Well-meaning scientists, with impressive credentials, provide “scientific conclusions” that prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, ostensibly valid, but polar opposite conclusions on the risks of these threats. How can scientists, doctors, and a plethora of “experts” come up with contradictory results with what appears to be the same facts? How is this even possible in an enlightened society and how, pray tell, does a policy-maker sort through this conflicting evidence to bring forth proper judgements?

Full document can be found here, from the Annapolis Center.