Maggie's Farm

OneGuy: This corruption is in everything now.

feeblemind: The rot is so deep and so pervasive that one wonders if things can ever be turned around?

None of this is new. Narrow and concise papers showing significant results have always been generally preferred for publication. Sometimes that does tend to leave out the messy truth. But it's not new. There's more pressure on the most prestigious journals, but there are plenty of other credible journals to publish some of the messier details.

Keep in mind that he says, "You might be wondering at this point if I’m disowning my own paper. I’m not." In other words, he says the paper is still correct, even if he doesn't think it tells the whole story. The paper finds: "So far, anthropogenic warming has enhanced the aggregate expected frequency of extreme daily wildfire growth by 25% (5–95 range of 14–36%), on average, relative to preindustrial conditions."

Notably, you didn't address our comments—or even Brown's article.

• Narrow and concise papers showing significant results are preferred by journals in all fields of study;
• There's more such pressure in prestigious journals;
• Brown says the article is correct, that wildfire growth is a significant result of climate change.

What Brown would have liked to have pointed out in the same article is that there are many other causes that contribute. There are other credible journals where such findings could be had. However, that may require a different type of evidence.

B. Hammer: So you believe that wildfires spontaneously combust?

They can. Some are ignited by lightning, but many can be directly linked to human activities. In any case, the study concerned wildfire growth.

B. Hammer: Aggregate expected frequency; a mishmash of words that is utterly meaningless.

So, you reject the study because you don't understand the terminology. But, you accept what the lead author says when it confirms your bias.

mudbug: The reality of this admission makes those "scientific journals" a joke. Science is not about a narrative.

Uh, maybe you're thinking of non-human science, but human science has always been fraught with preconceptions and biases.

mudbug: Definitely not a “human science” topic in generally “non human science” publications.

Brown's article is definitely about science generally. There's nothing inherently wrong with having a point of view (he's a member of the ecomodernist Breakthrough Institute), but he's suggesting he may have acted unethically in order to get published. It's not clear if he actually has evidence to support his other claims, but he could certainly publish them in a different journal or on his blog for that matter. Publication in a scientific journal, of course, assumes his claims are more than just opinions or rehashes of previous findings, but that he has novel scientific support.

Ironically, Brown links to a study in the prestigious PNAS about human-started wildfires. Apparently, such papers do get published.

You said, "Science is not about a narrative." But that is not correct. Science has often been about narratives; whether the evolution of life from common ancestors, the history of Earth's tectonic plates, or the emergence of the cosmos.

Challenging existing paradigms can get published, but that requires strong evidence, and editors will generally prefer any such paper to be concise and specific, which is both a strength and a weakness. Vague handwaving will rarely get published in credible journals.

But neither you or Brown have shown any evidence that this is something new.

mudbug: if the paper is supported by observations, experimental results, or statistics, real scientific journals should welcome studies that go against conventional understanding.

All we have is the paper Brown actually published, and his claim that he has found a wonderful proof but there is no room in the margin. Oh, and his admission that he tried to please the editors in order to get published. (You can decide for yourself if this was just the normal give and take with editors, toadying, or a breach of ethics.)