My impression is that economists not only know about these criticisms, but invented them. During the last few paradigm shifts in economics, the new guard levied these complaints against the old guard, mostly won, and their arguments percolated down into the culture as The Correct Arguments To Use Against Economics. Now the new guard is doing their own thing – behavioral economics, experimental economics, economics of effective government intervention. The new paradigm probably has a lot of problems too, but it’s a pretty good bet that random people you stop on the street aren’t going to know about them.
I’ll have to redo my evaluation of economics as a field. I was assuming it was complete bogus because of spectacular failure of economists consensus on themes such as austerity and other politics, but reading I realised that the consensus observed was merely the one of the experts used to promote such politics. It might well be it wasn’t a consensus at all. Economics might be one of the most ill-represented fields of human history.
I feel a deep temptation to sympathize with global warming denialists who worry that the climatological consensus is biased politicized crap, because that is exactly the sort of thing which I would expect to come out of our biased politicized crappy society.
At this point I have to point out that if any climatologist ever managed to find anything serious against global warming he’d become the most published man in the world and the most payed scientist in a matter of two months. Fossil corporations would jump at the chance fast after thirty years of publishing in over 200 editions the same 4 authors that haven’t managed to find anything at all.
Also, climatologists were subjected to all kind of adverse pressure from fossil corporations, some lobbyists went as far as to publish their home addresses and instigating people to send them death threats.
Biased politicised crap doesn’t hold for two minutes after adverse biased corporation crap starts to bombard it with everything it has.
The study that found out about the 97% consensus on global warming was made because after years and years a furious debate of “experts” was still raging on all medias (turns out that only one side had experts and evidence).
I’ll have to redo my evaluation of economics as a field. I was assuming it was complete bogus because of spectacular failure of economists consensus on themes such as austerity and other politics, but reading I realised that the consensus observed was merely the one of the experts used to promote such politics. It might well be it wasn’t a consensus at all. Economics might be one of the most ill-represented fields of human history.
At this point I have to point out that if any climatologist ever managed to find anything serious against global warming he’d become the most published man in the world and the most payed scientist in a matter of two months. Fossil corporations would jump at the chance fast after thirty years of publishing in over 200 editions the same 4 authors that haven’t managed to find anything at all.
Also, climatologists were subjected to all kind of adverse pressure from fossil corporations, some lobbyists went as far as to publish their home addresses and instigating people to send them death threats.
Biased politicised crap doesn’t hold for two minutes after adverse biased corporation crap starts to bombard it with everything it has.
The study that found out about the 97% consensus on global warming was made because after years and years a furious debate of “experts” was still raging on all medias (turns out that only one side had experts and evidence).