You point to the middle of the bell curve and imply that provides comfort, when there's a decent economic argument that the worst case, while still uncertain, is the reason to act, not the middle case (particularly because there's
little science concluding that the midrange of I.P.C.C. sensitivity projection is most likely).
Not exact matches
Standardized tests with high stakes are bad for learning, studies show (Statesman, 3/10/2012) A National Academies of
Science committee reviewed America's test - based accountability systems and
concluded, «There are
little to no positive effects of these systems overall on student learning and educational progress.»
What the CSSR
concludes has
little to do with what the
science, or any agency, actually says.
As for Julian Simon's understanding of
science, in «The Ultimate Resource II» he looked at the incidence of malaria in Sri Lanka and noticed that the areas with high population densities had
little malaria and the low population areas had lots of malaria and he
concluded that high population prevents malaria.