The “damage” is that he showed with reasonable assumptions that climate change might not be as damaging as some claim? And the research was good enough to win the Nobel prize? That’s why it is damaging?
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-...