Now, let me get this straight.

When we are talking about climate change, "consensus" is invoked as the ultimate argument that this is, after all "settled science." Breaking with that consensus gets one labeled anti-intellectual, anti-science. One is a "denier," with its interwoven echoes of holocaust deniers and "being in denial" in the pop-psychological sense. It is prima facie evidence of being stupid or in the pay of big energy.

On the other hand, when we are talking about free trade, the argument that "99% of economists since the days of Adam Smith" are free traders, which might be taken to be "consensus," appears to be unpersuasive. Those who take other views on free trade are presented as brave, free thinkers. They are (at least in the case of Mr. Blinder) "electrifying Democratic candidates " who according to Gene Sperling "had come to feel anecdotally that ? the anxiety over outsourcing and offshoring was a far larger phenomenon than traditional economic analysis was showing."

I don't mean to suggest that those who have doubts about free trade should be referred to as "free-trade deniers" who are anti-intellectual, anti-rationalist boobs in the pay of big labor and the Democratic party establishment. Not that they aren't, but that's politics and political economy.

On the other hand, the next time someone starts talking about the need to do something about global climate change, it might be worth pointing out the inconsistency.

After all, the test of free trade isn't that there's a consensus among economists, or the elegant theories, simulations or econometric models. The test is economic growth, freedom and quality of life. The reason that "99% of economists" generally agree that free trade is good is that 250 years of experience shows that when ever trade is constrained, individuals live less well and societies are less prosperous. Consensus and Policy are both consequences of compelling evidence and experience. Policy is not derived from the consensus.

If the proponents of climate change could put that sort of evidence on the table, we'd have a real consensus and a basis for policy. In the absence of such evidence, consensus its just another way to package the Kool Aid.