Climate Expert Admits Tailoring Study to Emphasize Global Warming

• He aimed to reveal bias in climate change discussions in academic publishing.
• His approach surprised co-authors and upset Nature journal’s editors
• Brown’s actions sparked a debate about ethics in shaping climate research narratives.

In a move that has stirred controversy within the scientific community, a climate expert in the United States has shocked his fellow scientists by disclosing that he tailored a wildfire study to emphasize the role of global warming. Patrick T. Brown, the climate expert in question, aimed to expose what he perceived as bias in a leading academic journal’s approach to climate change narratives.

While some supporters praised Brown for highlighting what he termed a one-sided climate narrative in academic publishing, his actions took at least one of his co-authors by surprise and drew the ire of the editors at the prestigious journal Nature.

Brown published an article on September 5th with the headline, “I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published,” in which he openly admitted to deliberately focusing on the impact of higher temperatures on wildfire risk in a study published in a journal. He admitted to excluding other relevant factors, such as land management practices. An article by this news agency had covered the study on August 30th under the headline “Climate change boosts risk of extreme wildfires 25%.”

In his article, Brown further confessed, “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.”

Steven J. Davis, one of the co-authors listed in the study, expressed surprise at Brown’s comments. Davis, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, stated that Brown’s actions may have been driven by his perception that it would help get the paper published. However, Davis pointed out that they couldn’t know for certain whether a different approach would have resulted in rejection and cautioned against assuming that editors and reviewers were biased.

Brown currently serves as the co-director of the climate and energy team at the Breakthrough Institute, a non-profit organization focused on researching technological solutions to environmental challenges, including the advancement of nuclear energy.

Despite requests for comment, Brown remained silent following his revelation on September 5th. He did, however, share more details about his actions on his blog and on X, formerly known as Twitter. The response to his disclosure was mixed, with some praising his honesty and transparency, while others raised ethical concerns.

David Ho, a climate scientist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, described Brown’s public boasting about manipulating the research narrative as “next level” in terms of ethical implications. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, a blog that monitors academic paper retractions, characterized Brown’s actions as akin to a “sting operation” with questionable ethics. He acknowledged that scientists often shape narratives to present stronger stories but emphasized that Brown’s approach was fundamentally flawed and likely to reinforce preexisting skepticism about the rigor and honesty of climate change research.

Magdalena Skipper, the editor-in-chief of Nature, condemned Brown’s actions as “irresponsible” and indicative of “poor research practices.” She stressed that the peer-review process had addressed the issue of other climate variables in the study, which was a key concern raised by Brown’s revelations.

Also Read

Climate Activists Block Dutch Motorway Over Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Police used water cannons, and activists plan to keep blocking until subsidies...