No one is saying that economics isn't worth studying and applying. And no one is saying capitalism is inherently evil.

Nice of you to speak for everyone.

How about you quote where I say the things you disagree with? I do you and Ben that courtesy because it proves that you actually said what I am seeking to rebut. If I don't trust my own ability to paraphrase, why should I trust yours?

Neither you nor Ben has demonstrated why you give a crap whether economics is a "science." Ben seems to want to discount at least some of economists' predictions. So I asked, in effect, which ones we should not take seriously. If economics is, as you say no one is denying, worth applying, why is that so, and if it's so, why do we care that it's not a science. Do scientists worry that economics will taint their status? You seem to be arguing that science can only be done in non-chaotic domains, where, for example, controls are available and experiments can be replicated. Is meteorology a science?

I don't know what "inherently evil" means in relation to capitalism, so I cannot be accusing anyone of calling it so. I am arguing against Ben's point that capitalism is responsible for environmental damage in a way that some alternative technology of production (as opposed to some regulatory tweak) would ameliorate. Sunshine gives us vitamin D and skin cancer. Is the latter observation a useful critique of sunshine, or just a recognition that we need to wear sunscreen?