alt Hacker NewsThe “damage” is that he showed with reasonable assumptions that climate change might not be as damaging as some claim? And the research was good enough to win the Nobel prize? That’s why it is damaging?
Replies
blahblaher • yesterday at 11:17 PM
yes because it's absolutely ridiculous, but because he's a well-known economist everyone listened to him and now we're in dire straits.
Do the "reasonable assumptions" include stating that indoor economic activity is unaffected by climate change? Or that the US economy won't be affected because agriculture represents only 3% of GDP?
If that is the standard of argument good enough to win the economics "Nobel" prize all we can draw from this is how much of a politically motivated farce that prize is.
https://johnmjennings.com/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-isnt-...