Another Climate Scientist Admits He Skewed the Data Just to Get Published

[Crick]

In other words, “I lied by omission, in a classic case of noble cause corruption.”

Follow the science.
Into the abyss.

I’m actually shocked that he had the integrity to come right out and admit this. Good for him. He’s not saying anything that the more well-informed of us didn’t already know, but the fact that this will generate discussion over the amount of overt corruption (which they hardly even bother trying to hide anymore) in the peer review process is a definite bonus.



A new study by a team of mostly San Francisco Bay Area scientists that found human-caused climate warming has increased the frequency of extremely fast-spreading California wildfires has come into question from the unlikeliest of critics—its own lead author.

Patrick T. Brown, climate team co-director at the nonprofit Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley and a visiting research professor at San Jose State University, said his Aug. 30 paper in the prestigious British journal Nature is scientifically sound and “advances our understanding of climate change’s role in day-to-day wildfire behavior.”

But Brown this week dropped a bomb on the journal—as well as his study’s co-authors who are staunchly defending the team’s work. In an online article, blog post and social media posts, Brown said he “left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published,” causing almost as much of a stir as the alarming findings themselves.

Brown wrote that the study didn’t look at poor forest management and other factors that are just as, if not more, important to fire behavior because “I knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.” He added such bias in climate science “misinforms the public” and “makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”

Scientist says he 'left out the full truth' to get climate change wildfire study published in journal

A new study by a team of mostly San Francisco Bay Area scientists that found human-caused climate warming has increased the frequency of extremely fast-spreading California wildfires has come into question from the unlikeliest of critics—its own lead author.

phys.org

The title of this thread is flawed. The author, Patrick Brown, claims that he "left out the full truth" that his studies had found. Leaving out the full truth is not the same as the charge of "skewing the data" claimed in the threat title.

 

[Crick]

Oh really!
So explain the ice age we are currently leaving.

Explain it? Aren't you supposed to be an actual weather man? Are you unfamiliar with this stuff?

The ice age we are IN, is called the Quaternary Glaciation or ice age. It began 2.58 million years ago. What you (apparently) and a fair number of the public believes is that the dozen or so glacial and interglacial periods the Earth has been going through within the Quaternary are themselves, ice ages. But that is incorrect.

The glacial cycle is driven by Milankovitch orbital forcing.

So, what are you actually asking me?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You've gotten all of this a dozen times before Frank. AR6 clearly quantifies ECS and TCR. A hundred junior high school science experiments demonstrate that CO2 absorbs IR. When I go to the dictionary and look up "One-Trick Pony" it just says "Crusader Frank".

You never once posted the temperature! Not one time! You can NEVER answer the question - because the number is out in the hundredths of a degree!!

Can you show us ANY experiment controlling for CO2 at these ridiculously low levels of hundreds of PPM? YOU NEVER DO! Not once!

We all know that 120PPM, 200PPM increase in CO2 has no measurable impact on temperature. If it did, you would post the millions of experiments demonstrating it.

Mythbusted ran a scam experiment where they had to jack up CO2 to 7% of the volume AND added Water vapor by melting a block of ice in the "Controlled" experiment.

I'll ask you again, post one scientific experiment demonstrating the temperature difference controlling for CO2 from 280 to 400PPM

 

[Mac-7]

What facts do you think have been misrepresented?

You have one example of it on this thread

 

[JBG]

From goodreads.com

The Bodies of Others is about how we came to the harrowing civilizational crossroads at which we find ourselves - engaged in a war against vast impersonal forces with limitless power over our lives and which threaten the freedoms we have always taken for granted.
********

Can we say H Y P E R B O L E ?

Admittedly portions of the book are a bit histrionic. There are solid nuggets in there. Most important is to strike a middle ground and not be stampeded into counterproductive actions.

 

[Crick]

Admittedly portions of the book are a bit histrionic. There are solid nuggets in there. Most important is to strike a middle ground and not be stampeded into counterproductive actions.

