Scientist reveals necessity to fit climate narrative to get published | Eastern North Carolina Now

A climate scientist has revealed how science has been politicized over the global warming theory and how it is now necessary to toe the line of the ideological narrative in order to get published.

Dr. Patrick T. Brown is a climate scientist at Johns Hopkins University and has recently written a piece describing how he had to toe an ideological line in a paper he had just had published in order for the "woke" editors to accept it for publication.  The article was about wildfires, and he did not dare mention the very relevent fact that 80% of wildfires are caused by humans, whether arson or carelessness.  If he had been honest enough to mention that, his article would have been rejected.

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12493711/Climate-scientist-wildfires-published.html

This shows how the "science" of climate has been politicized.  It means that most of the "science" behind climate is highly questionable.

Ironically, the current commotion about climate and CO2 is the result of a British editor of the "New Scientist" publishing an article on a rejected old theory from the 1890s from a Swedish physicist that claimed CO2 impacted climate, a theory that had long been rejected among scientists.  However, that article caught the attention of Prime Minister Thatcher as something that would be useful in fighting the radical coal miners unions and the Arab oil sheiks, and her government put out lots of research money to promote it.   In those days, scientific journals would publish articles from any perspecitve, unlike the narrative line they demand authors toe these days.

"Hide the Decline" parady on climate alarmism, to the tune of Tommy James and the Shondells "Draggin' The Line":