"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...
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) December 3, 2025
On Wednesday, Nature retracted it."https://t.co/GfekOq1rLE
'The prestigious journal Nature'.
OK, we're going to stop your right there. Before we even get into the substance of this Tweet by Brian Stelter quoting a New York Times article, we need to point out that Springer Nature is a far-left company that makes no secret of their advocacy of progressive causes. They turned 'Scientific American' into a pro-trans junk science platform whose target audience was people who think "in this house we believe in science" is actual science.
OK, back to the headline. The prestigious journal, 'Nature' rode the most recent wave of climate hysteria with an alarmist report. So far, nothing new or interesting, but here's the problem: their hair-on-fire- pronouncements were used to influence policy and spending. Their claim was the effects of climate change would end up costing us $38 trillion a year by 2049.
From Retraction Watch.
“The economic commitment of climate change,” which appeared April 17, 2024, in Nature, looked at how changes in temperature and precipitation could affect economic growth. Forbes, the San Diego Union-Tribune and other outlets covered the paper, which has been accessed over 300,000 times. It has been cited 168 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
When the methodologies were questioned, they first issued corrections, then as things got worse, they simply junked the study.
REMINDER: Outlets ranging from the AP, Reuters, Forbes, Bloomberg, and Axios all covered the wildly inaccurate study published in Nature.
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) December 4, 2025
In a rush to advance a narrative about the climate, they published a study that was so wrong it couldn’t even be corrected.
Reporters should… https://t.co/gIVBtSJuK7 pic.twitter.com/qSDlagjNdu
Some central banks likely used that paper when making economic projections about the future.
— Brian Sullivan (@SullyCNBC) December 3, 2025
Sadly, bad data from just one country - Uzbekistan - infected the results and made the still-bad seem catastrophic.
Scientific papers are changed or retracted fairly often but for… https://t.co/tORfruYeUp
Consider the damage that was caused by policymakers who based their decisions on this junk science.
Climate alarmism died today
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) December 4, 2025
We should celebrate https://t.co/2JXI41nor8
No it didn't Senator. Since the first shaman demanded a child sacrifice to appease the angry sky god, we've had climate alarmism. And when Al Gore or the next huckster needs a new beachfront home, it will be back.
I wrote about the irresponsible, retracted Nature paper in the Telegraphhttps://t.co/zmQj6briCo https://t.co/uerExEsfgM pic.twitter.com/dEudyX3jcL
— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) December 4, 2025
Because climate alarmism is one of the doctrinal foundations of the leftist cult, you can count on breathless coverage that promotes it and no breath at all for those that debunk it.
it’s completely unsurprising that a doomer climate take was wrong but I’ll confess a mild surprise that someone admitted it just this once https://t.co/rM53merdfy
— Logan Dobson (@LoganDobson) December 3, 2025
Sometimes, when something becomes too indefensible, a retraction happens.
Someone needs to tell Greta https://t.co/kS14ghEvdb
— Dabu the Great (@dabu_the_gr8) December 4, 2025
Naw. The little Climate Gollum has moved on to more flashy causes.
Nature magazine is no better than T.P. at this point. https://t.co/8co5zKEQMX
— Publius Veritas (@PubliusVeritas5) December 4, 2025
Wrong. TP is pleasantly scented and cleans. 'Nature' magazine is the opposite of that.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member