Climate 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". 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." 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.”