Artful Dodger: Going to the moon was so abound with risks. The % chance of a fatal failure was pretty significant. The science was not 100% as it was no-one had done it before. Yet your country still sent people and spent billions on what could have been a complete failure.

It's called risk assessment, at what point is the risk of an devastating event worth being ignored. It's like with an asteroid strike, the probability of being hit is very, very small. Yet we still plan in case that one in a trillion comes to be a certainty. Billions are spent on watching the skies as the cost of a big strike is unmeasurable.

We are talking about probability.

I've worked on a secret project that by all accounts will not be needed, yet the cost was worth it in case a certain countries troops were put in a situation that the need of the device that was made would save lives on the battlefield.

DNA.. so many women/men I've seen on a certain prog state that there is no way 'X' is biologically related and they have been 90% sure.. even to putting another name/not putting the name, etc on the birth certificate... ie you say that the science on global warming is flawed... ok, there is a chance that we will not have any major significant extreme weather changes.

But who's life would you bet on that? Which resource could you live without? We are already facing problems via India through over farming draining the water table of a significant food production area in aid of cheap food.

As for weather here.. when we had snow forecasts recently, they could not be 100% on how much and where it would fall. But the % chance still led to warnings.