The Times view on scientific journals and editorial bias: Climate Change
By Paul Homewood
It’s good to see that The Times has covered this story:
The physicist Alan Sokal pulled off one of the most damning scholarly hoaxes of recent decades when, in 1996, he persuaded a literary journal to accept a wilfully nonsensical paper. The Sokal Affair, as it became known, was designed to expose the lax standards in the less rigorous publications, where research passed muster so long as it “flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions”.
It might be hoped that climate science is immune to such groupthink. But in our weekend essay, Patrick Brown, a former academic, argues persuasively that it isn’t. His research into Californian wildfires was published last week in Nature, one of the most renowned scientific journals. To ensure it was accepted, however, required “customising the research” so as to render it “compatible with the confirmation bias of the editors”.
Influential journals, Dr Brown alleges, are unwilling to consider research which downplays the scale of climate change or which emphasises the viability of adaptive measures as an alternative to emissions reductions. In the competitive world of academia, where landing papers in leading publications determines one’s career prospects, the perception of bias on the part of editors can fundamentally warp the direction of research.
There is no suggestion that Dr Brown’s paper contained outright falsehood. The bias is subtler than that. Instead, he isolated climate change as the sole variable in explaining the risk of Californian wildfires, a misleading focus given that 80 per cent of wildfires in America are started by humans. According to Brown, other strategies are often used to inflate the scale of climate change, yielding eye-popping statistics.
These tactics lead to work that is deceptive and neglects promising lines of inquiry for fear of challenging consensus. Such incuriosity is the hallmark of bad science and timid politics.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“I swear I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to my knowledge at least:- compliance withwhich we deserve and should demand òf those writing in the field of climate change.
The topic is riddled with lies: why so?
I read it. Excellent material to pile on the bonfire of intellectual vanities. Craven publishers are the real problem
Gosh… And the 1961 Soviet Sharknado storyboard seemed so reeeal!
We’ve all known and seen this for years but this is fundamentally scary for mankind. Whilst careers are dependent on going along with the “consensus” proper research and advancement of knowledge is at severe risk. This would be just the same if the position was reversed and scientist had to toe the line in favour of the climate sceptic narrative. Scientists must be free from outside bias and be free to be wrong as well as right.
I reckon this little editorial is one of the most significant pieces of masonry to fall from the dam…..
Similar articles exposing the “climate” (and its “green” and “net zero” subsets) fraud need to be in every newspaper and on every TV channel.
Surprised that a part of the legacy media has actually noticed this and even more so thinks this might not be a good idea. And au contraire, I do think that by concluding that climate change is the sole variable in Californian wildfires is an outright lie.
He should submit the proper paper to the journal and publish it elsewhere, while demanding his accepted paper be retracted.
Then he will lose his job…
Re ‘climate’ and ‘law’, here’s how Aberdeen Uni touts for prospective students.
‘This unique Master’s examines both energy and environmental law and the ways in which they directly impact each another. During your studies, you’ll gain a valuable insight into this fast-developing, highly topical industry, and form a solid basis to forge a successful career in this field.’ >>
‘With a unique choice of energy and environment courses, you will benefit from an advanced understanding and sharpened critical analysis across many key areas, including the current position of energy and environmental laws and how these might change in the future. The programme covers matters of core interest for policy-makers, not only from an energy and environmental perspective but in all fields that provide the foundation for socio-economic functionality and corporate policy.’ >>
‘Our graduates are well-placed to operate in a complex, globalised working environment and are able to progress quickly to leadership roles.’
https://www.abdn.ac.uk/registry/courses/postgraduate/2023/law/ls552z
!
I’m embarrassed by my alma mater. There was a time when this pseudoscience wouldn’t haven’t darkened the doors of this ancient seat of learning
Has the BBC reported this?
From what I’ve seen, the BBC wouldn’t abandon the CAGC pravda if it was demonstrated publicly that CO2 had an incontrovertible negative correlation to atmospheric temperature, and that the IPCC has known this since its inception and provided documented proof that the IPCC conspired to conceal this purely for the money and personal power its continuation provides. I see the same thing with NPR/PBS here in the States; there are periodic declarations about how they stand for “truth, integrity, and diverse voices”, yet every time that a piece is about or can have an allusion made to climate change, it’s always “rah, rah, rah, AGC, it’s terrible and we must do everything we can to combat it”.
CO2 HAS been exonerated as a major influence on climate problems
-see papers by Lightfoot and Ratzer, Jl Basic and Applied Sciences, 2023, their references and those of other reliable workers.
No, no… Not just demonstrated not to be a _cause_ of warming, but to actually have a strong _negative_ correlation — as the CO2 concentration goes up, the atmospheric temperature _declines_.
John Ridgway has written about the Dr Brown story, at Cliscep:
It is so easy to rattle useful idiots. From the Times letters:
On the letters page today, a response from the policy director for the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment to claims about climate research made by Dr Patrick Brown.
Bob Ward: Saturday, September 9, was the hottest day of an unprecedented autumn heatwave that would have been highly unlikely without climate change. Based on previous experience, hundreds of our fellow citizens across the country will have died because of the heat. So it was deeply ironic you chose that day to publish a leading article alleging that scientific journals were “unwilling to consider research which downplays the scale of climate change”, citing an article by Dr Patrick Brown in which he made several inaccurate claims about current publication practices.
Most notable was his allegation that he had to ignore factors other than climate change to persuade the journal Nature to publish a paper on the causes of increased wildfire activity. The reports of referees that were released alongside his paper showed that he and his co-authors strongly argued against the inclusion of other factors. It was their decision, not the journal’s, to focus on climate change.
Dr Brown also claimed that heat-related deaths had been declining, based on a study of data between 1985 and 2009 that showed no statistically significant change for the UK. However, half of the UK’s ten warmest days have occurred since 2009 and heat-related mortality last summer was the highest on record.
‘that would have been highly unlikely without climate change’
‘Unlikely’ is not a force. Probabilities are not a force. Things don’t happen because they are more likely to.
So, how exactly did this ‘climate change’ cause it?
Is this ‘climate change’ in the room with us now?
“that would have been highly unlikely without climate change”
How often do we hear such statements with no explanation to back them up. The writer of the letter seems to have forgotten about the very cool July and August, but would probably blame climate change for that too – I suspect he means man made climate change.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-scientists-pour-cold-water-on-claims-of-journal-bias-by-author-of-wildfires-study
“However, other scientists were quick to point out that the study’s reviewers had indeed recommended that these other factors were considered.
In addition, Brown and his co-authors themselves had argued in their response to the peer reviewers that including the other factors was “very difficult” and that was “precisely why” they had chosen to focus on “the much cleaner but more narrow question of what the influence of warming alone”.”
Also for a look at the actual evidence for Brown’s claim (he provides none) see:
I prefer In Plimer’s definition. “97% of climate scientists agree with people who fund them”
Can I recommend mark Steyn’s ” A disgrace to the profession “? It takes Michael Mann et al to the cleaners. All referenced and a perfect dismantling of the Hockey stick phenomenon.