The house of cards that is climate science is coming crashing down.
@Nature is not a serious journal anymore. https://t.co/7zm22iGh6x pic.twitter.com/0HSjGX0dPz— Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki (@MatthewWielicki) December 3, 2025
Posted on 12/03/2025 10:15:33 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Hoo boy. Sometimes, you might do something so embarrassing, so humiliating, that you want to hide in the closet. The prestigious science journal Nature may be thinking about doing that right about now, because on Wednesday, they officially retracted an influential 2024 climate report that predicted gloom and doom, death and misery, and impending economic catastrophe.
As is the case with so much of the leftist climate narrative, their wild claims were quite simply unproven:
In April 2024, the prestigious journal Nature released a study finding that climate change would cause far more economic damage by the end of the century than previous estimates had suggested. The conclusion grabbed headlines and citations around the world, and was incorporated in risk management scenarios used by central banks.
On Wednesday, Nature retracted it, adding to the debate on the extent of climate change’s toll on society.
Shocker — it seems as if they were relying on flawed data.
The decision came after a team of economists noticed problems with the data for one country, Uzbekistan, that significantly skewed the results. If Uzbekistan were excluded, they found, the damages would look similar to earlier research. Instead of a 62 percent decline in economic output by 2100 in a world where carbon emissions continue unabated, global output would be reduced by 23 percent.
The house of cards that is climate science is coming crashing down.
@Nature is not a serious journal anymore. https://t.co/7zm22iGh6x pic.twitter.com/0HSjGX0dPz— Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki (@MatthewWielicki) December 3, 2025
RedState’s Ward Clark has long been busy calling out the shrill climate hysterics.
READ MORE: New: The Mass Extinction That Wasn't
Climate Change's Cruel Joke: French Destroy Crops to Tame Overproduction
There’s been so much agitation and misinformation regarding the climate that even noted environmental alarmist and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates softened his language in October before the COP30 summit. We need to cut down on the “doomsday” rhetoric, he argued, because the facts often don't support the wild claims.
Billionaire Bill Gates has dramatically changed his position on climate change, acknowledging for this first time there is no “doomsday” risk from global warming.
pic.twitter.com/CtsSL4OuN5— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) October 28, 2025
Meanwhile, Nature said in a statement on their website: “The authors acknowledge that these changes are too substantial for a correction, leading to the retraction of the paper.” The researchers are reworking the article with the updated data and hope to have a peer-reviewed version ready in the near future.
Their predictions are all still of the “we’re all going to die” variety, however, even with the updated data, but it’s hard to take what they say at face value when they just screwed up this badly in one of the major scientific journals in the world.
Lint Barrage, chair of energy and climate economics at The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH Zurich), pointed to other potential flaws in the study and had an excellent observation about confirmation bias: “It can feel sometimes, depending on the audience, that there’s an expectation of finding large [climate damage] estimates,” Ms. Barrage said. “If your goal is to try to make the case for climate change, you have crossed the line from scientist to activist, and why would the public trust you?”
That’s my question, too.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Perhaps Mr. Gates has been a contributing sponsor of Nature Magazine throughout the doomsday countdown. Now that he’s changed his mind, his dollars speak a softer tone...
I remember the “experts” in the mid to late 1970s who were sure we were going into a global cooling new ice age. Time had a story about how our cold winters were like the ones in the 1700s where George Washington allegedly threw a silver dollar across the Potomac (because he had walked across most of the totally hard frozen Potomac).
SF writers chimed in as this great cover of Universe 2 for a Robert Silverberg near future ice age story When We Went to See the End of the World.
“problems with the data for one country, Uzbekistan, that significantly skewed the results. If Uzbekistan were excluded, they found, the damages would look similar to earlier research. Instead of a 62 percent decline in economic output by 2100 in a world where carbon emissions continue unabated, global output would be reduced by 23 percent.”
Trying to imagine a model of the global economy where Uzbekistanian data would have such a major effect on the results.
Good…..we can cut finally down some more rain forest.
“How dare you.”
Yes, that raised an eyebrow.
A tiny, backwards nation with a GDP of $115 Billion USD can skew the world’s economy by 40 percent?
Me thinks there is a whole bunch more wrong with their calculation than that.
EC
Co2 is life giving gas necessary to support life.
There is lack of Co2 in the atmosphere.
The planet is better with more CO2.
The cost of Co2 releases is NEGATIVE!
Why didn’t he do what every other Global Warming “scientist” has done over the past several decades when his climate doom forecast didn’t happen? Just ignore it and make an even more hysterical prediction for the future.
Only a 23% decline in output.
Imagine what can be done with a few “corrected” weather stations on climate models.
Only 5.17 years left.
The real reason they retracted the study was because it exposed the economic damage that will be caused by climate change POLICY.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
