Crazy Climate Change Economics

Crazy Climate Change Economics is the headline in the latest effort from Paul Krugman in the New York Times.  While Krugman should certainly be an expert in crazy economics, the sheer audacity of his view this time is still astounding.  Not only does Krugman rely on faulty data, but he distorts it first.  Here's a good example:  Krugman claims that 97% of all scientific papers support climate change, so therefore, it must be right.  Really?  I be more than 97% of everything written about the earth said it was flat prior to the realization that it is not.  Everything written about physics for centuries said that matter and energy were two different unrelated things until we learned that this was wrong.  Scientific consensus means nothing.  In science, being correct means just that, being correct.  A true scientific fact need not win a beauty contest among scientists to be true.  But let's move on to the really crazy part of Krugman's statement, his claim that 97% of the papers on point support climate change.  To understand just how bizarre and incorrect that claim is, you need to know that about a decade ago, there was a poll take of a small number of graduate students whose grant monies all depended on global warming being a reality.  This group were asked some questions and on one question or another 97% supported man made global warming as a reality.  The poll results were then picked up and reported in one questionable source as a 97% agreement among all scientists that man made global warming was a reality.  After that, media outlet after media outlet reported the scientific consensus and they all based their reporting on the first story about the poll.  So a questionaire to a few grad students suddenly became a 97% consensus among all scientists even though there never was any data to support that claim.  Now Krugman takes the nonsense one step further.  a 97% supposed consensus has now become a claim that 97% of all scientific literature supports man made global warming.  What a joke.  Maybe some day, Mr. Expert Paul Krugman will tell us all why none of the global warming models work even to account for the past let alone predict the future.  Maybe he can also tell us why the warming between 1950 and 1995 is roughly the same as that between 1895 and 1940 even though in the later period there were large man made carbon dioxide emissions and in the earlier period there were not.  How can the two periods see very similar climate effects if only one has the "heinous" man made carbon emissions?

Actually, there really is no point to repeating all the flaws regarding global warming theory.  Krugman can't seem to get economic theory right most of the time.  How can we expect him to know anything about climate science?