> The "so-called 'experts'" are... journalists? Zero of these are studies. Zero. None. Nada. > Every one of these "predictions" is either a journalist trying t

> The "so-called 'experts'" are... journalists? Zero of these are studies. Zero. None. Nada. > Every one of these "predictions" is either a journalist trying to sell copy by exaggerating a story > None of these "predictions" are in any way science That doesn't matter at all because this conversation is about public perception, and guess what makes it to the public?