Climate researchers are self-censoring and adapting their research to fit in with the climate alarmist narrative in order to be published in the top journals, a climate scientist whistleblower has said. Writing in the Free Press, Dr. Patrick T. Brown says that he wrote his new paper in Nature according to the approved script in order to get it published, after having previous articles rejected by the top journals for not sticking to it closely enough. Here’s how his FP article begins.
If you’ve been reading any news about wildfires this summer — from Canada to Europe to Maui — you will surely get the impression that they are mostly the result of climate change.
Here’s the AP: ‘Climate change keeps making wildfires and smoke worse. Scientists call it the “new abnormal.”’
And PBS NewsHour: ‘Wildfires driven by climate change are on the rise—Spain must do more to prepare, experts say.’
And the New York Times: ‘How Climate Change Turned Lush Hawaii Into a Tinderbox.’
And Bloomberg: ‘Maui Fires Show Climate Change’s Ugly Reach.’
I am a climate scientist. And while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over many parts of the world, it isn’t close to the only factor that deserves our sole focus.
So why does the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause? Perhaps for the same reasons I just did in an academic paper about wildfires in Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious journals: it fits a simple storyline that rewards the person telling it.
The paper I just published — ‘Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California‘ — focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behaviour. 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 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.
Why is this happening?
It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades.
But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years — there are close to six times more PhDs earned in the U.S. each year than there were in the early 1960s — it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd. So while there has always been a tremendous premium placed on publishing in journals like Nature and Science, it’s also become extraordinarily more competitive.
In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value.
In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximise the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.
The media should “stop accepting such papers at face value”, Dr. Brown says, “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 need to “start standing up to editors, or find other places to publish”.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Of course energy saving measures can be ranked according to payback time with some low hanging fruit with short payback times and others with very long payback times. This will presumably differ according to property. So what?
Incidentally in your calculations you seem to have omitted the increased value of the house. Some of the suggested improvements (wind turbine) will depreciate over the years but others (insulated walls) are pretty much permanent. The latter ones may pay for themselves when you sell the house (or pay your descendants when they sell the house) even if the “breakeven” date is a long way off.
Not if the WEF compulsory purchase your house in 2036! remember, “you’ll OWN nothing and be happy” but they’ll let you pay to improve it first! Don’t forget the Dutch farms, it’s not a pipedream, WEF sure as hell mean it!
I’m ok with insulation but not going to install any fancy green crap. I want a gas boiler and cheap, reliable electricity that doesn’t depend on the wind blowing or on the goodwill of that snake Macron.
The 8th clot shot has just been authorized in the UK. But what I don’t get is the ”primary vaccination” part. If this one isn’t a bivalent and they don’t mention the word ”booster”, surely they aren’t intending this one for the ‘Never-jabbed’ are they? Because that’s what my understanding of a ”primary vaccination” would be, which makes no sense whatsoever. And what’s with the dumb AF name FGS?? 😮
”The SKYCovion vaccine combines a part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein with an ‘adjuvant’ – an additional ingredient designed to trigger a stronger immune response. It is given as two injections, four weeks part.
The clinical evidence for this authorisation is based on data from two clinical trials on approximately 3,100 individuals aged 18 to 84 years. The vaccine demonstrated a strong immune response, and the most common side effects were mild, and self-resolved within a few days of vaccination.
This authorisation is for use as a primary vaccination in those aged 18 and over. Decisions on which COVID-19 vaccines are deployed in the UK are taken by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/skycovion-covid-19-vaccine-authorised-by-mhra
Lol, the press release by the MRHA says the jab meets the MHRA’s effectiveness standards. Then when you read the product information for professionals, it says efficacy was NOT assessed as part of the clinical trials. The patient leaflet says this medicine MAY protect you from SARSCov2 (but then again it may not?!) What the company did do was something called “immunobridging” which I don’t claim to fully understand but basically they appear to have compared old Astra Zeneca data on levels of antibodies to this Skycovion jab and said, yep, looks pretty similar so we’ll just assume it works as “”well”” as AZ did.
So that’s how MHRA is assessing effectiveness (“oooo looks about the same immune response as the last jab we authorised, so we’ll authorise this one as well) without ACTUALLY assessing its effectiveness.
Guy, why on earth did you put PV panels on your roof?
Are you having a wake up moment?
Given the 25 year payback period you could bet on global warming reducing your heating bill.
No mention of solar thermal, thought that had quite a fast payback period.
I think the government have actually thought of this one already. Why should you invest 40 grand? Because you won’t be able to let or sell your house if you don’t.
