A very illuminating article was published by a climate scientist, one could say whistleblower, in The Free Press today
The full article is well worth the read. It is a clear indictment of narrative enforcement.
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 behavior. 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.
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
Patrick Brown goes in to detail how the scales are tipped to enforce the policy relevant narrative, emphasis mine.
This type of framing, with the influence of climate change unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers. For example, in another recent influential Nature paper, scientists calculated that the two largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and damage to agriculture. However, the authors never mention that climate change is not the dominant driver for either one of these impacts: heat-related deaths have been declining, and crop yields have been increasing for decades despite climate change. To acknowledge this would imply that the world has succeeded in some areas despite climate change—which, the thinking goes, would undermine the motivation for emissions reductions.
This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper. The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change. If deaths due to extreme heat are decreasing and crop yields are increasing, then it stands to reason that we can overcome some major negative effects of climate change. Shouldn’t we then study how we have been able to achieve success so that we can facilitate more of it? Of course we should. But studying solutions rather than focusing on problems is simply not going to rouse the public—or the press. Besides, many mainstream climate scientists tend to view the whole prospect of, say, using technology to adapt to climate change as wrongheaded; addressing emissions is the right approach. So the savvy researcher knows to stay away from practical solutions.
Here’s a third trick: be sure to focus on metrics that will generate the most eye-popping numbers. Our paper, for instance, could have focused on a simple, intuitive metric like the number of additional acres that burned or the increase in intensity of wildfires because of climate change. Instead, we followed the common practice of looking at the change in risk of an extreme event—in our case, the increased risk of wildfires burning more than 10,000 acres in a single day.
This is a far less intuitive metric that is more difficult to translate into actionable information. So why is this more complicated and less useful kind of metric so common? Because it generally produces larger factors of increase than other calculations. To wit: you get bigger numbers that justify the importance of your work, its rightful place in Nature or Science, and widespread media coverage.
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
Brown does not pull punches.
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.
The full article is well worth reading at THE FREE PRESS
H/T Willie Soon, Cam_S, pat-from-kerbob, Duane T, a Climate Researcher who shall remain nameless, and I saw it on X first.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m not sure I get it- either I’m getting demented (being a septuagenarian), or just tired- but, it seems they purposefully published a crappy paper- just to get it published. So, was the primary goal to get it published or was it to prove a point?
You have to publish something to keep your job.
And get the cash
To state it yet another, more accurate way…
You sacrificed telling the absolute truth to have your paper viewed by more than 10 people without facing the threat of retraction by slime ball tactics
If you want to seek the knowledge you need to do research.
If you want to do research you need to get funding and a place in academia.
If you want to get funding and a place in academia you need to get published.
If you want to get published you need to write bad papers.
But if you admit all that you are working towards ending these anti-science practices.
Unfortunately, once you start writing bad papers you are no longer seeking knowledge, just recycling misinformation and outright lies.
Many of them have a basic problem from the get go about what they are doing and why they are publishing.
My very limited scientific publications included contributions towards developing potential treatments for Multiple Sclerosis and reducing the side-effects of radio immunotherapy of B-cell lymphomas.
At no point did it even occur to me that I should be telling the medical profession, and the world at large, how to go about their trade.
One must not publicly doubt dogma.
Or catma or ratma either since Ratma approves papers without the threat of retraction
This article disturbs me, and not for the reason intended by the underlying author. In The Free Press article, Patrick T Brown says:
“You might be wondering at this point if I’m disowning my own paper. I’m not. On the contrary, I think it advances our understanding of climate change’s role in day-to-day wildfire behavior. It’s just that the process of customizing the research for an eminent journal caused it to be less useful than it could have been.”
To my mind there are two things seriously wrong with this statement.
(a) It may in a technical sense add some information to the sum total of human knowledge, but by deliberately omitting more important information it misdirects that human knowledge. In other words, overall it could well be a significant negative. The science code which says that scientists must try to find errors in their own work is there for a very good reason – it is there to prevent this kind of paper being accidentally published. This paper is particularly bad because the errors (of omission) were known before the paper was submitted – the errors were deliberate.
