“We need a culture change across academia and elite media”
Good luck buddy. This is true in climate study but in a host of many other things. Hell, they can’t even define a woman, you expect them to figure out something as nuanced as climate?
Academe is broken. They have sold out to foreign influence, indoctrinated our youth with the oppressor/oppressed world view, and filled their ranks with useless DEI bureaucrats who demonize and cancel and protest for fabricated transgressions about pronouns and microaggressions and speakers with different points of view. They have abandoned the meritocracy in favor of race-based admissions. DEI has got to go! So does foreign money. And so does allowing foreign money to influence what is taught.
Sad but true. Journal egos wanting high ratings on citation index is a game played as well. The value of the research to society is often a secondary consideration. I was an associate editor and board member for decades. There are a lot of good journals that are honest. They do not get the mass media draw or the ego boost for authors but are the foundation of scientific advancement. Corruption of academia is the problem not the journals
This is what The Left does. All of these publications, universities, and public academic institutions, as well as the Legacy Media are ruled by The Left. The Left doesn't engage. It doesn't ask, "As compared to what? What is the cost? What is the hard evidence? What is the opposing view?" This is why researchers have to lie by omission.
In the 1990's Sokal, a physicist, published a bull shit paper in a postmodern journal. The Science community applauded big time (The science wars). But what happens now with journals like Nature, at the heart of science, is infinitely worse. My geometry professor told me once that Nature (and the like) are the Cosmopolitan of science (Cosmopolitan as placeholder for any popular trendy magazine). This focus on trendy subjects is well-known.
What a shocker. My hunch was correct. As it turns out, it would seem that TFP was just hitting [PUBLISH] on an empty fluff piece that meshed with the narrative in Bari's head without anyone on staff actually, you know, doing journalism.
So, if y'all aren't doing the very basic of "reaching out for comment" on the things you publish, then what exactly does TFP do with the money they take each month???
Easy: From now on real researchers should publish an Approved version of their work, just as Dr. Brown has done, with all readers understanding that once the Approved version has achieved it's political/social goals -- publicity, funding, tenure ... whatever -- that the Unapproved version will follow. Thus the Approved version should be taken as a teaser, nothing more. Real scientists would of course wait for the real version before commenting. Mind ... some traffic would be needed over the first version, I suppose.
"But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years...it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd." -- Hmm. It would seem the best way to truly "stand out" is to offer OPPOSING viewpoints from the 'approved' narrative.
"[M]any mainstream climate scientists tend to view...addressing emissions [a]s the right approach." -- While focusing on emissions may not be necessary to address "climate change," there is something to be said about their effect on human health (eg, reducing air particulates to prevent asthma, COPD, etc.). I wonder how the scientific publications would treat research papers that took that approach.
This makes so much sense. I used to wonder why I, as a layperson, could find trusted research which didn’t match the alarm I was hearing on the news each night, but many scientists hadn’t come across what I was finding. Now I know they were/are. They are just having to play a controlled game. What a damn shame!
Well congratulations, I clicked on the link for Breakthrough Institute. It seems pretty clear to me that's the real reason Patrick Brown wrote this article. Just to be clear - this is an article that DIDN'T get rejected from Nature because it was never even submitted. This is beneath The Free Press in my opinion. There are better ways to discuss the mainstream story line and it's detrimental effects than to promote an author who is just trying to promote himself in his new endeavors. Don't get me wrong, this would be fine if it were a social media post or an article on Medium. But for The Free Press it's sub par.
The same people who told us all the eventually proven COVID misinformation are the same people telling us that man is changing the climate and we need to radically alter our existence to slow it. The same people who make predictions about mass extinction that never materializes.
So what happened when their COVID lies about masks and vaccines and the origins were found to be crap...nothing. These people are still in power, still getting gov’t and academia jobs. No consequences what so ever.
So do they have any incentive to be honest about “climate change”? Nope, none. Instead they make sure to spew the same crap in order to gain power and be accepted into their all important peer groups so they feel they belong. This article highlights several levels of it, from publishing to gov’t funding to in the trenches scientists.
There is an organization, the acronym escapes me, that is advocating for massive cutbacks on private transportation, only allowing three changes of clothing, eating no meat, one plane trip every three years, and so on. If you think these left wing zealots don’t follow that thinking you are living under a rock. There are already dozens of cities that belong to this group advocating for it. They say it’s only a recommendation but they will use all the power they have to force it onto you.
