The argument from deniers has retreated to the "it's not a problem anyway" stage, which stage I predicted on this very forum over two years ago.
You are correct from a risk management perspective. The greater the uncertainty around the probability of a negative outcome the greater should be the policy caution. This principle is why we pull something from the store shelves right away when it appears it may be hurting people.
The same argument could be used for smoking. Maybe there is less lung cancer per capita, not because smoking is less common (thanks to medical science warnings), but because we're "just healthier".the one that cracks me up is do everything the alarmists tell us we must do which for some reason always involves more government control of oil and in 30 years when the weather is just fine claim it was because of the drastic action we took in spite of all the nutcase science deniers.
typical democrat. You are equating smoking with lung cancer. Everybody knows lung cancer is bad, but we don't all also agree smoking is bad. As a matter of fact for me personally, smoking is very good.The same argument could be used for smoking. Maybe there is less lung cancer per capita, not because smoking is less common (thanks to medical science warnings), but because we're "just healthier".
I've seen it described this way... Not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer, in fact only 1 in 6 smokers will get lung cancer. But of all people who get lung cancer, 95% are smokers.typical democrat. You are equating smoking with lung cancer. Everybody knows lung cancer is bad, but we don't all also agree smoking is bad. As a matter of fact for me personally, smoking is very good.
yes, but 100% enjoyed smokingI've seen it described this way... Not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer, in fact only 1 in 6 smokers will get lung cancer. But of all people who get lung cancer, 95% are smokers.