To get his paper published, a climate scientist acknowledged to misrepresenting the impact of global warming on California wildfires.
According to Patrick T Brown, studies on climate change are rejected by scientific journals if they do not’support specific narratives,’ and they prefer ‘distorted’ research that exaggerates hazards.
He claims that his study, headlined ‘Climate warming increases severe daily wildfire growth risk in California’ and published last week in Nature, concentrated solely on climate change and purposefully overlooked other significant elements.
In recent years, the state of California has seen severe wildfires, resulting in the loss of life and property. Dr. Brown stated in The Free Press, ‘I knew not to try to quantify critical aspects other than climate change in my research since it would dilute the tale that respected magazines like Nature… want to portray.’
Dr. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University in the United States, explained why he did this: ‘… it is very necessary for scientists to be published in high-profile journals…
‘And the editors of these journals have made it very apparent, both in terms of what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate research that fit specific preapproved narratives – even if those narratives come at the expense of broader societal understanding.’
Dr. Brown Critiques Journal Approach to Climate Change Research in Light of Recent Wildfires
Dr. Brown argued that the journals approach climate change research in the same manner that ‘the press focuses so closely on climate change as the fundamental cause’ of wildfires, such as the tragic flames in Hawaii last month that killed 115 people.
However, he cited research that found that humans sparked 80% of wildfires.
He stated, ‘To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about comprehending the complexities of the planet and more about serving as a type of Cassandra, frantically warning the public about the risks of climate change.’
Dr. Magdalena Skipper, editor in chief of Nature, based in London, stated that the publication does not have a ‘preferred narrative’ when it comes to science. She stated that there was a ‘expectation’ that researchers would use the most appropriate data, techniques, and results, and that ‘to purposefully not do so is, at best, highly irresponsible’.
When reviewers encouraged Dr Brown to include other elements that trigger wildfires, he argued against it, according to Dr Skipper. ‘We are now carefully analyzing the ramifications of his reported acts,’ she said. They demonstrate inadequate research procedures and do not meet the criteria we set for our journal.’
Source: Daily Mail