I believe cleaner air should be the goal of everyone. My father had COPD from smoking and I have second hand smoke effects as I age. But for people to think man is altering the climate in my opinion is a load of crap. Every prediction made about future climate issues is based on a computer simulation. A computer is nothing more than a device that spits out an answer using what ever information was programmed in and what ever data was entered. I could create a simulation saying the earth is doing cartwheels if I programmed the computer to do so.
What I live by: if a group of people purposely try to censor an opposing view then something is very wrong.
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.
What an excellent story. Like so much in TFP, it is a breath of fresh air. We need academics like this to expose the institutions that abuse their positions as respected purveyors of science. This is the only way that the honest and truly scientific journals will be able to achieve that status. Much like TFP, when you get to experience real journalism it’s easy to see the difference compared to the crap that passes for journalism in the papers.
As a fairly right leaning conservative, I think Bari and her crew have hit the nail squarely on the head with TFP. It is my main source for news. Real news.
This has become a cottage industry. People sell their soul for money, power and prestige, get a “change of heart” and fall on their proverbial sword.
Examples: Frank Luntz, the guy who made so much money that he was able to build an EXACT REPLICA of the oval in his home, replete with priceless bits of history by coming up with cozy terms such as “death tax” and helping shape a lot of the divisions we have today.
Now he goes on tv and is shocked! Shocked, I tell you, about how we “don’t talk to one another “. It’s a lovely performance and of course, he’s able to turn on the tear machine quite effectively. It’s a load of crap.
To me, this gentleman is much the same. It’s not “brave” to decry an action after you’ve committed the act and reaped the benefits. It’s image management, plain and simple.
How do you prove your point by lying in order to get published? Is telling the truth a quaint custom of an age gone by? If he wanted to set the record straight, he should have contacted Nature and sent them the piece that ran in FP.
“We need a culture change across academia and elite media”
Good luck buddy. This is true in climate study but in a host of many other things. Hell, they can’t even define a woman, you expect them to figure out something as nuanced as climate?
Academe is broken. They have sold out to foreign influence, indoctrinated our youth with the oppressor/oppressed world view, and filled their ranks with useless DEI bureaucrats who demonize and cancel and protest for fabricated transgressions about pronouns and microaggressions and speakers with different points of view. They have abandoned the meritocracy in favor of race-based admissions. DEI has got to go! So does foreign money. And so does allowing foreign money to influence what is taught.
Sad but true. Journal egos wanting high ratings on citation index is a game played as well. The value of the research to society is often a secondary consideration. I was an associate editor and board member for decades. There are a lot of good journals that are honest. They do not get the mass media draw or the ego boost for authors but are the foundation of scientific advancement. Corruption of academia is the problem not the journals
This is what The Left does. All of these publications, universities, and public academic institutions, as well as the Legacy Media are ruled by The Left. The Left doesn't engage. It doesn't ask, "As compared to what? What is the cost? What is the hard evidence? What is the opposing view?" This is why researchers have to lie by omission.
In the 1990's Sokal, a physicist, published a bull shit paper in a postmodern journal. The Science community applauded big time (The science wars). But what happens now with journals like Nature, at the heart of science, is infinitely worse. My geometry professor told me once that Nature (and the like) are the Cosmopolitan of science (Cosmopolitan as placeholder for any popular trendy magazine). This focus on trendy subjects is well-known.
What a shocker. My hunch was correct. As it turns out, it would seem that TFP was just hitting [PUBLISH] on an empty fluff piece that meshed with the narrative in Bari's head without anyone on staff actually, you know, doing journalism.
Here, an actual journalist reached out to Nature for comment, and Patrick Brown's foolishness is laid bare: https://www.eenews.net/articles/a-scientist-manipulated-climate-data-conservative-media-celebrated/
So, if y'all aren't doing the very basic of "reaching out for comment" on the things you publish, then what exactly does TFP do with the money they take each month???
Easy: From now on real researchers should publish an Approved version of their work, just as Dr. Brown has done, with all readers understanding that once the Approved version has achieved it's political/social goals -- publicity, funding, tenure ... whatever -- that the Unapproved version will follow. Thus the Approved version should be taken as a teaser, nothing more. Real scientists would of course wait for the real version before commenting. Mind ... some traffic would be needed over the first version, I suppose.
"But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years...it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd." -- Hmm. It would seem the best way to truly "stand out" is to offer OPPOSING viewpoints from the 'approved' narrative.