I just don't like anyone discouraging vaccination programs. Far, far too many people have already needlessly died.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The title of this thread is flawed. The author, Patrick Brown, claims that he "left out the full truth" that his studies had found. Leaving out the full truth is not the same as the charge of "skewing the data" claimed in the threat title.

Lies by omission are still lies.

Very consistent with the doomsdayer cult.

Only outlier is he has a conscience and admits his lies.

 

[Crick]

Lies by omission are still lies.

Very consistent with the doomsdayer cult.

Only outlier is he has a conscience and admits his lies.

Brown did not claim to have "skewed" any data.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Brown did not claim to have "skewed" any data.

Intentional omissions to skew the results.

You’re so desperate, you’ve lost. Give it up. Go hug a tree and wail.

 

[Mac-7]

These people really are insane

Totally batshit crazy

 

[Crick]

Intentional omissions to skew the results.

You’re so desperate, you’ve lost. Give it up. Go hug a tree and wail.

Bullshit.

 

[JBG]

I just don't like anyone discouraging vaccination programs. Far, far too many people have already needlessly died.

Here we agree. I have taken every vaxx that I could. The only interruption was for asymptomatic Covid right after Labor Day weekend 2022, that delayed my planned boost to, IIRC, December 2022. I just got another boost in October 2023. Just because I am anti-lockdown and a climate non-believer doesn't mean we can't agree on some things.

 

[jc456]

In other words, “I lied by omission, in a classic case of noble cause corruption.”

Follow the science.
Into the abyss.

I’m actually shocked that he had the integrity to come right out and admit this. Good for him. He’s not saying anything that the more well-informed of us didn’t already know, but the fact that this will generate discussion over the amount of overt corruption (which they hardly even bother trying to hide anymore) in the peer review process is a definite bonus.



A new study by a team of mostly San Francisco Bay Area scientists that found human-caused climate warming has increased the frequency of extremely fast-spreading California wildfires has come into question from the unlikeliest of critics—its own lead author.

Patrick T. Brown, climate team co-director at the nonprofit Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley and a visiting research professor at San Jose State University, said his Aug. 30 paper in the prestigious British journal Nature is scientifically sound and “advances our understanding of climate change’s role in day-to-day wildfire behavior.”

But Brown this week dropped a bomb on the journal—as well as his study’s co-authors who are staunchly defending the team’s work. In an online article, blog post and social media posts, Brown said he “left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published,” causing almost as much of a stir as the alarming findings themselves.

Brown wrote that the study didn’t look at poor forest management and other factors that are just as, if not more, important to fire behavior because “I knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.” He added such bias in climate science “misinforms the public” and “makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”

Scientist says he 'left out the full truth' to get climate change wildfire study published in journal

A new study by a team of mostly San Francisco Bay Area scientists that found human-caused climate warming has increased the frequency of extremely fast-spreading California wildfires has come into question from the unlikeliest of critics—its own lead author.

phys.org

Well we had the emails from East Angola.

 

[jc456]

Lies by omission are still lies.

Very consistent with the doomsdayer cult.

Only outlier is he has a conscience and admits his lies.

Right, hiding facts is lying about the delivered product. It isn't true, false, fake. any other word that fits hiding the decline.

 

[jc456]

Here we agree. I have taken every vaxx that I could. The only interruption was for asymptomatic Covid right after Labor Day weekend 2022, that delayed my planned boost to, IIRC, December 2022. I just got another boost in October 2023. Just because I am anti-lockdown and a climate non-believer doesn't mean we can't agree on some things.

It's sad that you believe the vaccine bullshit. sad. To each their own. But you see how they do it in this thread, to believe these fools is believing the devil.

 

[jc456]

The title of this thread is flawed. The author, Patrick Brown, claims that he "left out the full truth" that his studies had found. Leaving out the full truth is not the same as the charge of "skewing the data" claimed in the threat title.

Dude, if they omit data, the data is skewed. The mere fact you don't understand that says all I need to hear.

 

[Crick]

Here we agree. I have taken every vaxx that I could. The only interruption was for asymptomatic Covid right after Labor Day weekend 2022, that delayed my planned boost to, IIRC, December 2022. I just got another boost in October 2023. Just because I am anti-lockdown and a climate non-believer doesn't mean we can't agree on some things.

I also have had every vaccine I could get. I finally caught COVID after visiting Epcot at Disney World but the symptoms were very mild. I have never experienced an actual lockdown but in the early pandemic prior to any vaccines, I was strongly in favor of limitations on public and private gatherings.

As to global warming, I fully accept the conclusions of mainstream science: warming is taking place and the primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions - as well as deforestation, methane leakage and the ozone hole from CFCs. I believe we need to cease burning fossil fuels as rapidly as we can.

 

[JBG]

I also have had every vaccine I could get. I finally caught COVID after visiting Epcot at Disney World but the symptoms were very mild. I have never experienced an actual lockdown but in the early pandemic prior to any vaccines, I was strongly in favor of limitations on public and private gatherings.

Even if they were pure theater?

As to global warming, I fully accept the conclusions of mainstream science: warming is taking place and the primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions - as well as deforestation, methane leakage and the ozone hole from CFCs. I believe we need to cease burning fossil fuels as rapidly as we can.

I don't believe it's science at all. I believe it's a mutual admiration society. There is no weather conditions that satisfy them, including Beijing's polar plunge in December.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

In other words, “I lied by omission, in a classic case of noble cause corruption.”

Follow the science.
Into the abyss.

I’m actually shocked that he had the integrity to come right out and admit this. Good for him. He’s not saying anything that the more well-informed of us didn’t already know, but the fact that this will generate discussion over the amount of overt corruption (which they hardly even bother trying to hide anymore) in the peer review process is a definite bonus.



A new study by a team of mostly San Francisco Bay Area scientists that found human-caused climate warming has increased the frequency of extremely fast-spreading California wildfires has come into question from the unlikeliest of critics—its own lead author.

Patrick T. Brown, climate team co-director at the nonprofit Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley and a visiting research professor at San Jose State University, said his Aug. 30 paper in the prestigious British journal Nature is scientifically sound and “advances our understanding of climate change’s role in day-to-day wildfire behavior.”

But Brown this week dropped a bomb on the journal—as well as his study’s co-authors who are staunchly defending the team’s work. In an online article, blog post and social media posts, Brown said he “left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published,” causing almost as much of a stir as the alarming findings themselves.

Brown wrote that the study didn’t look at poor forest management and other factors that are just as, if not more, important to fire behavior because “I knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.” He added such bias in climate science “misinforms the public” and “makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”

Scientist says he 'left out the full truth' to get climate change wildfire study published in journal

A new study by a team of mostly San Francisco Bay Area scientists that found human-caused climate warming has increased the frequency of extremely fast-spreading California wildfires has come into question from the unlikeliest of critics—its own lead author.

phys.org

The AGW bunk science will likely go down as one of the biggest follies in human history. Any person who does an honest and sincere review of the science will conclude that it is bunk. There is no consensus among honest scientist, there has been no warming since 2000, there is at least as much data that shows an increase CO2 follows warming as precedes it. The complexity of the climate system is incredibly complicated with multitudes of factors. To assume you can reduce it down to 150 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely absurd.

The worse part is that the media and politicians don’t question this boondoggle.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I also have had every vaccine I could get. I finally caught COVID after visiting Epcot at Disney World but the symptoms were very mild. I have never experienced an actual lockdown but in the early pandemic prior to any vaccines, I was strongly in favor of limitations on public and private gatherings.

As to global warming, I fully accept the conclusions of mainstream science: warming is taking place and the primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions - as well as deforestation, methane leakage and the ozone hole from CFCs. I believe we need to cease burning fossil fuels as rapidly as we can.

Mainstream science? What is that? Do you mean science brought forth by the IPCC? If so, why are you comfortable allowing a political organization control science?