Surely this depends on the reason(s) for the analysis being like that.
It does.
If it is done deceptively and not transparently for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion ff interests want then it is despicable or worse.
What if the errors have been pointed out but the analysts keep their positions? Can they claim not to be deceptive? I guess they could claim it, and it would be true, but it will be very hard to believe or forgive.
If it is done transparently for reasons such as it is difficult to do better and these issues are drawn to the attention of the reader/policy maker and the report concludes that more action is justified even when some of the potential destruction and issues caused are ignored... then AFAICS that may be an appropriate way for the cost benefit analysis to go about it.
Transparently? So Donald Trump's war on science is a fantasy? It is my imagination that countries typically veto science documents? If official documents are not written a certain DISHONEST but "honest" way, they don't get written.
Sorry, but the current climate science and risk assessment underestimates the danger and overestimates the cost of prevention/adaptation.
Remember that thread where we examined the IPCC claims for no hysteresis in the Arctic?
I wouldn't be surprised to find old reports overestimating costs of renewables
Old reports? I don't know about the IPCC, but the IEA certainly overestimates all sorts of assumptions about renewables and EV. More often than not I hear of municipalities completing renewables before than expected. Their expectations no doubt based on what they believed to be the best science.
Again you have to consider the reason: Is the overestimate of cost a reasonable attempt that has been proven accidentally wrong by subsequent events (an honest attempt would be expected to have lots of errors in both directions) or is it deliberate or recklessly careless or....?
The IEA consistently fails in the same direction. I would be surprised if the same thing doesn't happen in the IPCC.
An environmentalist looking at such a cost benefit report and deciding it doesn't adequately make the urgent case for much more action and very soon risks being a confirmation bias conclusion
I'm not an environmentalist but I know of my bias towards catastrophic thinking. Sadly, what I learn every day reinforces that thinking. I was pleasantly surprised by my lastest BOE estimate of 2032 as it gives me more time. At the same time, I'm horrified that people are trying to solve climate change for 2050.
What is your bias? What bias might an IPCC scientist face? I know for sure they face lying governments begging for pleasant answers. But did they disclose that bias? Of course not.
At least they lowered the safe limit to 1.5 C instead of 2 C.