By Mark Anderson
Have key scientific journals become a monolithic industry of fear-peddling, hardwired to an unprecedented degree with confirmation bias? It appears so, as they cavalierly promote only the most catastrophic sounding “climate change” models at the direct expense of objective science and the careers of dissident researchers.
Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article
Consider climatologist Dr. Patrick T. Brown, co-director of the Climate and Energy Team at the Breakthrough Institute and adjunct faculty member and lecturer in the Energy Policy and Climate Program at Johns Hopkins. In an article published by “The Free Press” in early September, Brown noted:
[W]hile climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over many parts of the world, it isn’t close to the only factor that deserves our sole focus.
So why does the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause?
Perhaps for the same reasons I just did in an academic paper about wildfires in Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious journals: it fits a simple storyline that rewards the person telling it.
The above-noted academic paper—entitled “Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change affects extreme wildfire behavior.
“I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell,” Brown added.
He went on to say that since such high-profile “scientific” journals are increasingly rigid “gatekeepers” for academic success, these journals’ editors have made it unmistakably clear, in terms of what opinions they’ll accept or reject, that they only want “preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.”
Brown also observed:
Climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and, most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.
Libertarian-leaning ABC News veteran John Stossel, writing for the New York Post last month, spoke to climatologist Judith A. Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She concurred that scientists who want a successful career “have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue ‘fame and fortune’.”
She should know, since, at one time, she was among those bellowing about the “climate change” bogeyman that’s supposedly about to engulf us all, via either super floods or crushing droughts, unless we ditch backyard cookouts, swap our illicit gas-chuggers for all-electric vehicles, and eat bugs. The media was rather cozy with Curry then. She had dutifully published a study suggesting that “climate change” was causing an alleged dramatic increase in the intensity of hurricanes.
“We found that the percent of category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” she told Stossel, adding that the media relayed her hurricane claims uncritically. She also noted that the climate alarmist establishment realized that the future of knighting the winners and crucifying the losers in terms of scientific discourse and career advancement belonged to those who tied any and all extreme weather events to “global warming.”
Yet another scientific figure whose experiences drive home even further the fact that today’s climate science is unscientific in its merciless savaging of anything other than gloomy, nebulous perspectives is Nobel Laureate Dr. John Clauser (Physics 2022).
According to a recent report published in Newsweek, Clauser “was to present a seminar on climate models to the International Monetary Fund,” but the talk was “summarily cancelled.” Reportedly, IMF Independent Evaluation Office Director Pablo Moreno had read literature for a July 25 online talk by Clauser and immediately nixed the event.
What was Clauser’s chief transgression? He has suggested that carbon dioxide, which the mainstream scientific autocracy sees as perhaps the most dangerous among the “greenhouse gases,” is beneficial to society. Clauser evidently did not mention that CO2 comprises a smidgen of the atmosphere, with the National Energy and Technology Laboratory noting:
Carbon dioxide occurs naturally in small amounts [about 0.04%] in the Earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a minor part of the air that humans breathe. It is also a byproduct of our body’s metabolism and is subsequently exhaled from the lungs.
All this sidesteps the broader view that significant manmade “climate change” does exist, but it comes in the form of long-term cloud-seeding programs that go back decades in the records of the UN’s World Meteorological Organization and in other weather-modification permits submitted to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation as well as other local and regional governments.
Yet, nightly weather reports never acknowledge that public and private entities are monkeying with the weather in this fashion in the U.S. and around the world. The politically driven “climate change” narrative is all the scientific and media establishment seek to promote.