Nature journal has a whoopsie on climate alamism. Does anyone doubt that the political leanings of the authors and the editors of Nature lead to their eager acceptance of this fraud
Climate change study that overestimated economic impact is pulled — but not before banks relied on it
The scientific journal Nature retracted an influential paper that overestimated the economic toll of climate change – but not until after central banks around the world had used it to create risk management scenarios.
The three scientists who worked on the study on Wednesday cited “substantial” issues with the paper, which was originally published in Nature in April 2024.The article estimated a massive 62% drop in worldwide economic output by 2100 if carbon emissions continue unabated.
earlier this year, a Nature article by a separate team of economists noted that the climate study’s findings were largely skewed by problems with the data for just one country, Uzbekistan.
If numbers for the Central Asian nation were excluded from the data set, instead of a 62% decline in economic output, there would be a 23% drop – still a big blow, but not nearly as catastrophic as initially suggested.
My takeaway? Flawed data or not, how could Uzbekistan possibly have so much influence on global anything? If there is any scenario where they alone can account for a 40% drop in global economic output, they are far more strategic than anyone has ever considered.
I have not read the article but here is the Nature magazine explanation for the retraction. Reading between the lines, it looks like the authors fit their data to some higher order model that was exquisitely sensitive to outlying data.
The authors have retracted this paper for the following reasons: post-publication, the results were found to be sensitive to the removal of one country, Uzbekistan, where inaccuracies were noted in the underlying economic data for the period 1995–1999. Furthermore, spatial auto-correlation was argued to be relevant for the uncertainty ranges. The authors corrected the data from Uzbekistan for 1995–1999 and controlled for data source transitions and higher-order trends as present in the Uzbekistan data. They also accounted for spatial auto-correlation. These changes led to discrepancies in the estimates for climate damages by mid-century, with an increased uncertainty range (from 11–29% to 6–31%) and a lower probability of damages diverging across emission scenarios by 2050 (from 99% to 90%).
Trump Administration Erases the Government’s Power to Fight Climate Change
The Environmental Protection Agency rejected the bedrock scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten human life and well being. It means the agency can no longer regulate them.
