The Stand-up Economist is not very funny!
Paul Gregory chimes in on The Ruffin-Gregory Award for the Worst Treatment of Climate Change in an Economics Textbook: “Our sin was to suggest that the scientific method should be applied to three questions: (1) is global warming occurring, (2) is global warming caused by human consumption of fossil fuels, and (3) is global warming bad for our future… My own personal view is that we still do not have solid answers to the key question of the human contribution to climate change. It is heartening to know that the Ruffin-Gregory Award is still alive and well (and that we now know it exists). It is also informative that economics textbooks are still being threatened by the climate police with boycotts for departing from climate orthodoxy.” For what it’s worth, Gregory’s “sin” was writing nonsense (read it yourself) such as “The debate over global warming shows that no matter how much contrary evidence is presented, it does not matter… There are in fact very few climatologists in the United States, and the majority of them are skeptical of global warming.”
I clicked the read it yourself and can only conclude that economists aren't very good climate scientists. My suggestion to economists is, don't try to debate the science, it only makes you look silly. Focus on the economics of the scientific range of alterntives. If you think a non-climate change scenario is worthy of your economic analysis then proceed, but don't try to convince anyone that the science behind it should be given greater consideration because you chose it for analysis.
Now that that rant is over, let me explain to you my views on evolution, which are well-informed because ... I'm an economist. That banana is really sharp, or something like that.