Hear Hear, none of you are required to reply to this thread, none of you are required to even read it. The option of putting someone on ignore is readily available. For my own part I will provide a qualitative answer to Warren's question. Being the fan of analogies that I am I will go with what I recently mentioned.
The USA and USSR both came to the conclusion that the risk of global catastrophe out weighed the rewards of winning any nuclear wars.
I personally feel that the scientific rewards out weigh the risks known or unknown of the experiments that will be performed. Is there a risk? certainly. There is a possibility that Hawkings' radiation theory is wrong, there is a possibility that a human error could occur, there is a possibility that mechanical failure from poor construction or maintanance could occur. I acknowledge these risks and accept them. I do not however "explain away" these risks as "insignificant" or "unimportant".
Were the people living near Chernobyl or Three Mile Island provided with accurate risk assessments? No they weren't. Were they given a vote on allowing the projects to go forward? No they weren't. Should we build Nuclear Power plants and Colliders? In my opinion, yes we should. But... Should we mislead the public with "Evacuation Routes" knowing they will never have time to evacuate? "Duck and Cover!" These go to the heart of Warren's arguments I believe.