> How do you split the lunatics from the evidence based? All over the world people are taking off shoes and belts to get on an airplane. Experts have widely de

> How do you split the lunatics from the evidence based? All over the world people are taking off shoes and belts to get on an airplane. Experts have widely decried airport security procedures as nonsense, including the penetration testers who are charged with proving whether or not these measures are effective. An evidence-based examination has therefore proven these measures are, if not lunacy, at least not practical. Intelligence officers, on the other hand, wrote up detailed explanations of how airplanes could be hijacked and turned into missiles. These people were experts in their field, and their hypotheticals were all reasonable. They were ignored, essentially, because people didn't want to deal with it. When it comes to the dangers posed by hurricanes, it's fairly easy to determine if someone is coming from an evidence-based perspective, or a lunacy-based perspective. Are they engineers? Do they understand weather patterns and hydrology? Are they talking about how likely the events they're talking about are likely to occur over the next five, ten, one-hundred years? Or are they screaming about how God is going to level the city because he doesn't like it when two men kiss?