A celebrated climate scientist has admitted to intentionally omitting the “full truth” from a published study paper on “global warming” to make the results align with the globalist green agenda.
Patrick T. Brown made the admission in a Tuesday article in The Free Press.
Brown said that he deliberately omitted the “full truth” from a paper he recently authored in order to increase its chances of publication in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal.
He noted that he left parts out to fit with the current narrative that “man-made global warming” is causing a so-called “climate crisis.”
Brown explained his decision-making in the piece.
He asserts that he knowingly overlooked truths in his work in order to make it more appealing to the leftist editorial biases of leading journals like Nature and Science.
Brown and seven other authors wrote a paper that examined the relationship between “climate change” and wildfire risks in California.
Brown stated that scientists hoping to advance their careers by getting published in leading journals are inclined to tailor their findings to align with the biases of editors and reviewers.
He notes that this dynamic “distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”
“I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell,” Brown writes about his study paper.
He asserts that reviewers and “editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.”
Brown further explains that the incentive structure he criticizes induces authors to overlook or downplay practical measures for mitigating climate-related risks.
He revealed that factors such as reasonable forest management policies are ignored to fit the narrative.
Instead, scientists are inclined to exaggerate the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.
This skews scientific analysis and facilitates legislation like Democrat President Joe Biden’s “Inflation Reduction Act.”
Despite its name, Biden’s legislation has nothing to do with the economy and is filled with radical green agenda policies that wouldn’t normally get passed.
However, Brown asserts in the piece that these corrupt tactics are failing to facilitate solutions to the alleged problems.
“In my paper, we didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors,” Brown writes in The Free Press.
“Did I know that including them would make for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did.
“But I also knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.”
The corporate media also deserves some blame because reporters often take studies at face value in pursuit of driving traffic, Brown wrote.
“You might be wondering at this point if I’m disowning my own paper. I’m not,” Brown stated in the piece regarding his paper.
“On the contrary, I think it advances our understanding of climate change’s role in day-to-day wildfire behavior.
“It’s just that the process of customizing the research for an eminent journal caused it to be less useful than it could have been.”