The scientific journal Nature had one of its most-cited climate papers retracted on Wednesday after researchers discovered a flaw that threw their numbers way off. This study, published in April 2024, made a splash in news outlets such as the Associated Press and Reuters because it leveraged climate guilt to achieve green ends.

The paper, entitled “The Economic Commitment of Climate Change,” was authored by researchers at the German Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. It predicted that climate change would greatly impact economic output. Over the next 25 years, climate change is predicted to reduce economic output by 19%. By 2100, the researchers estimated that climate change would hamper economic output by 62%. This prediction represented a drastic diversion from other similar studies.

While previous studies predicted that climate change would have negative effects on economic output, the percentage predicted was significantly less drastic. This study was meant to be proof positive that if countries around the world didn’t reform their pollution output, the cost to the global economy would outweigh the price tag of going green. That’s a critical point for the alarmists because their schemes are so expensive — it has to be “more expensive” to not do what they say.

However, this study was debunked by a team of economists (Professor Solomon Hsiang and Professor Christof Schötz) who discovered major flaws in the paper. The biggest flaw was the German researchers’ decision to include Uzbekistan and its numbers in their calculations, which significantly skewed the results. For example, the report predicted that by 2100, economic output would be reduced by 62%; without Uzbekistan, that percent drop is just 23% — a figure that more closely aligns with other similar studies.

Stanford Professor Solomon Hsiang told The New York Times, “Most people for the last decade have thought that a 20 percent reduction in 2100 was an insanely large number. So the fact that this paper is coming out saying 60 percent is off the chart.”

It was off the chart, and, apparently, wildly inaccurate. The authors of the study decided to retract the paper entirely because the flaws were so severe that an amendment wouldn’t suffice.

This retraction points to a larger trend we are seeing regarding climate alarmism. It’s being debunked and unmasked as the fraud it has always been.

Climate is not a pressing issue for most Americans — even those on the Left. A Pew Research study on the subject in October 2024 found that the majority of people believe that climate initiatives either made no difference or actually hurt the U.S. economy. Only about a third of people believe that green initiatives help.

It’s a big deal in Western Europe, but it isn’t really for green’s sake. Ecofascism is used as a tool for political power and gain. It’s a tool used by bored European elites to attack the West, it’s art, and it’s an achievement under the guise of “climate virtue.” For those like Greta Thunberg, it’s become her whole personality, though she did take a small break from climate activism to advocate for Gazan terrorists for a while.

Ecofascism is a political tool of diminishing returns in America. Climate activists, such as Bill Gates, are shifting away from green energy and back toward nuclear power, largely due to the need for significant energy consumption by AI. Voters on both the Left and the Right are more concerned with affordability than with saving the planet. We can clearly see that environmentalists are actively making life more expensive and harder on everyone, from dairy farmers to Silicon Valley tech bros. There are also some national security concerns when it comes to AI. We are in the middle of a tech race with China, and being hampered by climate considerations (when Beijing isn’t) is not an option.

The retracted report attempted to blackmail the world into enforcing green policies by stoking fear that it would maul our economy. For those of us who are more on the proper stewardship side of the climate debate, this retraction is a positive development. It is putting a rein on science journal approval-stamped climate alarmism and hopefully moderating ecofascism along with the times.