There is no scientific disagreement as to the correlation, it's just "how big" and "what specifically".
Compare the downside of "smaller impact than expected" with the cost of delay and it's a no-brainer
Yes, it’s about both effect size and uncertainty. That’s science. But your original post also brought policy into play. Unless you actually know that uncertainty, effect size, and those costs (including opportunity costs), you’re just making stuff up because “it just makes sense so it must be true.” That’s neither good science, nor good policy.
Advocating for big policy changes (like changing building codes) without understanding those aspects is like jumping into a pool headfirst before knowing the depth.
The idea that we can move fast and not break things without understanding the systemic risk is naive. I’m fine with moving fast if we understand the risk and the risk is borne by the appropriate parties. Your previous comments are a little too hand-wavy to indicate a nuanced understanding of the risk.