Are apparently morons:
When asked at what date climate change will have a net negative impact on the global economy, the median survey response was 2025. In the recent past, climate change likely had a net positive impact on the global economy, due primarily to the effect of carbon fertilization on crops and other plant life. However, even contrarian economists agree, when accounting for the vulnerability of poorer countries to climate impacts, global warming has been hurting the global economy since about 1980.
The NYU survey asked when the economic benefits we experienced up to 1980 would be completely wiped out; 41% of respondents said that’s already happened. Another 25% answered that it would happen within a decade, and 26% said we’d see net negative economic impacts by 2050. If we continue with business-as-usual pollution and warming, on average the experts predicted a GDP loss of about 10% by the end of the century, and that there would be a 20% chance of a “catastrophic” loss of one-quarter of global GDP.
There is no scientific evidence to believe any of this.
Since warming is so bad, and a lot of warming is catastrophically bad, these idiots must think European GDP was higher during the Pleistocene.
You are correct — the European GDP was much, much lower. But they still had a problem with unrestricted immigration from the Middle East and North Africa that eventually brought about their demographic extinction . . .
On the whole, I would say that socialism has a greater net negative impact on the economy than climate change does.
Far greater. Good argument has been made that some modest warming would even be of economic benefit.
More nonsensical “Science by survey” or worse “Economics by consensus”, pure drivel.
Meh. Don’t know who they asked, but Lomborg’s group, Copenhagen Consensus, are economists, and four of them have a Nobel Prize in Economics. They have calculated that carbon taxes return pennies on the dollar, much higher cost than benefit.
I’m not saying they’re right – I’m not an economist. I’m just saying I don’t know who the NYU study targeted. In a real field of science, if you get four of its members with Nobel Prizes to say something, you don’t get to claim that that is a fringe viewpoint. If four physicists with Nobel Prizes make a certain claim, that claim is by definition a mainstream viewpoint in the field.
The kicker might be that they surveyed climate economists, who by their nature will be of a environmentalist bent. The Nobel laureates in the Lomborg team are likely garden-variety economics rather than “climate” economists and thus got left out.
Not too many folks who don’t buy into the AGW paradigm will be specializing in environmental econ, nor would they keep a job in that specialty for long.