Outrageous

J. SCOTT ARMSTRONG rebutting Krugman

We identified 26 analogous situations, such as the alarm over mercury in fish. Government actions were demanded in 25 situations and carried out in 23. None of the alarming forecasts were correct, none of the interventions were useful, and harm was caused in 20.

A Forecasting Expert Testifies About Climate Change

Emphasis mine. No links, no evidence... nothing to support that outrageous claim. I'm looking for documentation on the efficacy of the EPA regulations.

However there's this to refute it.

In America one-in-six children born every year have been exposed to mercury levels so high that they are potentially at risk for learning disabilities and motor skill impairment and short-term memory loss. That type of mercury exposure is caused by eating certain kinds of fish, which contain high levels of the toxin from both natural and man-made sources such as emissions from coal-fired power plants. One government analysis shows that 630,000 children each year are exposed to potentially unsafe mercury levels in the womb. If the government and its scientists know about the mercury problem, why do so many people continue to be poisoned?
...


In February 2004, a new analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency revealed that "about 630,000 children are born each year at risk for lowered intelligence and learning problems caused by exposure to high levels of mercury in the womb," nearly double the previous EPA estimate.

Looks like regulation is not doing enough:





Why is that relevant to this blog? Because some in congress are trying to castrate the EPA, which is trying to limit CO2... and if they succeed, it may put civilization at risk