(b) The hypothesis that the paper would only be published if it said certain things was not tested. The paper was not submitted with those things in it, rejected, revised, and finally published. It was, if I have understood the article correctly, submitted initially with the potentially unwanted content already removed. So, while the author asserts that the paper would have been rejected with those things in it, there is no evidence. A simple denial by the journal would be sufficient to overturn the author’s argument.
In summary, the author has pandered to the ruling junta, got a paper published which reinforces the junta’s lies, and proved nothing. Yes I do understand that life has been made impossible for genuine scientists and that this particular scientist has done probably the best that they think they can do in the circumstances, and I am in fact grateful for that, but sorry, but I’m not as impressed as maybe the author hoped. The reality is that this is how juntas survive.
Adding a bit to the above: Some years ago, I submitted a paper that contained things that I thought the journal might not like, but which I thought were important for the paper to say. After a long review and counter-review process (11 months) the editor rejected the paper saying basically that he didn’t want to publish it. WUWT kindly published the whole story. But did I achieve anything? Probably not. Has Patrick T Brown achieved more with his approach? Maybe. Time will tell. Juntas are hard to topple and it isn’t always easy to tell what approach will work. Although I express unease about his paper, I wish Patrick T Brown every success where I failed.
Did you ever quote the conclusion of a vax study (positive for the vax, by definition of vax “science”), when the study threw shade on the vax?
See my related comment just posted below. Disappointing = ‘not as impressed as maybe the author hoped’.
This comes down to the ancient truism that when you encourage more of something by making it pay, guess what: you’ll get more of it.
It does not speak well of the author’s character and integrity that he played follow the leader and pandered accordingly. Balancing that, at least now he admits publicly that he caved to the narrative.
So what will he do next time: pander, or at least try to publish the truth? At this point he has little to lose from truth-telling since henceforth he will remain persona non grata with the narrative spinners.
Two plus two make five = if Big Brother says so. We will meet under the chestnut tree or in Room 101
“Under the spreading chestnut tree
Whee I sold you
And you sold me”
Nothing actually happened here. Brown held bck stuff that he thought the editors might not like. All that tells us is something about Brown’s state of mind.
Thank you for your succinct description of self-censorship induced by clearly known narrative enforcement.
Yep, scientists KNOW that they won’t get published if they say anything against climate narrative
Thanks for reinforcing that point. !
Great that you actually caught the gist of the post, Nick… 😉
Well, Patrick Brown thinks it won’t get published (why are these guys always called Patrick?).
Because the name Nick is already tarnished in genuine climate info forums?
Just a paranoid guy Nick? He had no reason, experience, knowledge, acquaintances with others to come to that conclusion?
Actually, restraint is universal in science publication. I have published much, not in climate science, and left out much that I would like to have said, because it would just get into arguments that would lose the main point. It’s just discipline.
But you can put it in. The worst that happens is that they make you take it out. Would they have done that here? We’ll never know.
Losing the argument still Nick..
Thanks for reinforcing the fact that scientists feel they won’t get published if they go against the climate narrative.
Patrick Brown feels that.
Because so many others have faced that realization
As do many other scientists.
FROM EXPERIENCE !!
Yes Nick, if Brown had left information such as this in, they would have merely made him take it out.
How do you know?
I agree with Nick Stokes’: “The worst that happens is that they make you take it out. Would they have done that here? We’ll never know.“. That was one of the problems that I pointed out in my comment: “The paper was not submitted with those things in it, rejected, revised, and finally published. [] So, while the author asserts that the paper would have been rejected with those things in it, there is no evidence.“.
“This is a far less intuitive metric that is more difficult to translate into actionable information. So why is this more complicated and less useful kind of metric so common? Because it generally produces larger factors of increase than other calculations. ”
Sounds like a strategically cherry picked result to me.
Thanks for yet again reinforcing the fact that scientists feel they won’t get published if they go against the climate narrative.
Are your toes especially tasty today ???
More likely, the degraded state of the peer review blob – if I say e=mc2 but the tomfoolery Depts intimidatory narrative is e=mc2/pi, then if I want the cash and my name on a published, relished paper, then they get their fake result – that’s where the new religion has taken us
And was the weaker, self-censored paper accepted for publication?
