Because some well-known scientific journals may reject unsolicited papers, some climate researchers adjust their results. Journals like “Nature” or “Science” clearly do not want to publish studies that refute the bad man-made climate change narrative. Censorship in the service of the Climate Section…
It is well known that when it comes to studies, you should also pay attention to who financed them or recruited them. Studies conducted by the sugar industry on sweetened soft drinks or studies conducted by the tobacco industry on cigarette consumption are not necessarily reliable. but that’s not all. Because there are other reasons why you shouldn’t trust studies published in major journals: internal censorship.
It should be remembered that, for example, an important mask study that showed the devastating consequences of a mask requirement recently fell victim to censorship. The same thing happened in an autopsy study on vaccination deaths caused by experimental Covid vaccines. Because anything that doesn’t fit the prevailing narrative should not be published in these magazines. Climate researchers are also increasingly realizing this.
One such climate researcher recently reported that he was pushing a “pre-approved” narrative on climate change so that his article could be published in major journals. Scientist Patrick T. Brown, who also teaches at Johns Hopkins University, told The Free Press: “I knew that in my research I should not try to measure key aspects other than climate change because this would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival Science wanted to tell.”
What fuhr is fast: “The editors of these journals have made it clear through both their publications and their rejections that they want climate papers that support certain pre-approved narratives – even if those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society “
Brown publicly criticizes this practice because it obscures the truth and prevents scientists from taking an unbiased approach to climate change. Specifically, studies are published that support existing narratives, while other results of the study have no place in them. even worse: This results in confirming climate experts’ distorted views that the Earth is overheating, even though this is clearly not the case. And for pseudo-fact-checkers, it creates an ideal environment for debunking claims that “99 percent of scientists” are behind the climate change story – even though that’s not the case.
However, to claim (see The Conversation’s sensitive report) that over 99 percent of the literature reviewed in journals supports the human-caused climate change narrative is to ignore the censorship machine in these journals, to which Brown draws attention. Does. Let’s not forget that over 1,600 scientists are already mobilizing and raising objections specifically against climate panic.
Brown’s descriptions match those of other important researchers – such as Judith Currie (Report 24). Although there are no longer any public executions for heretics, one is hardly taken seriously in today’s world of science without publication in well-known specialist journals. Serious climate scientists still have their own problems, as do those scientists who refuted the flat Earth narrative promoted by the Catholic Church.
Brown also admits that he has regularly highlighted the impact of greenhouse gas emissions rather than offering practical solutions, knowing that it is the “clean narrative” that magazines want to see. “In my paper we didn’t bother to examine the impact of these other obviously relevant factors. Had I known that their inclusion would have provided a more realistic and useful analysis? That’s what I did,” Brown wrote, adding: “But I also knew that it would distract from the clear narrative focused on the negative impacts of climate change and thus reduce the likelihood that the paper would be well received by Nature editors and reviewers.”
Studies and work on climate change that deviate from the mainstream narrative obviously have no place in specialist journals like “Nature” and “Science”. Because scientists know this, the papers presented there are “adjusted” accordingly to present “proper” conclusions. This in turn means that climate junkies can almost only find scientific papers that confirm their views, while important papers and work may only be published in smaller journals. One could even speak of deliberate manipulation of public opinion in favor of the prevailing climate narrative. This makes it even more important for scientists like Professor Brown to point out these complaints and inform the public about them.
