Greenkama

Scientist Patrick Brown manipulates climate data and portrays himself as a victim

Editors and other scientists clearly contradict him and point out contradictions. The scientist's allegations remain unsubstantiated.

Author: Mimikama

The claim

Patrick Brown claims that scientific magazines are more likely to accept studies if they omit aspects that can put the impact of global warming into perspective.

That is why he did not take various relevant aspects into account in a study on the subject of forest fires.

Our conclusion

The claim remains unsubstantiated. On the contrary, comments in the peer review – the assessment of the study before publication – called for the aspects mentioned to be taken into account. Brown nevertheless refused consideration for a different reason.

His communication with the journal appears difficult to understand and dishonest in light of the allegations he later made.

A week after Patrick Brown's study on the risk of forest fires in California was published in the renowned scientific journal Nature, the US scientist Patrick Brown turned to the press and sparked a controversy with explosive statements.

MIMIKAMA
Screenshot Facebook

Patrick Brown's study

The study examined how much temperature trends increase the risk of “extreme diurnal wildfire growth” in California.

A week after it was published in the US online magazine Free Press, that the study was only published because he deliberately presented "only part of the truth" and focused on the influence of climate change in order to meet the expectations of editors to become. This led to widespread criticism from other scientists and the editor of the journal Nature.

Some German media have also adopted Brown's claims without questioning their questionable truth. Among others, Axel Bojanowski, editor-in-chief of the science editorial team of the World , gives one-sided space to Brown's claims, which sow doubts about the scientific integrity of major specialist journals. Time for a reply:

Brown accuses academic journals of pursuing a predetermined agenda and rejecting research that does not fit their “narrative.” Therefore, he would have deliberately only taken into account the influence of temperatures on the probability and intensity of forest fires and would not have examined in more detail factors such as forest management, underground laying of power cables for prevention and other human activities that trigger fires.

What do the study's peer-reviewed comments show?

All research papers in reputable scientific journals undergo peer review. Several independent scientists from the same discipline who are not involved in the study review the work - often anonymously. They recommend publication or rejection and may suggest changes and improvements. In this case, there were three reviewers for the paper. The research group's comments and responses were also published.

Her comments undermine Brown's claims that he was encouraged to place a narrow focus on a predetermined "narrative." Two of the three reviewers stated that they could not recommend the work for publication in its original form. They both pointed out the limited scope of the study.

Reviewer 1 noted that “the use of wildfire growth as a key variable is concerning ,” adding:

“As the authors acknowledge, there are numerous factors that influence wildfire growth that are not directly considered in this study...vegetation type (fuel), ignition (lightning and people), fire suppression measures (direct and indirect suppression, prescribed fire, political Measures such as fire bans and forest closures) and fire load”.

MIMIKAMA

Reviewer 3 was concerned that “the climate change scenario only includes temperature as an input to the changing climate” and added that “changes in humidity would also be of great importance.”

In a lengthy response, the authors wrote that they "agree that climate variables other than temperature are important in projecting changes in wildfire risk," adding:

“In addition to absolute humidity, there are other important variables such as changes in precipitation, wind patterns, vegetation, snow cover, ignition, previous fire activity, etc. Not to mention factors such as changes in human population distribution, fire breaks, land use , ignition patterns, fire suppression tactics, forest management strategies, and long-term fuel accumulation.”

As a reason for focusing on just one key aspect, they explained that if they took multiple aspects into account, the study would become much more difficult and complex:

“However, it is very difficult to account for changes in all of these variables and their potential interactions at the same time say the researchers.

“It is precisely for this reason that we chose a methodology that addresses the much clearer but narrower question of what impact warming alone has on the risk of extreme daily wildfires.”

MIMIKAMA

Brown's team added:

“We believe that studying the impact of warming is valuable in its own right because temperature is the variable in the triangle of wildfire behavior that is by far the most directly related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and therefore the most constrained in future projections. There is not even a consensus on the expected direction of change in many other relevant variables.”

Interim results of the research

  • Brown claimed after the study was published that it was only published because he deliberately omitted important factors.
  • Two reviewers of the study suggested rejecting the study precisely because these points were not taken into account.
  • Brown insisted on omitting these points, saying it would be “ very difficult to account for changes in all of these variables and their potential interactions simultaneously.”

