Climate scientist whistleblower Patrick Brown reveals how the media’s obsession with global warming manipulates the truth about wildfires – 80% are ignited by humans

A climate change scientist has claimed that the world’s leading academic journals are rejecting articles that don’t support “certain narratives” on the issue, favoring instead “twisted” research that exaggerates dangers rather than solutions.

Patrick T. Brown, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and a doctor of earth and climate sciences, said editors of Nature and Science — two of the most prestigious scientific journals — “select climate articles that support certain pre-approved narratives.”

In an article for The free pressBrown compared the approach to how “the press focuses so intently on climate change as the root cause” of wildfires, including the recent devastating fires in Hawaii. He pointed to research that showed that 80 percent of forest fires are started by humans.

Brown gave the example of an article he recently wrote entitled “Climate Warming Increases Extreme Daily Risk of Wildfire Growth in California.” Brown said the paper, published last week in Nature, “focuses solely on how climate change has influenced the behavior of extreme wildfires” and ignored other key factors.

Brown detailed his claims in an article titled “I withheld the whole truth to get my paper on climate change published.” ‘I just got published in Nature because I stuck with a story that I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work,” the article begins.

Brown said one of his studies on the subject was published by Nature “because I stuck with a story that I knew the editors would like”

He also targeted the media for “deliberately focusing on climate change as the root cause” of wildfires, including the recent devastating fires in Hawaii. Pictured: A search, rescue, and recovery member conducts search operations in areas damaged by wildfires in Maui in Lahaina

“I knew I shouldn’t try to quantify important aspects other than climate change in my research, because that would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival Science want to tell,” he wrote of his recently published work.

‘This is important because it is crucial for scientists to publish in high-profile journals; in many ways they are the gatekeepers to career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both through what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate articles that support certain pre-approved stories — even if those stories come at the cost of broader knowledge for society.

To put it bluntly, climate science is 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. Understandable as this instinct may be, it distorts much 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 independently reviewed based on the quality and timeliness of their science’.

“Our editors make decisions based solely on whether research meets our publication criteria – original scientific research (the conclusions of which are adequately supported by the available evidence), of exceptional scientific interest, reaching a conclusion that is of interest to a multidisciplinary readership,” a statement said. said.

“Intentionally omitting facts and results relevant to the main conclusions of an article is not considered best practice when it comes to accepted principles of scientific integrity,” the spokesperson added.

Science was approached for comment.

Brown opened his post with links to stories from AP, PBS NewsHour, The New York Times, and Bloomberg, which he says create the impression that global wildfires are “largely the result of climate change.”

He said that “climate change is an important factor” but “nothing close to being the only factor worthy of our sole attention.”

Many reports of the Maui wildfires say that climate change contributed to the disaster by helping to create conditions that allowed the fires to start and spread quickly.

The fires, which killed at least 115 people, are thought to be caused by a broken power line, but observers say rising temperatures have created extremely dry conditions on the Hawaiian island.

Brown said the media operates like scientific journals in that the focus on climate change “fits into a simple storyline that rewards the person who tells it.”

Scientists whose careers depend on having their work published in major journals also adapt their work to “support the mainstream narrative,” he said.

“This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate document,” he added. “The authors should ignore – or at least downplay – practical actions that can counteract the impact of climate change.”

An aerial view of Lahaina shows the magnitude of the destruction caused by the wildfires in Hawaii

He gave examples of factors that are being ignored, including a “decrease in deaths from weather and climate disasters over the past century.” In the case of wildfires, Brown says “current research indicates that these changes in forest management practices may completely negate the detrimental impacts of climate change on wildfires.”

Poor forest management is also responsible 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 a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,” Brown said.

Successful papers also often use “less intuitive metrics” to measure climate change impacts because they “produce the most salient numbers,” he said.

He went on to claim that other articles he has written that do not tie in with a particular story “have been outright rejected by the editors of leading journals, and that I have had to settle for less prestigious publications.”

Brown concluded, “We need a culture change in academia and the elite media that will enable a much broader conversation about societal resilience to climate.

“The media, for example, needs to stop accepting these papers at face value and start digging into what has been left out.

“The editors of the leading journals must move beyond a narrow focus that encourages reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And the researchers themselves must start resisting the editors or find other places to publish.’