Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
But if that's the case, think about what that implies: that G&M did not in fact use "worst case" assumptions to replace all of the uncertainties they encountered. And that in turn implies that their analysis is not in fact entirely based on "worst case" assumptions. Therefore, their claim that the LHC will be harmless is in fact uncertain--by their own admission!
How disingenuous of them to say there is no risk! 
All the more reason to not trust what CERN's paid flacks have to say. . . .  |
This ridiculous and frankly frivolous argument of semantics demonstrates that you have made up your mind as to whether or not the LHC is a "threat
" and that you have chosen to not only not be dissuaded by facts, but to even stoop to even the lowest levels in order to make a case.
I recall watching an HB doing the same thing in the CT forum the other day...