Clear contradiction from scientists and the journal

So some scientists and Dr. Magdalena Skipper, the editor-in-chief of Nature, quickly spoke out and pointed out that the peer review explicitly did not support Brown's claims.

Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told E&E News Brown's actions were "monumentally unethical." In his decades of research in this field, he cannot remember another author treating publication as a “game.” “He betrayed himself – he did all this. Nobody did anything to him.”

“He's whistleblowing on himself — he did all of this. Nobody did anything to him.”

Editor-in-Chief Skipper accused Brown of “ poor research practices” that are “not consistent with the standards we set for our journal.”

In a statement issued to Carbon Brief and other media outlets, the Skipper said the journal is "carefully considering the impact of [Brown's] actions" that "reflect poor research practices [of the authors] and are inconsistent with the standards that we have defined for our magazine”.
Nature expects researchers to use the “most appropriate ” data and methods in their work, “ including all key facts and results relevant to the main conclusions of an article ,” Skipper said. If researchers intentionally fail to do this, it would be “highly irresponsible at best,” she warned.

She also addressed the issue of peer review comments:
“I note that the problem of the lack of inclusion of variables other than climate change was highlighted during the peer review process, but the authors themselves argued against inclusion .

Skipper continued in the statement:
“When it comes to science, Nature has no preferred narrative. Nature editors decide whether to publish based solely on whether the research meets our criteria for publication: original scientific research (where the conclusions are sufficiently supported by the available evidence), of outstanding scientific importance, leading to a conclusion that is of interest to a multidisciplinary readership.

Finally, Skipper gave three examples of recent publications in Nature that “do not conform to the editorial biases alleged by Brown.”

She pointed to a study that found the impact of ocean heatwaves on bottom-dwelling fish is “often minimal.” Another article notes that the decline in the Amazon carbon sink is primarily due to reduced law enforcement rather than climate change.
And an article on the factors that contribute to the spread of wildfires in communities discusses the built environment in fire-prone regions, such as: B. Roof materials, types of cladding and the size and location of windows.

In his response on Twitter, Brown said , "Of course there are counterexamples," adding , "I'm not saying that it's impossible to publish high-impact work that deviates from the formula I've described, but rather that it's much more difficult." “ .

Patrick Brown was unable to provide convincing evidence for his claims.

A study co-author told Carbon Brief that Brown's comments "surprised" and that he "doesn't think he has much evidence to support his strong claims that editors and reviewers are biased."

What does the study say?

The study used machine learning to analyze the relationships between temperature, drought and the risk of “extreme daily wildfire growth” in California. The authors assess how fires would spread in a warmer climate while holding other conditions constant.

The results show that human warming has increased the frequency of extreme wildfires by an average of 25% compared to pre-industrial conditions. In a scenario with little future warming, the frequency could increase by 59% by the end of the century, while under a very strong warming scenario it could increase by 172%.

Conclusion

MIMIKAMA

Patrick Brown's allegations remain unsubstantiated. On the contrary, comments in the peer review called for the aspects mentioned to be taken into account. Brown nevertheless refused consideration for a different reason.

His communication with the journal appears difficult to understand and dishonest in light of the allegations he later made.

Source:

nature.com , Peer Review File , CarbonBrief , E&E News , The Free Press , Welt.de

Author: Michael Kipp

You may also be interested in:
Misleading graphic suggests a decline in climate-related deaths - a detailed analysis
Conspiracy myths: The secrets that divide us
Baby monkey videos: The dark secret behind the clicks

Subscribe to our WhatsApp channel via link or QR scan! Activate the small 🔔 and receive a current news overview as well as exciting fact checks .

Link: Mimikama's WhatsApp channel

Mimikama WhatsApp channel

Notes:

1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication
.
The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual articles (not fact checks) were created using machine help and
were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )


With your help, you support one of the most important independent sources of information on the subject of fake news and consumer protection in German-speaking countries

Are you concerned about misinformation online? Mimikama is committed to a fact-based and safe internet. Your support allows us to continue to ensure quality and authenticity online. Please support and help us create a trustworthy digital environment. Your support counts! You too can become an ambassador for Mimikama

More from Greenkama