A leading climate scientist has spoken out to reveal that “certain narratives” claiming “global warming” is causing an increase in wildfires around the world are false.
Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and doctor of Earth and climate sciences, has blown the whistle to warn the public that the majority of devastating wildfires are caused by arson, accidental human ignition, and poor forestry management.
The comments from Brown directly conflict with the narrative pushed by Democrats and their allies in the corporate media who claim the fires are caused by the so-called “climate crisis.”
As Slay News reported earlier, Brown recently revealed that leading academic journals reject papers that contradict the narratives of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) green agenda.
He says journals instead favor “distorted” research which hypes up the alleged dangers of “global warming.”
Brown said editors at Nature and Science – two of the most prestigious scientific journals – select “climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives.”
In an article for The Free Press, Brown likened the approach to the way “the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause” of wildfires, including the recent devastating fires in Hawaii.
He pointed out that research proves that 80 percent of wildfires are ignited by humans.
According to Brown, most fires are caused by arson while many are ignited accidentally by humans.
In many cases, the wildfires spread quickly due to poor forestry management.
However, Brown admits that he has faked his own studies to get the papers published in prestigious journals.
Brown gave the example of a paper he recently authored titled “Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California.”
He said the paper, which was published in Nature last week, “focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior.”
The climate scientist admits that the study ignored other key factors and he intentionally omitted the “full truth” to fit the green agenda narrative.
Brown made the confession in an article titled “I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published.”
“I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like,” the article begins.
“That’s not the way science should work.
“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,” he wrote of his recently published work.
“This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia.
“And the 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.
“To put it bluntly, 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.
“However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”
A spokesperson for Nature said, “all submitted manuscripts are considered independently on the basis of the quality and timeliness of their science.”
“Our editors make decisions based solely on whether research meets our criteria for publication – original scientific research (where conclusions are sufficiently supported by the available evidence), of outstanding scientific importance, which reaches a conclusion of interest to a multidisciplinary readership,” a statement said.
“Intentional omission of facts and results that are relevant to the main conclusions of a paper is not considered best practice with regards to accepted research integrity principles,” the spokesperson added.
Brown opened his missive with links to stories by corporate media outlets including AP, PBS NewsHour, The New York Times, and Bloomberg.
He points out that the articles give the false impression global wildfires are “mostly the result of climate change.”
Much reporting of the wildfires in Maui has said “climate change” contributed to the disaster by helping to create conditions that caused the fires to spark and spread quickly.
Nevertheless, the blazes in Hawaii, which killed at least 115 people, were started by a downed electricity line.
Democrats and the media, meanwhile, insist that “global warming” caused extremely dry conditions on the Hawaiian island.
Conveniently, the same Democrat leadership in Hawaii that pushes the “climate change” narrative is responsible for the failure in forestry management and the fire response that actually caused the wildfires to spread.
Brown said the media operates like scientific journals in that the focus on climate change “fits a simple storyline that rewards the person telling it.”
Scientists whose careers depend on their work being published in major journals also “tailor” their work to “support the mainstream narrative,” he said.
“This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper,” he added.
“The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change.”
He gave examples of factors that are ignored, including a “decline in deaths from weather and climate disasters over the last century.”
In the case of wildfires, Brown says that “current research indicates that these changes in forest management practices could completely negate the detrimental impacts of climate change on wildfires.”
Poor forest management has also been blamed for a record number of wildfires in Canada this year.
But “the more practical kind of analysis is discouraged” because it “weakens the case for greenhouse gas emissions reductions,” Brown said.
Successful papers also often use “less intuitive metrics” to measure the impacts of climate change because they “generate the most eye-popping numbers,” he said.
He went on to reveal that other papers he’s written that don’t match a certain narrative have been “rejected out of hand by the editors of distinguished journals, and I had to settle for less prestigious outlets.”
“We need a culture change across academia and elite media that allows for a much broader conversation on societal resilience to climate,” Brown concluded.
“The media, for instance, should stop accepting these papers at face value and do some digging on what’s been left out.
“The editors of the prominent journals need to expand beyond a narrow focus that pushes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
“And the researchers themselves need to start standing up to editors, or find other places to publish.”