So in most science, if someone comes out with a study saying that (say, for example) climate change isn't real, they'll be buried under the remaining 99% that came to consensus in the other direction.
Sure, Industry will bankroll lobbyists to fight any potential change in government, and fund crackpot theories, but ultimately, the evidence that will accrue will be damning.
Why wasn't that the case for Iceland? Why doesn't that happen more for economics as a whole?
Is it a function of time? In economics, people are more focused on sub 10 year plot lines? Perhaps our understanding of macroeconomics is so poor that we're surprised by "big changes" every few years, and evidence doesn't get a chance to accrue? Whereas evidence for climate change can accrue year after year?
Sure, Industry will bankroll lobbyists to fight any potential change in government, and fund crackpot theories, but ultimately, the evidence that will accrue will be damning.
Why wasn't that the case for Iceland? Why doesn't that happen more for economics as a whole?
Is it a function of time? In economics, people are more focused on sub 10 year plot lines? Perhaps our understanding of macroeconomics is so poor that we're surprised by "big changes" every few years, and evidence doesn't get a chance to accrue? Whereas evidence for climate change can accrue year after year?