  Economists have predicted that damages from global warming will be as low as
2.1% of global economic production for a 3$^\circ$C rise in global average
surface temperature, and 7.9% for a 6$^\circ$C rise. Such relatively trivial
estimates of economic damages -- when these economists otherwise assume that
human economic productivity will be an order of magnitude higher than today --
contrast strongly with predictions made by scientists of significantly reduced
human habitability from climate change. Nonetheless, the coupled economic and
climate models used to make such predictions have been influential in the
international climate change debate and policy prescriptions. Here we review
the empirical work done by economists and show that it severely underestimates
damages from climate change by committing several methodological errors,
including neglecting tipping points, and assuming that economic sectors not
exposed to the weather are insulated from climate change. Most fundamentally,
the influential Integrated Assessment Model DICE is shown to be incapable of
generating an economic collapse, regardless of the level of damages. Given
these flaws, economists' empirical estimates of economic damages from global
warming should be rejected as unscientific, and models that have been
calibrated to them, such as DICE, should not be used to evaluate economic risks
from climate change, or in the development of policy to attenuate damages.
