A survey of top economists has found them remarkably like-minded on the economic threat posed by climate change. As I wrote Wednesday in The New York Times:
A New York University School of Law survey found near unanimity among 144 top economists that global warming threatens the United States economy and that a cap-and-trade system of carbon regulation will spur energy efficiency and innovation.
“Outside academia the level of consensus among economists is unfortunately not common knowledge,” Richard Revesz, dean of the law school, said during a press conference on Wednesday. “The results are conclusive – there is broad agreement that reducing emissions is likely to have significant economic benefits.”
The law school’s Institute for Policy Integrity sent surveys to 289 economists who had published at least one article on climate change in a top-rated economics journal in the past 15 years. Half of those economists responded anonymously to a dozen questions that solicited their opinions on a range of issues, from the impact of climate change on particular industries to how the benefits of reduced greenhouse-gas emissions should be calculated.
The survey found that 84 percent of the economists agreed that climate change “presents a clear danger” to the United States and global economies – hitting agriculture the hardest – even though the severity of global warming remains unknown.
You can read the rest of the story here.
Green Wombat 
This is not a survey of top economists, but a survey of economists who have published an article on climate change. In other words, it is a survey of economists who have a vested interest in a topic in which they specialize.
How about conducting a survey of economists who have not written an article about climate change? I think the results would significantly different.
There is far more threat of direct poisoning of people by coal burning, chemical and other toxic forms of pollution than global climate change. People are missing this.
Beside there is a very good chance that global climate change has little to do with these forms getting into the upper atmosphere, and more to do with earth’s cycles.
Build more windmills and add solar and other renewable to overcome direct poisoning of people through harsh chemicals and particles.
Greengrift, you would like economists who haven’t studied the issue to comment on it?
greengrift, you’re right, but *why*? Because some economists surely haven’t studied the possibilities. So of course some have different views.
When we want to know the opinions of a group, we have to ask members of *that* group — in this case, economists with some background writing about global warming and the environment. We wouldn’t ask, airplane motor to speculate about engines on large commercial ocean ships, would we?
And now that what we folks who live in the Universe of Reality have known all along is that “Man Made” Climate is and has been a gigantic hoax- dont you weak minded liberals desperate to belong to a cause feel stupid now?
greengrift,
I see you still haven’t quite caught the thread of the plot from my earlier comment, so I won’t bother you again. Too bad, though.