Posted BY: Jasmine | NwoReport
In a startling revelation, climate scientist Patrick T. Brown has openly admitted to promoting a “preapproved” narrative on climate change to secure publication in prestigious journals. Brown candidly disclosed that he deliberately avoided quantifying key aspects unrelated to climate change in his research, as this would diverge from the preferred storyline of journals like Nature and Science.
According to Brown, journal editors have made their preferences explicit through their publication choices and rejections, emphasizing the demand for climate papers that align with specific preconceived narratives, even if this comes at the expense of broader knowledge. This inclination, he argues, distorts the field of climate science, misinforms the public, and hampers the pursuit of practical solutions.
"Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) September 5, 2023
Here’s how it works."@PatrickTBrown31 with a must-read piece:https://t.co/mubB5oyygK
One particularly troubling revelation from Brown is his admission of routinely exaggerating the impact of greenhouse gas emissions without delving into practical solutions, fully aware that this “clean narrative” caters to journal preferences. Brown candidly stated that his research omitted the study of other relevant factors, acknowledging that their inclusion would have yielded a more realistic and valuable analysis. However, he chose not to incorporate them, fearing that doing so would diminish the paper’s chances of approval by the editors and reviewers at Nature.
Well, I wanted the researche to get as widely disseminated as possible, and thus I wanted it to be published in a high-impact journal.
— Patrick T. Brown (@PatrickTBrown31) September 5, 2023
Trending: Shocking Discovery: Fani Willis Allegedly Connected to Large-Scale Election Fraud and Money Laundering Operation
Last week, I described our paper on climate change and wildfires:https://t.co/dm1hRsdQ7a
— Patrick T. Brown (@PatrickTBrown31) September 5, 2023
I am very proud of this research overall. But I want to talk about how molding research presentations for high-profile journals can reduce its usefulness & actually mislead the public.
This revelation raises significant concerns about the objectivity and integrity of climate science research and publication processes. It underscores the need for greater transparency and open discourse within the scientific community to ensure that research findings are not skewed to fit predetermined narratives. Brown’s confession is a stark reminder of the critical role that scientific journals and their editorial policies play in shaping our understanding of climate change and its potential solutions.
I appreciate that Mr. Brown outed himself and the dishonest pandering by the journals. I recall editors and others years ago, even some recently, who pointed out that ~ 50% of the research is fraudulent, and cannot be replicated. We have learned that when Fauci stated “I AM the science,” while testifying in Congress, he was being truthful. Fauci controlled all the grant monies and awarding, and he got papers retracted, not approved by journals for publication, and has required researchers change their conclusions (or else, no more grants). Especially in academia, it is publish or perish, and if professors do not pull in grants, maintaining their position becomes uncertain.