It is astonishing, to me at least, what sort of information sources, approximation of calculations and arbitrary boundary lines come to be used as the basis for policy decisions (or rather are presented as such) when it is quite evident that they are more than likely guesswork, at best have huge margins of error and in any case are projected to far ahead that any attempt at assessing their veracity at the predicted future point will be both impossible and meaningless.
Presumably this is indicative that we have so few concerns in the present that all thinking and effort must be applied to the future. Which is nice to know but does not seem to apply to me somehow and I wonder why not?
I would also recommend, if it is still available on the Listen Again section of Radio 4's website, a File on 4 piece on how billions, and many decades of work, have been wasted in cancer research.
The problem is twofold. Cell lines used in cancer research have often been misidentified or contaminated. Researchers have unwittingly published nonsense which is then cited in other papers and given spurious credence.
The kicker is that though the problem has been known about for a long time, to date there has been no serious attempt to solve the problem, which in many lines of research would mean starting again. The admission of so much wasted effort would end a few hard-one reputations, and overturn many apparently sound assumptions.
Sounds a bit like AGW. Take a decade or two to see off that nonsense.