Search

Search

Major climate–economic study retracted after data flaws — but revised damages remain deeply sobering

A headline-grabbing scientific study that warned of colossal economic losses from climate change by mid-century has been formally retracted, after researchers admitted key data errors inflated the original estimates. Yet even the corrected numbers — released in a revised, not-yet–peer-reviewed analysis — still paint an alarming picture of the financial toll of a rapidly warming planet.

The original paper, published in Nature in April 2024 by economists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), became one of the most widely circulated climate-economics studies in recent years. It projected that unchecked warming would shrink global income by 19% by 2050, costing the world $38 trillion (€32.5 trillion) annually by 2049. The research was cited by major financial institutions, including the World Bank, and covered extensively by international media.

PIK has now withdrawn the paper, saying the mistakes — particularly faulty economic data from Uzbekistan between 1995 and 1999 — were too substantial for a simple correction.

Revised numbers still point to massive losses

The updated results lower the projected 2050 global income loss from 19% to 17%, and revise the headline cost estimate down to $32 trillion (€27.4 trillion). The probability that climate damages will exceed the cost of prevention — originally put at 99% — has been adjusted to 91%.

Researchers stress that the downward revisions do not mean climate change is less dangerous, but rather that economic losses are unevenly distributed. Poorer regions are hit hardest in percentage terms, but their smaller absolute incomes reduce the global dollar total.

PIK emphasised that even after correction, climate damages mid-century are expected to be roughly five times higher than the global cost of limiting warming to 2°C.

Retraction sparks misinformation surge

While retractions are a normal part of scientific self-correction, the incident has been seized upon by climate-denial groups online. Social media posts falsely claimed the withdrawal proved climate change was exaggerated or fabricated — despite Nature, the authors, and independent scientists clarifying that the central conclusion remains intact.

Several outlets, including AP News, the New York Times, and Sky News, reported promptly on the retraction, contradicting claims that the media was covering it up.

Why the study failed

The authors say two issues undermined the original calculations:

  • Incorrect economic data from Uzbekistan during the late 1990s skewed growth correlations.

  • Underestimated statistical uncertainty, meaning the model overstated confidence in its projections.

The revised analysis incorporates corrected datasets, new statistical controls, and better accounting for cross-regional correlations.

‘The core findings still stand'

In a public statement, PIK said it accepts full responsibility but stands by the broader message: climate impacts on the global economy will be severe, inequitable, and unavoidable without deep emission cuts.

"Regions with the lowest incomes and the least historical responsibility for climate change are projected to suffer the greatest losses," the institute said.

Independent scientists agree that the revisions do not alter the fundamental takeaway.

"Whether the global loss is 17% or 19%, the reality is the same," said climate economist Gernot Wagner. "Climate change is already raising costs everywhere — from insurance premiums to infrastructure failures — and those numbers will only climb."