>We're looking at a worst case (but still entirely plausible) effect of mass global starvation within the century, and the denialist attitude is ... wait for mo

>We're looking at a worst case (but still entirely plausible) effect of mass global starvation within the century, and the denialist attitude is ... wait for more data? Magical unicorns could come and eat our crops, causing mass global starvation. Why hasn't the government done anything, such as mandating unicorn shields for farmers? My point is that the worst-case scenario is irrelevant. It matters how likely the worst-case scenario is to occur. Any discussion of the magnitude of possible damage without discussing the odds is fear-mongering at its most base. It's the same thing Bush does when he states that the terrorists could end the American way of life. Sure they could, if they blew up enough cities. But how likely is that?