The Great Climate Change Deception By James Reed
It has long been suspected that the leading mainstream science journals have an agenda on climate change, to promote the alarmist position while claiming up front to be scientifically objective and neural. But, this has been put to the test and shown not to be true.
Climate scientist Patrick T. Brown of John Hopkins University, has come out and said that he wrote his climate papers to fit the alarmist narrative that the journals were promoting, rather than give a dispassionate account of the facts: “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.” “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.”
This is an important confession, as it calls into question the objectivity of the climate science papers that the establishment is relying upon to support their radical policy agendas, such as bans on fossil fuels, petrol and diesel cars and trucks, and meat. The science is important, but refuting this material, even more so.
“A climate scientist has admitted that he pushed a “preapproved” narrative on climate change in order to get papers published in leading journals.
Patrick T. Brown told The Free Press “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 continued, “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, who also lectures at Johns Hopkins, added that the biases of the editors and reviewers of journals are well known among aspiring scientists who will often omit inconvenient truths to please them, a process he says “distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”
Brown admits that he regularly hyped up the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than offering practical solutions, knowing that is the “clean narrative” that journals want to see.
Patrick T. Brown told The Free Press “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 continued, “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, who also lectures at Johns Hopkins, added that the biases of the editors and reviewers of journals are well known among aspiring scientists who will often omit inconvenient truths to please them, a process he says “distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”
Brown admits that he regularly hyped up the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than offering practical solutions, knowing that is the “clean narrative” that journals want to see.
“In my paper, we didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did,” Brown wrote, adding “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.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
Comments