Or was it rejected as lacking self-criticism?
It was accepted. But whether the withheld material would have sunk it is just speculation by Brown.
Thanks again for reinforcing the fact that scientists feel they won’t get published if they go against the climate narrative.
As opposed to this?
“Retraction Note: A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming
The Original Article was published on 13 January 2022
Retraction Note: Eur. Phys J. Plus (2022) 137:112
The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding the selection of the data, the analysis and the resulting conclusions of the article.”
Nick,
Plausibly, I am the first scientist whose “account was locked” forever by the publication “The Conversation”. I was not told why or how I offended. The ban was imposed by a new, junior appointed but confirmed by the boss. I suspect that my scientific career was of far greater depth than those who censored
Do you endorse this type of action? It is not the same as Patrick Brown’s, but has common threads. Geoff S
“The Conversation” is not a scientific publication. In Patrick Brown’s case there was no action. Just Brown’s state of mind.
Thanks yet again for reinforcing the fact that scientists feel they won’t get published if they go against the climate narrative.
Patrick Brown feels that. That is all we are learning here.
As do MANY other scientists.
It is something they have learnt from experience. !
An inquiring mind might ask why Brown feels that way.
Nick,
The question was, “Do you endorse this type of action?”
Geoff
I note that you did not respond to the question “Do you endorse this type of action?”
Nice attempt at diversion Nick, but still not up to you usual standards.
The stuff he thought the editors might not like was any information that didn’t support the AGW narrative.
An important argument here is about “he thought the editors might not like“. The argument is that he should have tested his thought.
Your assumption is that if he had written the paper as he wanted, he would have been allowed to remove the offending material. Where is your evidence to support that assumption?
No such assumption. If the test had been done and the journal told him just to go away, there are still other journals. But the main point then is that there would be evidence supporting the hypothesis about Nature.
Exactly…that there were data backed truths he would like to have included in the paper but knew he would not have been published or would have been quickly retracted if he had
Really you manage to miss the part that the author knows his paper would be trashed if he sent the entire research the parts of it, he knew they would object because of their known bias.
He doesn’t know that. He has no evidence – he didn’t try. It is all in his mind.
There is plenty of evidence that papers will be rejected if they do not toe the “climate” party line.
Yes, just happened to those nice Italian fellows. Piltdown Mann himself wielded the knife.
Yet Nick the troll will just keep splitting those hairs
Once again, nicky-poo, you are picking the fly shit out of the pepper in an attempt to justify your opinion.
The question is: are his allegations true? That is, do you believe its difficult or impossible to get papers published in the most prestigious journals unless they endorse the narrative of climate crisis and emission reductiosn required?
Of course it tells us something about Brown’s state of mind. All statements of opinion or judgment tell us something about the speaker’s state of mind, namely the fact that he thinks as he has said.
But the important question you yourself need to answer is: do you think his account of the scientific publishing environment in regard to climate is correct?
I think it probably is. He is one of a number of voices saying the same thing. His account chimes with the increasing number of reports of people being cancelled or censored in other contexts for expressing politically incorrect views on climate, race or gender. It is consistent with material now in the public domain since Climategate, Jones’ notorious remarks about keeping material out even if it took changing the peer review process to do it.
My opinion, which tells you something about my own state of mind, namely that it is my view, is that your remarks are calculated to imply skepticism about Brown’s account of publishing without actually asserting such skepticism or engaging in any discussion of the fundamental issue here.
So they really do tell us something about your state of mind. Its what is usually called bad faith. But hey, prove me wrong, and discuss the substantive issue!
“All that tells us is something about Brown’s state of mind.”
Really?
Surely what it tells us is something about the state of ‘science’ publication.
This admission of misconduct emphasizes the need to fact check everything of any importance. No matter who says something, their statement is an invitation to think about the idea, and then verify or analyze the idea. Remember the adage, the worst thing is believing you know something and you are wrong. How many universities still teach “The Philosophy of Science?
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “It’s not what you don’t know that hurts you, it’s what you think you know that’s wrong.”
That was Mark Twain.
