Climate science must now fit into “preapproved narratives” to receive publication by notable scientific journals, according to Dr. Patrick T. Brown.
Following the publication of his paper studying the impact of climate change on wildfires in Nature, the climate scientist said he left out the full results of his studies to ensure its place in the prestigious journal.
“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,” Brown wrote for The Free Press, a new media company founded by former New York Times op-ed staff editor Bari Weiss.
He continued, “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.”
It continued, “All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff, and those manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal peer review, typically to two or three reviewers (although sometimes more if special advice is needed). Intentional omission of facts and results that are relevant to the main conclusions of a paper is not considered best practice with regards to accepted research integrity principles.”
For more Culture, Media, Education, Opinion, and channel coverage, visit foxnews.com/media.
The post Climate scientist admits editing paper to fit ‘preapproved narratives’ appeared first on Fox News.
