That seems like an eye-watering figure, or in Lomborg’s words ‘spectacularly costly’ The cited figure does appear in a supplementary section of the paper. But the authors of the study (which actually appeared in Nature Climate Change, not Nature) have told Temperature Check they have been asking Lomborg since early November to stop making that claim Prof David Victor, of University of California San Diego, said Lomborg’s summary ‘took the results out of context and used them for a purpose that we explicitly said they were not to be used, and which he was reminded of when he asked for the underlying data’ Dr Wei Peng, of Penn State university and lead author of the study, said she and her colleagues were ‘frustrated with Lomborg’s misinterpretation of our study’ In late October Peng emailed Lomborg saying the modelling results for emissions cuts at 95% “was not well calibrated, and the cost number is likely to be off” I hope people won’t take the high mitigation cost out of context,” she told Lomborg Victor said Lomborg’s use of the figure was ‘obscenely reckless’ in the context of ‘serious scientific analysis’ and wrote to him in early November.