Print 
PDFThe Washington Post is admitting that, "A 2024 climate change study amplified by the propaganda press projecting up to $38 trillion in global climate damages by 2050 relied on inaccurate data.
The study’s inclusion of Uzbekistan’s faulty GDP figures skewed its results and cast doubt on its conclusion that global GDP could be roughly 62% lower by 2100 due to climate change than it otherwise would be, according to the Post.
Be informed, not misled.
read more
Numerous prominent media outlets touted the study upon its release as proof of climate change’s imminent economic threat, but a new analysis and experts who spoke to the Post argue the paper is undermined by Uzbekistan’s “data anomalies.”
Associated Press outdid itself with this headline: "New study calculates climate change’s economic bite will hit about $38 trillion a year by 2049." ( link 1 )
AP followed up with this:
( indent) Climate change will reduce future global income by about 19% in the next 25 years compared to a fictional world that’s not warming, with the poorest areas and those least responsible for heating the atmosphere taking the biggest monetary hit, a new study said.
( indent) Climate change’s economic bite in how much people make is already locked in at about $38 trillion a year by 2049, according to Wednesday’s study in the journal Nature by researchers at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. By 2100, the financial cost could hit twice what previous studies estimate.
( indent) “Our analysis shows that climate change will cause massive economic damages within the next 25 years in almost all countries around the world, also in highly-developed ones such as Germany and the U.S., with a projected median income reduction of 11% each and France with 13%,” said study co-author Leonie Wenz, a climate scientist and economist.
AP explained, "This new study looked deeper than past research, examining 1,600 global areas that are smaller than countries, took several climate factors into account and examined how long climate economic shocks last, Kotz said. The study examined past economic impacts on average global domestic product per person and uses computer simulations to look into the future to come up with its detailed calculations.
"The conclusions, AP said back in April, " are on the high end compared to other recent studies, but since climate change goes for a long time and economic damage from higher temperatures keep compounding, they “add up to very large numbers,” said University of California Davis economist and environmental studies professor Frances Moore, who wasn’t part of the study. That’s why fighting climate change clearly passes economists’ tests of costs versus benefits, she said.
Marshall Burke, the Stanford University climate economist who wrote a 2015 study, said this new research’s finding that the economic damage ahead is locked in and large “makes a lot of sense.”
(bold) Here's their problem. It doesn't make a lot of sense, because it is dead wrong.
The original study was the second-most cited paper across media in 2024.
Numerous prominent media outlets touted the study ( link 2 ) upon its release as proof of climate change’s imminent economic threat, but a new analysis and experts argue the paper is undermined by Uzbekistan’s “data anomalies.”
“The only GDP that is set to plummet is the GDP of fraudulent self-promoting climate activists who are about to finally and appropriately get their funding cut by the Trump administration,” President of the Heartland Institute James Taylor said. Common sense and actual peer-reviewed studies show that warmer weather saves lives, with nearly 20 times more people dying from cold than heat, that warmer temperatures and more atmospheric CO2 are stimulating a blooming of greenery throughout the planet, and crop production sets records nearly every year with longer growing seasons and more atmospheric CO2.”
The U.S. government has even cited ( link 3 ) the study, with one December 2024 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report referencing it to illustrate the risks climate change poses to the American economy.
However.
Once the fraudulent data from Uzbekistan was removed from the dataset, projected GDP losses dropped sharply, from 62% to 23% by 2100, and from 19% to 6% by 2050.
Uzbekistan’s absence drastically shifted the results.
The scientists who perpetrated this false narrative are now telling the uninformed that this is merely "science" in action.---after they have misled half the world.
(bold) Takeaway
This report was released as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced ( link 4 ) that it is moving to repeal a cornerstone climate regulation. The report states that drastic energy policies are unlikely to effectively reverse climate change and could even potentially cause more harm than benefit. Authored by scientists including former Obama DOE Under Secretary for Science Steven Koonin and climatologist John Christy, the report undermines the prevailing narrative of climate catastrophe often touted by Democrats and legacy media, calling for a rapid, taxpayer-funded green energy transition.
“Much to the chagrin of climate ‘panicans,’ Secretary Chris Wright assembled five credible scientists to publish a seminal and important report,” Gabriella Hoffman, director of the Center for Energy & Conservation at the Independent Women’s Forum, says. Let’s clear the air: The science on CO2 isn’t settled. And it’s worth to have a debate about whether or not it’s actually harmful to human health and welfare. As the authors noted, fixating on CO2 — a component that only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere — might have more adverse negative impacts than CO2 itself.”
Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Engaged. Be Bold. Be Prayerful.
