It's immeasurable how much damage his "research" has caused.
I mean, he's absolutely deserving of critique, even harsh critique, but you're going to have try harder than "his analysis is awful" and he caused "immeasurable damage" when he co-created the movement.
Which is tragic because it is a neoclassical fiction book misleading millions of students. Anyone who is really interested in the history of economic thought will avoid that book for anything other than being a reference of the theoretical position of the neoclassical synthesis.
Every economic model is fiction to some degree, what matters is the usefulness of the models to make policy decisions or predict outcomes. One can branch off into heterodox schools of thought like Austrian, Marxism, Chicago, or Behavioral... but students need to be grounded in the field's consensus to be able to know how to speak intelligibly across these areas if they're to have any effectiveness.
If that is the standard of argument good enough to win the economics "Nobel" prize all we can draw from this is how much of a politically motivated farce that prize is.
https://johnmjennings.com/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-isnt-...
For further argument, see: https://www.slowboring.com/p/economists-arent-the-problem-on...
The reason is quite basic. Global temperature includes the oceans which make up 70% of earth's surface and have a higher storage capacity for heat. So a 4°C global temperature rise might be closer to an 8°C increase to your current local average temperatures and that's the normal days. If you have heat waves those might be +15°C or more.
At those temperatures, Americans and Europeans might need air conditioned buildings just to survive. Other places will require people to wear portable air conditioners.
Obviously you'll also need to move all agriculture indoors.