Authors of a widely cited study projecting catastrophic economic losses from what they described as man-made climate change have retracted their report after discovering major data errors that undermined its conclusions.

The retraction is a blow to climate activists and policymakers who cited the study as evidence that climate change caused by humans would carry steep economic costs.

The authors have released revised methodology and datasets, but those updated findings have not undergone peer review, and therefore, are not considered reliable.

The study, published last year in the journal Nature, asserted that rising temperatures caused by human activity would inflict massive economic losses worldwide in the decades ahead.

The study projected that the world economy was on track to lose 19% of global gross domestic product by 2050 compared with what it would have been without climate change. By 2100, under a high-emissions scenario, it predicted that global GDP would be roughly 62% lower than it would be without climate change.

Those numbers were three times as high as previous estimates, raising alarms that climate change would damage the global economy far more than expected.

According to an analysis by the U.K.-based outlet Carbon Brief, it was the second-most-cited climate paper by the media in 2024.

The paper's analysis and dataset have been used for financial planning by the U.S. government, the World Bank, and other institutions.

But the researchers now say that key datasets used in their analysis were flawed, and that correcting the mistakes produced such different results that the study could no longer stand.

Their retraction noted that data problems from a single country, Uzbekistan, distorted the model and that added statistical controls drastically changed the projected impacts.

Karl Ziemelis, chief applied and physical sciences editor at Nature, wrote in an email to The Washington Post that the journal was reviewing the study and that "appropriate editorial action would be taken once the matter was resolved."

"Science has worked, and always will work, through a process of constant interrogation and review, whether that be during the course of research, in peer review or in post publication assessment," Ziemelis said.

The study examined historical data from 1,600 regions worldwide over the past four decades to project how changes in temperature and precipitation would affect economic growth, including factors such as agricultural yields, labor productivity, and infrastructure.

But after the study was published, other researchers found that economic data from Uzbekistan from 1995 to 1999 had skewed the results. Without Uzbekistan, the 2100 damage forecast fell to 23%, not 62%.

The researchers published their critique in Nature in August. Another researcher who was not involved in the original work, Christof Schötz, said the results were more uncertain than the study suggested and also published a critique in Nature in August.

"We broadly agree with the issues raised and have made corrections to the underlying economic data and to our methodology to address them," study co-author Leonie Wenz of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany told The Wall Street Journal. "These changes are too substantial for a correction of the original article in Nature."

Scientists noted that despite problems with the data in this study, there is still scientific agreement that climate change hurts the world economy.

"There is a broad scientific consensus regarding the severe negative economic effects of climate change," said Schötz, who added the retraction "does not alter that reality."

Critics counter that appeals to scientific consensus are a logical fallacy, noting that agreement among experts does not prove a claim is true, especially when the research being cited has been retracted or shown to contain serious errors.

An editorial published Wednesday by The Free Press stated that "costly climate policies are the fruit of this poor science."

"The greatest cost is to science itself, which is drained by every paper, research grant, and article that trades real scholarship and discussion for climate agitprop," the editorial stated.

"Don't get us wrong — we love our beautiful planet and applaud the serious scientists who work to preserve it. But many of the alarmist predictions that drive the press aren't worth the paper they're printed on."

• Here's What's Next in the Fight to Curb Climate Change, Now That Talks in Brazil Have Ended
• Negotiators at UN Climate Talks Split over When and How to Phaseout Use Oil, Gas and Coal