Curtin and Burgess challenge climate economics methodology in new preprint

2 articles · Updated · The Wall Street Journal · Apr 29

University of Wyoming economists Finbar Curtin and Matthew Burgess argue that current climate economics methods cannot reliably measure climate’s economic impact, undermining influential projections used by central banks and governments.
Their analysis highlights that statistical procedures often misinterpret noise as climate signals and that widely used scenarios, like RCP8.5, are implausibly extreme yet persist in research and policy frameworks.
The critique follows the high-profile retraction of a major climate economics paper and raises concerns about flawed data, self-correction failures, and the reliability of thousands of studies shaping global climate policy.

When peer review fails to catch corrupted data, how can public trust in climate science be restored?

With old climate scenarios officially retired, are the new 'plausible' replacements just as flawed?

With their climate models discredited, how will 130+ central banks now manage trillions in financial risk?

If top climate scenarios were 'impossible futures,' what are today’s multi-trillion dollar policies actually built on?

Does focusing on complex carbon metrics distract from the simpler goal of stopping fossil fuel extraction?