Well, I'd regard so called economics, of whatever school, a quack science. I'm not sure even deserving of being considered a primitive science like historic astrology. That serious attempts are never made to test theory against reality implies inherent dishonesty and cannot be excused as mere ignorance (this is typically avoided by concocting a metaphysical distinction between natural science and economics unfortunately the claimed distinction is groundless).
Incidentally and in conjecture, I've noticed, in addition to traditional reactionaries, many of Marxist tendency refuse to take climate change seriously and I wonder whether this isn't in part because the condition of the environment is piously treated as an irrelevancy by disciples of both Classical and Marxian doctrines. I.e., it is incomprehensible when one attempts to understand the world from a perspective mostly solidified in the 19th century (with minor correction following the Depression).
Peter
_________________________________________________________________ Free photo editing software from Windows Live . Try it now! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665240/direct/01/