Wesley J Smith: Why we can’t trust the science journals
National Review, 5 September 2023A climate scientist has written that he pulled
his punches in a climate-change article in order to be published by
the prestigious journal Nature. From, “I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change
Paper Published,” by Patrick T. Brown:
"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."
In other words, if Brown provided a thorough and nuanced study, it would never
have passed the ideological blockade he knew controls the scientific discourse
on this important topic.
Brown explains why we see such an anti-science paradigm:
"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 maximize the likelihood that their work is
accepted. I know this because I am one of them."
Brown left academia so he could engage in better science. And, that allowed him
to write this article. [...]
Brown has done a true service in illustrating how science has been distorted by
nonscientific agendas at the highest level of “expert” discourse — aided and
abetted by the media. Until and unless that changes, public trust in the
scientific and medical sectors will continue to fall.
Full post
You may be jumping the gun about can't trust science. The rebuttal is in this article.
ReplyDeletehttps://phys.org/news/2023-09-scientist-left-full-truth-climate.html
Thanks for bringing this article to my attention. It does not detract from what the author said and still stands by. There is no doubt that these science journals are heavily biased towards the current climate change hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteSkeptical science is an excellent source of rebuttal to Patrick Brown's points. When evidence is taken into full account, his points are refuted based in evidence. The science system is robustly aware of seperating out the science from bias. 37 science articles in the last 5 years that prove Patrick Brown incorrect.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/patrick-brown-hallucination.html?utm-source=email&utm-campaign=daily
So, we can see that Brown's perceptions and choices of strategies and tactics as key means of achieving publication success are belied in black and white. His hypothesis of a tacit conspiracy to distort scientific reports on climate change is factually incorrect and dipping far into deeply absurd.
With 37 recent contradictory examples so readily available (including some glossy journals of the type in which he ironically yearns to appear) it seems that Brown's unoriginal personal take on climate science conspiracy is full of holes, one way or another. A better and more productive course for Brown might be to submit articles reporting research on topics of genuine interest to him in publications with a natural fit, even though doing so might mean they're published in more usefully appropriate journals such as Nature Climate Change rather than the generalist Nature, where findings from a plethora of fields jostle for limited attention.
Missing the forest for the trees
Is there anything substantive in Brown's plaint? He asks "So why does the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause?" That's easy to answer, but it has nothing to do with the formal editorial or review processes of journals. Brown doesn't seem to understand but it's important for the rest of us to remember: large publishers maintain vigorous and competent press offices; what we see emerging into popular view in mass media is indeed certainly selected and styled as catnip. Battery chemistry and human health sciences are also reliable fodder for flaks. But journal press offices don't accept, review and publish research investigation reports. Assuming we're not looking at a persuasive economy of truth, Brown's expressed ignorance of the media food chain leads him into sloppy slander.
Recent routinely circumspect research reports on climate change in connnection with wildfire:
Abrupt, climate-induced increase in wildfires in British Columbia since the mid-2000s, Parisien et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access pdf 10.1038/s43247-023-00977-1
Anthropogenic climate change impacts exacerbate summer forest fires in California, Turco et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Open Access 10.1073/pnas.2213815120
Assessing the role of compound drought and heatwave events on unprecedented 2020 wildfires in the Pantanal, Libonati et al., Environmental Research Letters Open Access 10.1088/1748-9326/ac462e
Atmospheric variability contributes to increasing wildfire weather but not as much as global warming, Diffenbaugh et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Open Access 10.1073/pnas.2117876118
Bottom-up drivers of future fire regimes in western boreal North America, Foster et al., Environmental Research Letters Open Access pdf 10.1088/1748-9326/ac4c1e
Causes and consequences of eastern Australia's 2019-20 season of mega-fires, Nolan et al., Global Change Biology Open Access pdf 10.1111/gcb.14987
Causes of the Widespread 2019–2020 Australian Bushfire Season, Deb et al., Earth's Future 10.1029/2020ef001671
Climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California, Goss et al., Environmental Research Letters Open Access 10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a7
Climate regime shift and forest loss amplify fire in Amazonian forest, Xu et al., Global Change Biology Open Access pdf 10.1111/gcb.15279
What you have demonstrated is that articles which emphasise the role of "climate change" in starting or increasing wildfires get published. Articles which do not give "climate change" as the major influence do not appear. QED.
ReplyDelete