A California scientist admitted he tailored research to enhance the probability of allegedly biased editors at science journals publishing his study.
Patrick T. Brown, who is also a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and holds a doctorate in earth and climate sciences, confessed he did not present the “full truth” regarding climate change’s role in wildfires.
In an article published Saturday by The Free Press, Brown explained he tailored findings of his research to align with preferences of editors at the prestigious science journals Nature and Science.
He later shared his revelation in a blog post and various social media posts, according to a Fox News report.
“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,” Brown wrote.
The scientist’s research, published by Nature August 30, claimed climate change influenced extreme wildfire behaviors, citing examples like the severe fires in California and Maui.
He now acknowledges his study was overly focused on the human impact on wildfires, neglecting other significant and “obviously relevant factors.”
He attributed this narrow perspective to the immense pressure researchers face when trying to get their work published in esteemed journals.
The “publish or perish” pressure often leads to the creation of catchy abstracts designed to generate headlines.
Brown clarified in The Free Press that he wasn’t retracting his paper but was pointing out that the process of tailoring the research for a prominent journal made it “less useful than it could have been.”
“You might be wondering at this point if I’m disowning my own paper,” Brown noted. “I’m not.”
“On the contrary, I think it advances our understanding of climate change’s role in day-to-day wildfire behavior,” he continued. “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.”
Brown also mentioned his study did not consider poor forest management and other factors, which play a crucial role in fire behavior.
He claimed that including such factors would divert attention from the primary narrative of climate change’s negative impact, thereby reducing chances of his paper being accepted by Nature’s editorial team.
Such biases in climate science, he noted, “misinform the public” and hinder the development of practical solutions.
“Identifying and focusing on problems rather than studying the effectiveness of solutions makes for more compelling abstracts that can be turned into headlines, but it is a major reason why high-profile research is not as useful to society as it could be,” Brown said in a September 5 post to his X account.
California Assembly leader James Gallagher, a Republican, criticized liberals for selectively using data to support their agendas.
“Patrick Brown is saying the quiet part out loud – liberals are cherry-picking data to fit an agenda and push radical policies that drive up the cost of living,” Gallagher told Fox News.
He further emphasized the need for effective forest management to prevent large-scale fires.
Republican Assembly member Joe Patterson shared Gallagher’s views, stating that while Republicans want all causes of massive wildfires, including climate change, to be considered, Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats seem to be overlooking crucial factors like forest health and fuel load.
“While they pressure scientists to ignore science, our state is literally burning,” Patterson said.
Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.
