Well, yes, but then your example is one in which it is quite obvious the the event itself is catastrophic. Just so one doesn’t spend much time proving the benefits of train wrecks and airplane crashes.

Yet in the case of the warming it is not so obvious that this must result in a near universal catastrophe. It would seem quite logical to want to find out the actual benefits and damages, and then balance these against the economy changing costs that are being proposed.

Yet it all bad news all the time. This doesn’t seem logical to me. The final conclusion may well be that the damage outweighs the benefits, but why is it forbidden to do the research and the math?