The esteemed scientific journal Nature published a scholarly article last week about alleged empirical relationships between supposedly man-made climate change and wildfire growth risks, quantified using machine learning. While the article advanced the usual conclusions about climate change predisposing certain regions — in this case, California — to wildfire conditions, the lead author then did something quite unusual.
Patrick T. Brown, lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and co-director of the Climate and Energy Team at the Breakthrough Institute, publicly admitted Tuesday that, like other scientists keen to have their work published, he “left out the full truth” in order to push “a narrative [he] knew the editors would like.”
Brown’s admission and corresponding explanation appear to suggest that those keen to “follow the science” may oftentimes be left filling their heads with alarmist agitprop rather than meaningful insights into the workings of the natural world.
Zeroing in on climate science in particular, Brown stressed that it “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.”
Brown noted on X after the publication of his article, “I am very proud of this research overall. But I want to talk about how molding research presentations for high-profile journals can reduce its usefulness & actually mislead the public.”
The climate scientist flatly admitted in a polished version of his revelations in Bari Weiss’ Free Press, “I wanted the research to be published in the highest profile venue possible. … When I had previously attempted to deviate from the formula, my papers were rejected out of hand by the editors of distinguished journals, and I had to settle for less prestigious outlets. To put it another way, I sacrificed contributing the most valuable knowledge for society in order for the research to be compatible with the confirmation bias of the editors and reviewers of the journals I was targeting”
R&I – TP
…
