Scientist Patrick Brown has revealed that he intentionally left out a key fact in his recently published climate change article and that other scientists do the same to ensure their work is published in prestigious journals like Nature and Science.
In a recent article for The Free Press, Brown explained that his paper, titled ‘Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California,’ concentrated solely on the impact of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. He mentioned that he intentionally avoided including other significant factors in his research because prestigious journals like Nature and Science have a pre-approved climate change narrative, and work that does not support that agenda will not be published.
The fact he omitted was that 80% of wildfires are caused by human actions, not climate change.
Brown, who lectures at Johns Hopkins University, has suggested that top academic journals tend to reject research papers that don’t align with specific viewpoints. He also criticized the media for fixating on climate change as the sole culprit behind events like the recent destructive wildfires in Hawaii. According to Brown, this approach can misrepresent a significant portion of climate science research.
The lecturer explained that getting research papers in front of well-known journals is crucial for a scientist looking for name recognition and success. But getting published in these journals comes at a cost – sacrificing important research and knowledge that would benefit the public.
The editors of these journals have sent a clear message, through their publication choices and rejections, that they prefer climate research papers that align with specific pre-established viewpoints.
Brown pointed out that scientists are discouraged from suggesting practical solutions. These solutions could include things like building better infrastructure, improving zoning and building regulations, enhancing air conditioning systems, or, in the case of wildfires, burying power lines underground and implementing better forest management.
Instead of practical solutions, he observed that there seems to be a preference for advocating policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, which focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Nature, one of the scientific journals in the line of fire, defended its publication policies. Per a spokesperson at the publication, manuscripts are carefully reviewed by editorial teams who decide if the paper has the potential to interest readers. The papers are then sent for a formal peer review.
Per the spokesperson, manuscripts are evaluated independently based on the quality and relevance of their scientific content. The editors’ decisions are primarily influenced by whether the “research aligns with criteria for publication.” The journal claims that intentionally leaving out facts and results that are relevant to a paper’s main findings isn’t considered good practice when it comes to research integrity.
But Brown and his peers dispute Nature’s claims. In his experience, “Climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change.” He adds, “It distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”
To support his claim, Brown pointed to articles from articles from AP, PBS NewsHour, The New York Times, and Bloomberg. These articles, he noted, often give the impression that global wildfires are primarily the result of climate change.
Brown pointed out that alternative facts that prove a lesser impact of climate change tend to be overlooked, such as the decrease in deaths from weather and climate-related disasters over the past century. When it comes to wildfires, Brown suggested that current research indicates changes in how forests are managed could potentially offset the negative effects of climate change on wildfires. He notes that publishing this information isn’t encouraged because it doesn’t align with the argument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Brown also mentioned that successful research papers sometimes use unconventional methods to measure the impact of climate change because these methods can produce more attention-grabbing statistics.
When it comes to climate change, the mainstream media is ruled by distortion and dishonesty. Now, it seems even once-respected scientific publications can no longer be trusted.
