Shocker: Climate Scientist Lied

The shocker isn't that he lied but that he had to lie in order to get published. From the Daily Mail: "Top scientist Patrick Brown says he deliberately OMITTED key fact in climate change piece he's just had published in prestigious journal to ensure woke editors ran it - that 80% of wildfires are started by humans." An excerpt:

    A climate change scientist has claimed the world's leading academic journals reject papers which don't 'support certain narratives' about the issue and instead favor 'distorted' research which hypes up dangers rather than solutions.

    Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and doctor of earth and climate sciences, said editors at Nature and Science - two of the most prestigious scientific journals - select 'climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives'.

    In an article for The Free Press, Brown likened the approach to the way 'the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause' of wildfires, including the recent devastating fires in Hawaii. He pointed out research that said 80 percent of wildfires are ignited by humans.

    Brown gave the example of a paper he recently authored titled 'Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California'. Brown said the paper, published in Nature last week, 'focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior' and ignored other key factors.

    Brown laid out his claims in an article titled 'I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published'. 'I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work,' the article begins.

    '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,' he wrote of his recently-published work.

    '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, much like laws, scientific consensus is like a sausage: It's best not to see them being made. 

    It isn't surprising to those who have questioned the global warming/climate crisis narrative as we have seen models manipulated and data tortured to give the right outcome (e.g., Mann's "hockey-stick graph"), data ignored (basically anything prior to 1850), temperature data "adjusted" upward, and so on, for years all to advance a certain narrative. Although I don't have it at hand, I remember coming across an article that explained that there is a small group of like-minded climate scientists that "peer review" the climate science articles at the major journals and are de facto gate keepers of what gets published and what doesn't. We also see it in other fields: I've seen the same said in theoretical physics about alternatives to string theory, and we saw it for a long time in archeology when it comes to evidence of older settlements in the Americas. And just watch Fauci vacillate back and forth on the efficacy of face masks depending on how much pressure he is receiving from the Left.

    And the Left calls conservatives anti-science....

More: "Climate scientist: Yes, I cooked my Nature article on global warming -- and here's why"--Hot Air.