Unless you bribe the issuer of the stupid energy performance certificate, that is… This is what too many (stupid) rules causes, and then bribery becomes the norm. Not great, because then state officials start demanding bribes too, and then, as ever, life becomes easier and easier for the crooks and harder and harder for the honest people.
Exactly. Actually the measures required to condemn a property have already been brought in or are on the way. The rental market is being absolutely catered with statutory “improvement measures.” These will have the effect of lowering house prices as landlords make their escape. Once the rental market has been devastated it will be us next. I genuinely believe the intention is to steal our properties. All in the name of saving the planet.
Becoming more and more obvious.
As it happens I travelled from Kings Cross across London to the outer suburbs, on the top of a bus, last week (and back again).
Easy to note all the built housing environment:- age, condition especially roofs, rainwater goods condition, solid walls, windows. Forget about foundations, mould growth, can’t see that from a bus top.
Although many older houses are no doubt loved by their proud owners, (maybe also some of the new ones) but it is quite clear that, even at a glance, much of the building stock was well past its “sell by date”, long before HMG’s lunatic ruinable energy project had got underway.
Today? Many Trillions needed for maintenance or, far more probably, “slum clearance and rebuild”, probably leaving most residents (as in the 1960s genius schemes), living in Social Housing hell holes.
Are we certain that Big Government mandated, half baked schemes paid for by high tax high spend economics, is where we want to be?
Sure makes the King, Klaus Schwab, George Soros and Billy Gates, chuckle.
Well said Guy.
And the inconvenient truth that CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, of which only 0.0004 is man made, and the UKs contribution almost nothing.
And of course of the worlds 194 nations, only a tiny (stupid) minority are signed up to the carbon zero suicide pact.
To be honest, since our government is made up of corrupt, lying fools, it would be unwise to do anything they say at any point in time. Unless they’re bribing you to do it with subsidies, which means you’re helping yourself to other people’s taxes and should make you ashamed.
I’m with you on the solar panels – my 14 SE/NW panels produce 3,500 kW h per year – and because I rarely put on central heating, wear multiple layers of wool, heat only one room, use the sun room to help heat the house, half freeze to death, etc etc – this is more than all of the energy I use in a year (gas / electricity). On top of that, the government gave me quite a bit of money. All in all, I broke even last year. If I had received state pension I might even have made a profit. No £2,000 bills for me – I was determined to beat the system, a true sceptic!
Payback is 7 or 8 years, as you say.
Yes, I am sure you are correct. But, as Shimpling Chadacre above correctly points out, you are saving money by deliberately impoverishing other people. For example, those living in flats or accomodation, where installing PV will never be an option.
Each to his own but I prefer to not have that on my conscience, not least because, if “solar power” hasn’t been shown to be genuinely profitable in the Nevada desert, how well is it likely to perform at latitude 54° North, half way up the UK?
And because no solar panel will ever produce enough energy to extract and refine the minerals, build another panel and fix it onto your roof.
It’s all very well being a climate sceptic, especially when you can soak up a subsidy from taxpayers to do so. Those who gleefully clap their hands at the money received are no better morally than Drax or windfarm operators. Raging hypocrites all.
Your payback periods are likely to be much longer as the government conveniently forgets to factor in the impact of inflation. Which they brought about by shutting down the economy for 2+, years. Quelle surprise!
The West is destroying itself whilst China looks on amused. They’ll still be burning fossil fuels when we’re sitting in the dark.
Burning fossil fuels to make the green products for the west..
Hey if you have one of the miniature garages you are in business. You know the kind the builders put next to your house. Yes, the same ones you cannot get in or out of your car in. Those ones. We’ll get yourself a little electric car, slap on a few solar panels to the roof of your mini garage and charge your car daily. Don’t forget though to stay in your 15 minute hell hole.
Genuine question – what kind of internal temperatures are ‘they’ aiming at for a property to be considered ‘adequately insulated’, and are these ever realistic given historical housing stock, geography and latitude? Like the author I have an old (c270yr old) stone house, built on stone in a hilly landscape which is cold for 10 months of the year. Ambient temp hovers around 15 degrees, can drop as low as 9. In warm spells it gets to around 17; last summer it hit 24 for a couple of days, woohoo (this is with newly insulated lofts, double glazing and two heavily insulated walls). It needs to be kept well aired to let the stone breathe. You get used to it and adjust accordingly: like porgycorgy I only heat the space I need and wear lots of layers. I live with the the building, not try to force it into something it isn’t. What’s wrong with that? Or is it now like the jab – I’ve got to insulate more to make other people feel safe/warm/virtuous? And don’t forget that sick building syndrome is a thing – it’s even on the NHS website – why is this not being addressed in this rush towards hermetically sealed living?