Politicised climate alarmism has descended into a deceitful corruption of some areas of science
The peer review system has also been corrupted and journals that were once great bastions and guardians of empirical science have been degraded to satirical comics, to nothing more than sponsored misinformation propaganda units
The climate is a massive dynamic collaboration of multiple inputs, the majority of which are not understood by science, yet its politicisation has sought to dumb it all down to excessive man made CO2 driving global temperatures to boiling – its pathetic
If the NASA space exploration Dept had so glibly, wilfully incompetently planned space missions, based on a corrupt consensus of guesstimated science & engineering made up principles, the first rocket would never have left the launch pad
Im glad to have lived through times when real science was rigorously, professionally and competently done by empirically driven scientists of great honour, honesty and integrity – modern times are not those times
I am rather more optimistic. Have published two books based on the underlying reasons why, ‘The Arts of Truth’ and ‘Blowing Smoke’. The basic reason for optimism is that the internet, properly used with critical thinking and some Googlefu, enables easy verification/falsification. The issue is that most people trusted untrustworthy sources but did not verify (Reagan: trust but verify). That is getting ever more unavoidably exposed as “Don’t trust fake news AND verify’. Two good BIG current examples are climate change and COVID-19.
I think that “trust but verify” is often misunderstood. “trust” doesn’t mean blind trust – if it did then you wouldn’t be verifying. As I understand it, it means to trust the motives of the author (but it’s still a good idea to verify). As Rud Istvan points out, we are now in a world where we can no longer trust the motives of many authors.
BBC now has a fact verification unit called BBC verify. So far they appear to verify it matches the narritive, not fact. Pity really, the BBC was once a reliable organisation. The rot started about 40 years ago, when I left it!
Burnt area including forest and non-forest area burned.
Data 1980-2021
Forest Fires in Europe, Middle East and North Africa 2021
Table 102. Burnt area (hectares) in five Southern Member States (1980 – 2021)
Page 171
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC130846
Data 2022
Advance report on Forest Fires in Europe, Middle East and North Africa 2022
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC133215
Data 2023
https://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/apps/effis.statistics/estimates
Can not edit, so …
^ France, Greece, Italy, Portugal & Spain : Burnt Area (ha) : 1980 – 08/2023
I have no doubt his story is real. Nature has published provable academic misconduct (see several examples documented in ebook Blowing Smoke), so publishing a paper that merely lies by omission rather than by overt commission is still par for the Nature course.
But why publish an omission admission at all? A little research goes a long way.
Patrick Brown per this post article left academia to become co-director of the climate and energy section of The Breakthrough Institute. The Institute was founded and funded to “promote breakthrough technical solutions to climate and environment problems.”
Going to the Institute climate and energy section of its website, the very first paper there now is by Brown. It is titled, “To protect forests they must be logged and burned.” Yup (and NOT breakthrough technology), but NOT what his Nature paper said, hence his admission of lying by omission to Nature. Goes with the new job.
Not pretty all around.
Everybody should get Rud’s ebook Blowing Smoke.
I would if it didn’t require me to have a Kindle to read it…some of us still prefer paper.
Thanks for that information
Regardless I do think it’s very important that this article was published on The Free Press, Bari has avoided all mention of the climate circus since leaving the NYTimes so I was glad to see this step.
Harder to dismiss by the climate/insane than if it was published here for example.
Cherry picking used to be considered scientific fraud. Today you can’t get a paper published that looks at all the data.
At the faculty (not student cheating) level, academic misconduct comprises any of 3 things:
In ebook Blowing Smoke, I have multiple documented examples of all three:
The book provides many other examples as well, including from ‘trustworthy’ US federal labs like PMEL (#3) and NREL (#2).The entire first chapter of the 2014 Congressionally required National Climate Report comprises 6 official examples of #2 and #3 collectively provided by 14 US contributing agencies. Exposed in essay Credibility Conundrums in ebook Blowing Smoke.
Not a good track record for premier journals Science and Nature peer review, nor the US governments.
Again, get the book!
Does he expect kudos for being dishonest? No one will trust him again which ever side they are on. I don’t understand these people.
His conscience may have been bothering him – his intellectual dishonesty in omitting research because he wouldn’t have his paper published is still dishonesty.
