|
|
Post by jcjames on Sept 5, 2023 20:55:56 GMT -8
I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.By Patrick T Brown September 5, 2023
If you’ve been reading any news about wildfires this summer—from Canada to Europe to Maui—you will surely get the impression that they are mostly the result of climate change.
Here’s the AP: Climate change keeps making wildfires and smoke worse. Scientists call it the “new abnormal.”
And PBS NewsHour: Wildfires driven by climate change are on the rise—Spain must do more to prepare, experts say.
And The New York Times: How Climate Change Turned Lush Hawaii Into a Tinderbox.
And Bloomberg: Maui Fires Show Climate Change’s Ugly Reach.I am a climate scientist. And while 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 paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected 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.
....the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.
....Why is this happening?
It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades.
....Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.
Here’s how it works.
The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative—namely, that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic and that the primary way to deal with them is not by employing practical adaptation measures like stronger, more resilient infrastructure, better zoning and building codes, more air conditioning—or in the case of wildfires, better forest management or undergrounding power lines—but through policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
....This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper. The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change. If deaths due to extreme heat are decreasing and crop yields are increasing, then it stands to reason that we can overcome some major negative effects of climate change. Shouldn’t we then study how we have been able to achieve success so that we can facilitate more of it? Of course we should. But studying solutions rather than focusing on problems is simply not going to rouse the public—or the press. Besides, many mainstream climate scientists tend to view the whole prospect of, say, using technology to adapt to climate change as wrongheaded; addressing emissions is the right approach. So the savvy researcher knows to stay away from practical solutions.
....As to why I followed the formula despite my criticisms, the answer is simple: I wanted the research to be published in the highest profile venue possible. When I began the research for this paper in 2020, I was a new assistant professor needing to maximize my prospects for a successful career. When I had previously attempted to deviate from the formula, my papers were rejected out of hand by the editors of distinguished journals, and I had to settle for less prestigious outlets. To put it another way, I sacrificed contributing the most valuable knowledge for society in order for the research to be compatible with the confirmation bias of the editors and reviewers of the journals I was targeting....There's lies, damnable lies, and then there's science.
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Sept 6, 2023 18:08:23 GMT -8
Yup. And I'd love to subject namisgr's public Watercooler posts to peer review too.  |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Sept 13, 2023 10:21:59 GMT -8
I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.By Patrick T Brown September 5, 2023
If you’ve been reading any news about wildfires this summer—from Canada to Europe to Maui—you will surely get the impression that they are mostly the result of climate change.
Here’s the AP: Climate change keeps making wildfires and smoke worse. Scientists call it the “new abnormal.”
And PBS NewsHour: Wildfires driven by climate change are on the rise—Spain must do more to prepare, experts say.
And The New York Times: How Climate Change Turned Lush Hawaii Into a Tinderbox.
And Bloomberg: Maui Fires Show Climate Change’s Ugly Reach.I am a climate scientist. And while 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 paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected 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.
....the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.
....Why is this happening?
It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades.
....Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.
Here’s how it works.
The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative—namely, that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic and that the primary way to deal with them is not by employing practical adaptation measures like stronger, more resilient infrastructure, better zoning and building codes, more air conditioning—or in the case of wildfires, better forest management or undergrounding power lines—but through policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
....This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper. The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change. If deaths due to extreme heat are decreasing and crop yields are increasing, then it stands to reason that we can overcome some major negative effects of climate change. Shouldn’t we then study how we have been able to achieve success so that we can facilitate more of it? Of course we should. But studying solutions rather than focusing on problems is simply not going to rouse the public—or the press. Besides, many mainstream climate scientists tend to view the whole prospect of, say, using technology to adapt to climate change as wrongheaded; addressing emissions is the right approach. So the savvy researcher knows to stay away from practical solutions.
