The climate change lobby and eco-fanatic media suffered a major blow when a high-profile study predicting catastrophic economic damage from climate change was retracted due to significantly faulty data.
The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research study, published in April 2024 in the left-wing Nature journal, scaremongered based on supposed empirical findings from 1,600 regions over the past forty years that “the world economy is committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years independent of future emission” choices due to inevitable climate change.
In the retraction notice published December 3, 2025, Nature noted that “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.” In addition, “These changes led to discrepancies in the estimates for climate damages by mid-century, with an increased uncertainty” range.
MRC Business tallied at least six major outlets that made a big stink about the study in 2024 that never put editors' notes on writers' original stories conceding the whole thing had been debunked. Axios, putting its fellow liberal publications to shame, was one of the few outlets that retracted their original story on the study. Even Bloomberg News, to its credit, dropped an editor's note on its initial story on the study and mentioned the retraction.
The Associated Press’s in-house climate doomer Seth Borenstein, drummed up the sensationalism in his April 17, 2024 headline: “New study calculates climate change’s economic bite will hit about $38 trillion a year by 2049.” He cited University of California Davis professor Frances Moore to snoot, “That’s why fighting climate change clearly passes economists’ tests of costs versus benefits.” Borenstein nor the AP ever bothered to update his piece with the new, narrative-wrecking context as of December 8, 2025.
Forbes magazine’s then-London based reporter Robert Hart committed the same offense in its April 17, 2024, propaganda on the study. It wielded the now-retracted study to paint the fossil fuel industry as a villain looking to dismiss the economic impact of climate change. Of course, Forbes didn’t post an editor’s note at all on its story following the major retraction news:
Cost is a major sticking point when it comes to concrete action on climate change and money has become a key lever in making climate a ‘culture war’ issue. The costs and logistics involved in transitioning towards a greener, more sustainable economy and moving to net zero are immense and there are significant vested interests such as the fossil fuel industry, which is keen to retain as much of the profitable status quo for as long as possible.
Score one for the fossil fuel industry.
Over at Reuters, correspondent Riham Alkousaa also blew up the news April 17 about the supposed economic devastation destined to be brought about by climate change. She praised the study for standing “out for the severity of its findings.” Further, according to Alkousaa’s spin, “While previous studies have concluded climate change could benefit some countries' economies, PIK's research found almost all would suffer - with poor, developing nations the hardest hit.” No editor’s note was added to the story as of December 8, 2025.
Lefty newspaper The Guardian, took the study a step further and made it seem like the economic costs projected by the researchers was simply on the conservative side and could actually be worse. “Although the newly painted scenario is far worse than anything that came before, the authors acknowledge it is still conservative and incomplete,” cried global environment writer Jonathan Watts. What’s hilarious is that a correction was included post-publication, but it had nothing to do with the study being retracted:
This article was amended on 19 April 2024. An earlier version did not make clear that the projected loss of income figures are in comparison to a baseline without the impacts of climate breakdown. This has been rectified.
No further update on the study’s retraction was posted to Watts’ article.
The New York Times climate team reporter David Gelles also promoted the dubious Potsdam study April 10, 2025 to help bolster his overarching thesis that “Climate Change Could Become a Global Economic Disaster.” The only correction included was published in May and had nothing to do with the retraction: “An earlier version of this newsletter stated incorrectly the country where the insurer Allianz SE is based. It is Germany, not Switzerland.” The irony is that The Times would later report on the retraction December 3, which makes it even more damning that they didn’t bother to update Welles’s climate propaganda from earlier in the year.
Business magazine Fast Company’s contribution to the climate scareporn narrative was simply reposting Borenstein’s story for AP. The article has neither been taken down or updated with an editor’s note following the study’s retraction.
It’s pretty telling how media outlets want to churn out all the climate doom agitprop they can and then never be held accountable for it. Typical.
