Top Climate Scientist Admits He Wrote Fake News To Get Published in Science Journals

by

A leading climate scientist has admitted that researchers push “pre-approved” establishment climate narratives in their papers – regardless of whether they are true or not – in order to get published in leading journals and further their careers in the field.

“Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted,” said Patrick T. Brown in an interview with The Free Press. “I know this because I am one of them.”

Brown continued, “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.”

“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 pre-approved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.”

Rather than rigorously applying the scientific method to acquire knowledge, what Patrick T. Brown described can only be understood as writing fake news to artificially bolster the official narrative on climate change. According to Brown, this is the “formula for success in climate science.”

According to Brown, he omitted data including the fact that 80% of wildfires are started by arsonists, so that the woke editors at Nature would publish his article.

READ MORE  Restored Republic via a GCR Update as of March 30, 2023

Brown, who also lectures at Johns Hopkins, added that the biases of the editors and reviewers of journals are well known among aspiring scientists who will often omit inconvenient truths to please them, a process he says “distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”

Brown admits that he regularly hyped up the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than offering practical solutions, knowing that is the “clean narrative” that journals want to see.

“In my paper, we didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did,” Brown wrote, adding “But I also knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.”