On the other hand, how many others commit worse acts in scientific papers and think nothing of it?
Getting a paper published by perpetuating what turns out to be a fad is the least of the problems. Brown is an adjunct faculty member (lecturer) in the Energy Policy and Climate Program at Johns Hopkins University, a member of the Association of American Universities, an organization of research institutions dedicated to vacuuming up as much as possible of the available money for research programs of their members. Ethicists at Harvard, also a member of AAU, feel that the Breakthrough Institute doesn’t make its case re: anthropogenic climate change by criticizing Al Gore. The close relationship between government and academia is evident in filling this position.
In the US, and most of the world, the members of the AAU possess an unchallenged level of integrity that they no longer deserve. They are, in fact, the creators of the delusions of AGW, viral pandemics, gender confusion and a host of other fantasies. They supply the government and media with the stories of existential threats that only they are capable of designing remedies for, should funding be provided. Note that the results of their research seldom, if ever,contradicts the MSM. This is because the media gets its information from the AAU members.
Reading his essay his major and almost only complaint is that he does not feel that he is allowed to discuss possible policy solutions in his papers eg “The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change.”
Now there is or at least should be a clear distinction between scientific articles which state whether or not something is happening and political articles that suggestion policy solutions.
Furthermore one should remember that Nature’s primary goal is to make money. Not to publish the best science. Everyone working scientist knows this. And the successful ones know how to play the game.
“The game”.
This is what governments are shoveling billions of taxpayers $$$s into?
Scary.
So now you are admitting that the best most prestigious journals are simply attention whores chasing $$$, so we get to discount all of it?
You’re sure you want to go with that?
You don’t need to discount it but you need to recognise that what is published in Nature is what the editors think will sell the most issues. It is a commerical company that has a duty to maximise its profits. This means it tends to go after topics such as quantum computing that are fashionable whether or not the papers have a lasting value. And then for papers that don’t meet the cut it has created “scientific reports” which will publish anything including papers on homeopathy as long as the authors can pay.
https://retractionwatch.com/2019/06/11/permeable-to-bad-science-journal-retracts-paper-hailed-by-proponents-of-homeopathy/
Patrick Brown,
Shame on you. You have knowingly deviated from the proper ways of science, for your personal benefit – but to the detriment of those seeking real information about the advance of science.
White ants have no place in such advancement. Your actions are made worse because of your teaching duties. If you knowingly teach how to harm, you have no option other than to repent and to hand in your badge by sunset.
Good, proper science is hard. It does not need social distractions like kowtows to editors. You should have concentrated on the full story that observation and measurement showed, to inform sub-standard editors of their poor status. Learn from the lessons of brilliant people like Richard Feynman, whose writings do not support your curious ways.
Too late now, you have shown a disqualifying weakness, when strength was required. Bye. Geoff S
There are other journals that would publish a politically incorrect paper. So the Nature way wasn’t the only possible way.
No, I disagree.
He’s risking a lot by bravely speaking out now.
We all need people in these positions to speak up like this.
It is not a useful time for the ‘Holier than Thou’ idealists to flout their virtue.
How many of YOU so called “cons” (Big Cons followers) have read studies concluding “the vaccine against X is still safe and effective and should be prescribed”, studies that showed that the vax was neither, and still parroted the phrase?
Esp. the hep B vax.
Sorry not sorry. Only for COVID did you realize that vaccines were a cult like climate.
There is a real difference between X vaccines and Covid “vaccines”. Here is the mealy-mouthed “fact-check” that proves it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fact-check-merriam-webster-changed-vaccine-definition-accuracy/6354415001/
Quote: According to an archived version of the dictionary’s website, Merriam-Webster formerly said a “vaccine” was “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.” The new definition of “vaccine“, published in May, reads: “a preparation that is administered – as by injection – to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease.”.
