"Politicians who take the view that a "majority of scientists believe" a certain way, so therefore I'll make my policy on those grounds, is self serving or dangerous."
As I said, not just a majority. For example, 99% of scientists and 96% of climatoligists believe in evolution and global warming, respectively. That is more than a majority.
Now even then, I'd encourage an individual or politician to look at the data and make his own conclusions, but I understand it isn't easy.
"Too many politicians operate on that basis when making economic decisions as the majority of economists are Keynesian and advocate public spending."
The difference is that while perhaps the majority of economists are Keynesians, there are many who are not. Moreover, while Austrian economists unfortunately do not do this, classical economists and monetarists and others have data, modeling, and facts that support their view. They allow a factual comparisons of the different economic ideas.
"Clearly Keynesians and politicians were made for each other as that branch of economics advocates public spending and deficits which plays squarely to the politician's strengths"
Politicians are seeing what they want to see. Keynesians also advocates for increasing taxes and cutting spending (more balanced budgets) during an economic boom. Yet politicians have largely disregarded this. Ron Paul too interprets Keynesiansism as spend high, tax low at all times, though this is false.
"Global warming is also supported by special interests who have a financial interest in the matter in passing cap and trade."
Like who? After all, the people in this country who have a vested interest AGAINST cap and trade are much more powerful and have much more money.
"So its may be easy to get a majority of paid scientists or economists to come to a conclusion, but that doesnt mean its the right one or that its a sensible way of making decisions."
It is hardly easy, especially amongst academics, who are much less influenced by special interests.
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: