[bluecalm]

That's most of his writing though: throw a lot of complicated words at the reader and hope some naive ones start seeing mystique depth in his thought. His writing is incoherent though. Even reading abstract of his paper [1]:

>>We present a non-naive version of the Precautionary (PP) that allows us to avoid paranoia and paralysis by confining precaution to specific domains and problems. PP is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries profound implications and in the presence of risks of "black swans", unforeseen and unforeseable events of extreme consequence. We formalize PP, placing it within the statistical and probabilistic structure of ruin problems, in which a system is at risk of total failure, and in place of risk we use a formal fragility based approach. We make a central distinction between 1) thin and fat tails, 2) Local and systemic risks and place PP in the joint Fat Tails and systemic cases. We discuss the implications for GMOs (compared to Nuclear energy) and show that GMOs represent a public risk of global harm (while harm from nuclear energy is comparatively limited and better characterized). PP should be used to prescribe severe limits on GMOs.

Leaves little doubt. You can't call him a truth seeker - he is a quack with some talent for wooing people.

[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787

[Tycho]

Seemed coherent to me. Which part didn't you understand?

[newtrader]

The paper is academic. It is not debunked.