In spite of the fact that the Merriam-Webster website shows clearly that the definition was changed, the mealy-mouthed (~= lying) fact-check says “The claim: Merriam-Webster removed the immunity part of its ‘vaccine’ definition [] Fact check:Claim is missing context on WHO’s parental-consent guidelines for vaccinating children” – so at this point the ‘fact-check’ does not even address the original claim. Further down, the ‘fact-check’ says “Definition changed ‘immunity’ to ‘immune response‘” – IOW the definition really was changed. And even further down, the ‘fact-check’ says: “Definition addresses mRNA vaccines” – IOW the mRNA vaccines really are different to other vaccines: mRNA vaccines do not provide immunity!!
As I said, there is a real difference between X vaccines and Covid “vaccines”. The tragedy is that someone allowed the definition of ‘vaccine’ to be changed so that the untested mRNA dangerous nonsense could be called a ‘vaccine’, and now all vaccines are tarred with the same brush.
I should know, 20+ months after my Moderna mRNA I am about $10k down and still receiving treatment. But in a way I’m one of the lucky ones – some people died. Sue for compensation? It’s set up so that no more than a handful of very special cases qualify. But I have signed up for a class action.
STORY TIP:
https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2023/08/summit-launches-new-national-academies-initiative-to-spur-action-on-climate?utm_source=NASEM+News+and+Publications&utm_campaign=6ba27c265d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_09_05_06_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-6ba27c265d-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=6ba27c265d&mc_eid=705ba03dec
The National Academies have no end of stuff like this. It is appalling.
There is a universe somewhere in which:-
A Wegener said ” all this proves that the continents stay in place permanently.”
An Einstein said ” Space and Time are fixed permanently.The speed of light is variable depending on frame of reference”
A Niels Bohr said ” Spectroscopy notwithstanding my research shows that electrons in a Hydrogen atom may occupy any energy level they choose ”
All three rose to positions of successful obscurityity in their fields.
Patrick also aspires to rise to the top in the pond scum of mediocrity that is “Climate Science” as he chooses ” the road most followed”.
Who knows what he might have found in the golden wood had he taken the other road
Well, I suppose he might have found some great stuff – but we would never have heard about it.
A wretched dilemma, now so common in our wretched Brave New World.
p.s. Could one of the moderators/editors/writers stop the really irritating ‘you-are-posting-too-quickly’ prevention of edit options???!!!
It’s a known bug and it’s not under the control of anyone at WUWT. It’s a wordpress issue. All WUWT can do is report it to wordpress.
This self censoring mindset developed to avoid revealing the uncomfortable truth, has a memorable description. It is used very frequently in political circles.
it is known as ‘Being economical with the truth’
I never imagined in my formative years, ( before I turned fifty) that the practice would become necessary, or indeed common, in the scientific community.
Patrick Brown provides a clear picture of the challenge faced by all modern science/scientists.
The challenge is, how can you be completely open, when you know the findings you are presenting oppose the cult orthodoxy now controlling freedom of expression/freedom to publish? Do you yield to the rules of publication as they now apply to scientific articles, and at least be in with a chance of being published? Or do do you hold to sound scientific principles of open communication full data and risk being ignored?
The debate being held in the comments here, is focusing on Patrick’s decision to go with the flow. His decision to follow cult expectation and be published and whether that was the right decision or not? From a purely scientific viewpoint a knowingly misleading scientific paper is not acceptable. Sadly, the author knew from peer comments and experience with the science publication they would not have entertained an article that was openly/clearly showing, climate change is not of itself so challenging.
I think he has shown immense courage to actually expose the turmoil he went through. He knows his chances of being published henceforth are now pretty slim because he is being honest.
Reading through the comments it appears that many contributors (including Stokes) either didn’t read the full article or simply missed part of it. From the full article is this paragraph:
“As to why I followed the formula despite my criticisms, the answer is simple: I wanted the research to be published in the highest profile venue possible. When I began the research for this paper in 2020, I was a new assistant professor needing to maximize my prospects for a successful career.”
In other words, career progression and future earnings would be impacted if he don’t publish in high impact journals and:
“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.”
So to those who said he should have tried to publish with warts and all in prestigious journals he already had experience that that road led to failure and consigned publication to lower impact journals. Its not something imagined, it was actually his experience.
Despite or BECAUSE OF climate change. The author overlooks the huge possibility that the slight warming and increase in CO2 over the last ~150 years are having beneficial results.
Omission is a form of lying.