....As to why I followed the formula despite my criticisms, the answer is simple: I wanted the research to be published in the highest profile venue possible. When I began the research for this paper in 2020, I was a new assistant professor needing to maximize my prospects for a successful career. When I had previously attempted to deviate from the formula, my papers were rejected out of hand by the editors of distinguished journals, and I had to settle for less prestigious outlets. To put it another way, I sacrificed contributing the most valuable knowledge for society in order for the research to be compatible with the confirmation bias of the editors and reviewers of the journals I was targeting....There's lies, damnable lies, and then there's science. How to be a Global Warming debater: Start out nice. The guy you're debating with just needs to be 'straightened out'. He'll see the light. Start posting graphs and links. If opponent does the same, claim his links/graphs are 'biased' and 'no good'. Start getting angry-he's not 'getting it'. Start making snide comments about how dense he is. Start getting really angry-let the insults fly now. Call him a 'troll'. That should fix him. Dang he's still arguing-block him. Rinse and repeat. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Sept 15, 2023 15:56:46 GMT -8
Scientists now think that cutting 70 Million Acres of trees down and BURYING the wood rather than using it to build with will be better for the environment. The anti-human agenda continues.  Do these scientists have U of Penn degrees? |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Sept 22, 2023 14:44:34 GMT -8
Biden is being urged to declare Climate Change as an emergency giving him Presidential powers that eliminate the need for Congress. Nobody saw this coming out of the Covid playbook. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Nov 5, 2023 23:13:25 GMT -8
The most important part of the equation is the one nobody will talk about. These leaders are not interested in making good or real decisions. They're making decisions to line their pockets and snowblind you into keeping them in office. If the United States goes to ZERO EMMISSIONS it won't even make a dent in the carbon output of the world. https://www.instagram.com/reel/CwNVj87tVVU |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Dec 15, 2023 15:39:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Dec 15, 2023 15:41:23 GMT -8
Liberal's Offer Canadian Farmers Incentive to Reduce Cow Burping in Attempt to Tackle Climate Change.
Reading this, one might assume it's a joke, a case of a hacker infiltrating The Canadian Independent, or a peculiar shift from journalism to comedy. Surprisingly, it's a genuine plan crafted by Liberal Minister Steven Guilbeault for Environment and Climate Change Canada.
In the plan, it states, "Today, Environment and Climate Change Canada published a draft fourth protocol under Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Offset Credit System. This new draft protocol, Reducing Enteric Methane Emissions from Beef Cattle (REME protocol), will incentivize farmers to implement changes that would reduce enteric methane emissions from their beef cattle operations with an opportunity to generate offset credits that they can sell.”
The plan goes on to explain, “Methane is generated during the natural digestive process of cows and is released into the air when cows burp. This is known as an enteric methane emission. The REME protocol will encourage beef cattle farms to reduce enteric methane emissions by improving animal diets, management, and other strategies that support more efficient animal growth. Each credit represents one tonne of emission reductions.”
According to Guilbeault, “Canadian farmers have become frontline champions for climate action by harnessing the power of sustainable agriculture. The newest draft protocol under Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Offset Credit System not only addresses agricultural greenhouse gases, but will provide a financial benefit for Canadian farmers. This is an opportunity for farmers to implement practical solutions to reduce agricultural methane emissions, generate revenue, and harvest a greener future for all.”
You can read the plan at the link below.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Namor on Dec 15, 2023 15:56:03 GMT -8
Reading this, one might assume it's a joke, a case of a hacker infiltrating The Canadian Independent, or a peculiar shift from journalism to comedy. Why would a hacker need to infiltrate the Canadian Independent to post something bogus or comedic, they do that daily anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 3, 2024 14:19:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 9, 2024 14:33:10 GMT -8
Another trucker protest, this time in Germany.
German farmers and truckers are fed up and are now united against their government. This is Berlin right now:
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 10, 2024 7:37:23 GMT -8
If you buy less clothing, it's better for global warming.
|
|
