You can read a brief summary of his findings here--he also read my article and didn't point out anything major, so it's unlikely that I majorly distorted what he said. 

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/BvNxD66sLeAT8u9Lv/climate-change-and-longtermism-new-book-length-report

Oh and one point about the update: all of these errors came from me being a dumbass and misreading Halstead or posting the wrong link, so this shouldn't affect your update from Halstead. 

Okay yes you are totally right, these are embarrassing errors that I will now fix!

Sorry, just saw this, will double-check and then fix the various claims if you are right.

I think there is probably a pretty strong moral reason to abstain from those but honey provides much stronger reasons.  Disagree on strategy--people really like bees! 

How is this different from, say, the external world?  Like, in both cases you'll ultimately ground out at intuitions, but nonetheless, the beliefs seem justified. 

Moral realism is just the idea that some moral propositions are objectively true, not that all of them are true. 

They're doing nothing subjectively wrong if they really don't know.  But if they knowingly don't look into it then they're a bit blameworthy. 

There's a distinction between subjective rightness and objective rightness (these are poor terms given that they're both compatible with using moral realism).  I'd say that if you torture someone thinking it will be bad but it turns out good, that was subjectively bad but objectively good.  Given what you knew at the time you shouldn't have done it but it was ultimately for the bets.

See my reply :)