Oh, the irony. Occasionally, we find ourselves in situations so mortifying that retreating into a closet seems like a good idea. The esteemed journal Nature might be feeling this urge, as it recently retracted a major climate report that had painted a dire picture for 2024, forecasting calamities, widespread suffering, and looming economic disaster.

The report, much like other aspects of the mainstream climate discourse, was grounded in claims that lacked solid evidence.

Surprise, surprise — it turns out they were basing their conclusions on inaccurate data.

Ward Clark from RedState has been diligently pointing out the exaggerations of these climate alarmists.

READ MORE: Discover: The Mass Extinction That Wasn’t

Shocker — it seems as if they were relying on flawed data.­

The decision came after a team of economists noticed problems with the data for one country, Uzbekistan, that significantly skewed the results. If Uzbekistan were excluded, they found, the damages would look similar to earlier research. Instead of a 62 percent decline in economic output by 2100 in a world where carbon emissions continue unabated, global output would be reduced by 23 percent.

The house of cards that is climate science is coming crashing down. @Nature is not a serious journal anymore. pic.twitter.com/0HSjGX0dPz

— Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki (@MatthewWielicki) December 3, 2025

RedState’s Ward Clark has long been busy calling out the shrill climate hysterics.

READ MORE: New: The Mass Extinction That Wasn’t

Climate Change’s Cruel Joke: French Destroy Crops to Tame Overproduction

There’s been so much agitation and misinformation regarding the climate that even noted environmental alarmist and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates softened his language in October before the COP30 summit. We need to cut down on the “doomsday” rhetoric, he argued, because the facts often don’t support the wild claims.

Billionaire Bill Gates has dramatically changed his position on climate change, acknowledging for this first time there is no “doomsday” risk from global warming. pic.twitter.com/CtsSL4OuN5

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) October 28, 2025

Meanwhile, Nature said in a statement on their website: “The authors acknowledge that these changes are too substantial for a correction, leading to the retraction of the paper.” The researchers are reworking the article with the updated data and hope to have a peer-reviewed version ready in the near future.

Their predictions are all still of the “we’re all going to die” variety, however, even with the updated data, but it’s hard to take what they say at face value when they just screwed up this badly in one of the major scientific journals in the world.

Lint Barrage, chair of energy and climate economics at The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH Zurich), pointed to other potential flaws in the study and had an excellent observation about confirmation bias: “It can feel sometimes, depending on the audience, that there’s an expectation of finding large [climate damage] estimates,” Ms. Barrage said. “If your goal is to try to make the case for climate change, you have crossed the line from scientist to activist, and why would the public trust you?”

That’s my question, too.

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.