Climate change scientist claims research 'must support pre-approved narrative'

Dr Patrick Brown, co-director of the climate and energy team at The Breakthrough Institute, Berkeley, claims there is a "not-so-secret formula" that scientists must follow if they want to

publish a "high-profile climate change research paper". He claims following this formula "brings professional success, but it comes at a cost to society".

Dr Brown said the formula is "more about shaping your research in specific ways to support pre-approved narratives than it is about generating useful knowledge for society". He said papers

must support "the mainstream narrative that climate change impacts are pervasive and catastrophic", focus on the reduction of "greenhouse gas emissions" - and downplay or ignore other

actions that could "negate the impact of climate change".

Don't miss... England could soon see devastating summer wildfires like Greece and Hawaii

Dr Brown - who also served as an expert peer reviewer for leading science journals - was the lead-author of a paper that was recently published in the prestigious science journal Nature. The

paper argues that "climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California".

However, since its publication last week, Dr Brown has admitted that the paper deliberately ignored other "obviously relevant factors" - like poor forestry management and an increase in

people accidentally or deliberately starting fires.

Writing in his blog, Dr Brown said: "I knew that considering these factors would make for a more realistic and useful analysis, but I also knew that it would muddy the waters and thus make

the research more difficult to publish."

Don't miss... State pension spending 'will increase by £11bn a year due to triple lock pledge' [ANALYSIS] James Bulger's mum 'finally ready' to hear details of how her son was murdered

[INSIGHT ] Bruce Springsteen postpones shows after taking medical advice [LATEST]

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You

can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy

In its response, Nature has disputed the accusations and denied it has preferred narrative. However, Dr Brown Writes: "My overarching advice for getting climate change impacts research

published in a high-profile journal is to make sure that it supports the mainstream narrative that climate change impacts are pervasive and catastrophic, and the primary way to deal with

them is not through practical adaptation measures but through policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions

He says the second component of the formula is to "ignore or at least downplay near-term practical actions that can negate the impact of climate change". The formula's "third element" is "to

focus on metrics that are not necessarily the most illuminating or relevant but rather are specifically designed to generate impressive numbers", claims Dr Brown.

Dr Brown says the "final and perhaps most insidious element" of the formula is that papers must be short and concise - which he says leaves "little room for discussion of complicating

factors or contradictory evidence".

"This incentivizes researchers to assemble and promote only the strongest evidence in favor of the case they are making," writes Dr Borwn. "This encouragement of confirmation bias is, of

course, completely contradictory to the spirit of objective truth-seeking that many imagine animates the scientific enterprise," he adds.

Regarding the omission of other relevant factors that are influencing the increase in wildfires, Dr Brown writes: "This type of framing, where the influence of climate change is

unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers.

"For example, in another recent influential Nature paper, they calculated that the two largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and damage to agriculture.

However, that paper does not mention that climate change is not the dominant driver for either one of these impacts: temperature-related deaths have been declining, and agricultural yields

have been increasing for decades despite climate change."

In response to Dr Brown's claims, Dr Magdalena Skipper, the Editor in Chief of Nature, said: "When it comes to science, Nature does not have a preferred narrative." She said that peer

reviewers of Dr Brown’s work had suggested taking other variables into account, but the authors had argued against their inclusion.

She said: "The only thing in Patrick Brown’s statements about the editorial processes in scholarly journals that we agree on is that science should not work through the efforts by which he

published this article.

“We have an expectation that researchers use the most appropriate data and methods when assessing these data, and that they include all key facts and results that are relevant to the main

conclusions of a paper.

“When researchers do not do so, it goes against the interests of both fellow researchers and the research field as a whole. To deliberately not do so is, at best, highly irresponsible.

“We are now carefully considering the implications of his stated actions; certainly, they reflect poor research practices and are not in line with the standards we set for our journal.”

See today's front and back pages, download the newspaper, order back issues and use the historic Daily Express newspaper archive.