and its precautionary principle, what we find is not pleasant. There is scaremongering. There is deep conservatism and hatred of human progress. There is authoritarianism, an urge to regulate, a desire to stomp on people. There is hatred of Western civilization, of business and industry, and of prosperity. There is an attitude of disgust towards the human race, a belief that we are un-natural and a blight on the planet. There is arrogant disregard for people who do not agree with their agenda. There is dishonest reversal of the burden of proof. There is a desire to suppress freedom of opinion and freedom of speech. There is greed for the kudos of being seen to save the planet, and cruel delight in forcing others to pay the price.

Promoters of the precautionary principle and the global warming hype, we must conclude, are not nice people. They are not the kind of individuals we should want to share our planet, our continent or our island with. Certainly they are not the sort of individuals we should ever entrust with power over us.

But there is reason for hope. Sooner or later, there will come another cold winter. Hopefully, sooner. What will people think, if they cannot pay their heating bills because of the taxes imposed on them, supposedly to combat warming? I think that a lot of people are going to wake up to what has been done to them, and who did it. And they’re going to be angry.

When that happens, I think there's going to be a change in the climate - the mental climate. People will look at each other, and will say, each in their own way: "Why do we need these bastards lying to us, ordering us around and messing up our lives? Why do we need heavy taxes and bad political agendas? Why do we need politicians, bureaucrats and their kind?"

Now, that's going to be some climate change.