"[M]any mainstream climate scientists tend to view...addressing emissions [a]s the right approach." -- While focusing on emissions may not be necessary to address "climate change," there is something to be said about their effect on human health (eg, reducing air particulates to prevent asthma, COPD, etc.). I wonder how the scientific publications would treat research papers that took that approach.
This makes so much sense. I used to wonder why I, as a layperson, could find trusted research which didn’t match the alarm I was hearing on the news each night, but many scientists hadn’t come across what I was finding. Now I know they were/are. They are just having to play a controlled game. What a damn shame!
Well congratulations, I clicked on the link for Breakthrough Institute. It seems pretty clear to me that's the real reason Patrick Brown wrote this article. Just to be clear - this is an article that DIDN'T get rejected from Nature because it was never even submitted. This is beneath The Free Press in my opinion. There are better ways to discuss the mainstream story line and it's detrimental effects than to promote an author who is just trying to promote himself in his new endeavors. Don't get me wrong, this would be fine if it were a social media post or an article on Medium. But for The Free Press it's sub par.
Call it "Left-wing science" when policy trumps objectivity.
The same people who told us all the eventually proven COVID misinformation are the same people telling us that man is changing the climate and we need to radically alter our existence to slow it. The same people who make predictions about mass extinction that never materializes.
So what happened when their COVID lies about masks and vaccines and the origins were found to be crap...nothing. These people are still in power, still getting gov’t and academia jobs. No consequences what so ever.
So do they have any incentive to be honest about “climate change”? Nope, none. Instead they make sure to spew the same crap in order to gain power and be accepted into their all important peer groups so they feel they belong. This article highlights several levels of it, from publishing to gov’t funding to in the trenches scientists.
There is an organization, the acronym escapes me, that is advocating for massive cutbacks on private transportation, only allowing three changes of clothing, eating no meat, one plane trip every three years, and so on. If you think these left wing zealots don’t follow that thinking you are living under a rock. There are already dozens of cities that belong to this group advocating for it. They say it’s only a recommendation but they will use all the power they have to force it onto you.
I believe cleaner air should be the goal of everyone. My father had COPD from smoking and I have second hand smoke effects as I age. But for people to think man is altering the climate in my opinion is a load of crap. Every prediction made about future climate issues is based on a computer simulation. A computer is nothing more than a device that spits out an answer using what ever information was programmed in and what ever data was entered. I could create a simulation saying the earth is doing cartwheels if I programmed the computer to do so.
What I live by: if a group of people purposely try to censor an opposing view then something is very wrong.
Congrats to the Free Press once again on reporting earlier than the other media! The San Jose Mercury News : Below is a copy and paste. https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/08/bay-area-scientist-says-he-left-out-the-full-truth-to-get-climate-change-wildfire-study-published-in-prestigious-journal/?utm_email=55F0C4A1A5D4B56434B90415B0&lctg=55F0C4A1A5D4B56434B90415B0&active=no&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mercurynews.com%2f2023%2f09%2f08%2fbay-area-scientist-says-he-left-out-the-full-truth-to-get-climate-change-wildfire-study-published-in-prestigious-journal%2f&utm_campaign=bang-mult-nl-pm-report-nl&utm_content=curated
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.
Honesty is the best way to go through life.
What an excellent story. Like so much in TFP, it is a breath of fresh air. We need academics like this to expose the institutions that abuse their positions as respected purveyors of science. This is the only way that the honest and truly scientific journals will be able to achieve that status. Much like TFP, when you get to experience real journalism it’s easy to see the difference compared to the crap that passes for journalism in the papers.
As a fairly right leaning conservative, I think Bari and her crew have hit the nail squarely on the head with TFP. It is my main source for news. Real news.
This has become a cottage industry. People sell their soul for money, power and prestige, get a “change of heart” and fall on their proverbial sword.
Examples: Frank Luntz, the guy who made so much money that he was able to build an EXACT REPLICA of the oval in his home, replete with priceless bits of history by coming up with cozy terms such as “death tax” and helping shape a lot of the divisions we have today.
Now he goes on tv and is shocked! Shocked, I tell you, about how we “don’t talk to one another “. It’s a lovely performance and of course, he’s able to turn on the tear machine quite effectively. It’s a load of crap.
To me, this gentleman is much the same. It’s not “brave” to decry an action after you’ve committed the act and reaped the benefits. It’s image management, plain and simple.
How do you prove your point by lying in order to get published? Is telling the truth a quaint custom of an age gone by? If he wanted to set the record straight, he should have contacted Nature and sent them the piece that ran in FP.