The extremely corrupt and dishonest United Nations has adjusted its doomsday framework after backing a popular study that just exploded under contact with reality, and President Donald Trump is laughing.
In 2024, a UN-backed study asserted that failure to address "climate change," which usually means failure to impose more economy-killing, freedom-restricting regulation and failure to give yet more useless academic grants, would lead to a drop in $38 trillion of global yearly economic activity. That study has now been retracted based on faulty data too egregious for even climate alarmists to ignore. And given that climate alarmists have been wrong on every single major prediction for the last 60+ years, that's a huge mess-up indeed. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have convinced the UN to stop screeching about climate apocalypse altogether.
Trump gleefully posted, “GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats promising that 'Climate Change' is going to destroy the Planet, the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!”
He argued, “For far too long Climate Activism has been used by Dumocrats to scare Americans, push horrible Energy Polices, and fund BILLIONS into their bogus research programs. Unlike the Dumocrats, who use Climate Alarmism nonsense to push their GREEN NEW SCAM, my Administration will always be based on TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT!”
Nature published the original study, which now states that it is "RETRACTED." The study's abstract reads in part:
Using an empirical approach that provides a robust lower bound on the persistence of impacts on economic growth, we find that the world economy is committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years independent of future emission choices (relative to a baseline without climate impacts, likely range of 11–29% accounting for physical climate and empirical uncertainty). These damages already outweigh the mitigation costs required to limit global warming to 2 °C by sixfold over this near-term time frame and thereafter diverge strongly dependent on emission choices. Committed damages arise predominantly through changes in average temperature, but accounting for further climatic components raises estimates by approximately 50% and leads to stronger regional heterogeneity. Committed losses are projected for all regions except those at very high latitudes, at which reductions in temperature variability bring benefits. The largest losses are committed at lower latitudes in regions with lower cumulative historical emissions and lower present-day income.
That's a lot of balderdash propaganda to say that THIS time the world is REALLY going to end unlike the last 100 predictions if more money isn't wasted on climate alarmist initiatives. The study cited the UN as a source, and in fact repeatedly based its claims around data the writers obtained from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But while wokies widely cited the study, the data was faulty.
Read Also: Here We Go Again: WHO Says Ebola Is Global Emergency as U.S. Virologist Smuggles in Pathogens
The New York Post explained that the IPCC has just adjusted its modeling framework, which had claimed a 4–5°C warming by 2100. That's the faulty framework used in the study.
SAN explained also:
The researchers used 40 years of data from more than 1,600 regions worldwide to predict economic losses due to climate change. That included records from Uzbekistan that later fell under scrutiny.
Researchers who had conducted similar studies keyed in on data from the former Soviet Bloc country in central Asia. They noted in their published critiques that removing the small country’s data reverted the study’s results to lack any statistical significance.
There is no climate apocalypse. Warming temperatures are beneficial for ecosystems, and in fact CO2 emissions are too low to cause global warming. In the eight years up through 2023, there had actually not been rising global temperatures. Furthermore, carbon is the basis of life on earth, so limiting carbon is truly an anti-life policy.
The study retraction is just one more illustration of how dishonest and biased climate alarmists are.
