According to Euronews, researchers from the Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) reported that errors in the data led to distorted results, and the changes were "too serious" for simple correction. This is already the sixth article retracted by the journal Nature this year.
Initially, the study predicted that climate change would lead to a 19% decrease in global income by 2050, but the revised analysis now sets this figure at 17%.
The authors determined a 99% probability that by mid-century, the costs of addressing climate change damage would exceed spending on resilience, but a new analysis, which has not yet undergone external review, lowered this estimate to 91%.
A key finding that made global headlines was the claim that climate change would cost the world $38 trillion (about €32.54 trillion) annually by 2049. This figure has now been reduced to $32 trillion (about €27.4 trillion).
Researchers explain the reduction in estimates by noting that the damage from climate change is unevenly distributed, with poorer regions bearing greater losses in percentage terms.
"Thus, the global damage turns out to be lower in dollar terms," PIK notes.
This also implies that by mid-century, the annual global damage from climate in dollar terms will be about five times higher (instead of six times, as in the original calculations) compared to the costs of emission reductions needed to keep global warming at 2℃.
Criticism from Climate Change Deniers
The retraction of the article opened new avenues for criticism outside the framework of post-publication review, allowing for changes in scientific publications to improve accuracy and transparency.
On social media, Nature's decision to retract the article fueled conspiracy theories around climatology, with users claiming that researchers are "completely corrupt," and anthropogenic climate change is portrayed as a "farce" and a "political scam."
Some commentators insisted that the media ignored the retraction, despite coverage by AP News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Sky News.
While the study did reference the World Bank and other financial institutions in the climate scenarios used by policymakers, there is no evidence that the findings were exaggerated for market manipulation, as claimed on social media.
Reasons for Errors in the Study
The research process used historical data to forecast the impact of temperature and precipitation changes on economic growth.
However, the researchers later identified errors in Uzbekistan's economic data from 1995-1999, which significantly affected their conclusions.
They also pointed out an underestimation of statistical uncertainty, indicating how much sample results may differ from the true value in the population.
The revised version corrects the initial data, introduces additional control measures to limit anomalies, and accounts for correlations between regions.
Key Findings Remain Unchanged
PIK emphasizes the importance of feedback from the scientific community and acknowledges "responsibility for the shortcomings" that led to the retraction. Nevertheless, the institute asserts that its "key findings remain": the economic damage from climate change by mid-century is still "significant" and exceeds the costs of mitigation.
"These impacts are primarily driven by temperature changes and most severely affect low-income regions with minimal historical emissions," the institute explains.
"These findings are generally consistent with broader data on the scale of the economic consequences of climate change and the benefits of emission reductions."
Climatologist Gernot Wagner, who was not involved in the study, noted for AP News that the overall message of PIK's work remains unchanged, regardless of "where exactly the true figure lands." He added: "Climate change is already being felt firsthand," pointing out that homeowners' insurance premiums in the U.S. have doubled over the past decade. "Climate risks continue to accumulate and will only increase these figures."
