Scientist Shares That Climate Change Hysteria is Damaging More than ICE Ban Discussions

Patrick T. Brown wrote a story for The Free Press in which he admitted that he tailored his research on climate change so that it fit what Nature would publish. That said, his study on extreme wildfire behavior focused only on the influence that a worsened greenhouse effect has on such situations. However, he admits there were more important factors involved that he could not mention. If he did, the study would not be on Nature. His story invites us to acknowledge how absurd and biased all discussions have become these days – shockingly, even in scientific fields.

For any researcher to achieve academic recognition and receive more funds for their investigation efforts, they have to publish as many articles in Nature and Science as possible. There are other scientific publications around, but they are not considered as relevant. Framing that in a more crude way, it is as if the study was not good enough for Nature or Science. The problem is that the competition to publish in these outlets is so massive that scientists have to bet on what they usually approve – hence his focus.

Brown states that this has created a bias in scientific research that makes climate change look worse or more fundamental than it is. The scientist stressed that this phenomenon really does not look pretty. Yet, he argues that its effects have been vastly exaggerated. Wildfires are a good example.

Although his research focused on climate change effects, he knows that there are other factors playing a much more vital role in these events. According to Brown, 80% of all wildfires have been set by humans, accidentally or on purpose. On top of that, forest management would have a massive effect in preventing that. I'll give you a practical example from Portugal.

Every year, the government warns about the dangers involving wildfires in the summer. Several of the most destructive fires are the work of arsonists, and some of them are already on trial or in jail. When they are arrested, they are soon released to set fire to forests again. On top of that, Portugal still has fields filled up with eucalyptus, a tree that grows fast and burns even quicker. Politicians are now pushing for native trees to be planted more often, but that's just talk so far; there is no practical action to curb these fires. Summing up, forest management is still in discussion. In 2017, a fire in Pedrogão Grande killed 66 people, of which 30 died inside their cars while trying to escape the blaze. The pictures of the charred vehicles made headlines worldwide.

Brown seems tired of reading that climate change creates heat waves that kill millions of people and decrease agricultural production when that's the opposite. Nowadays, fewer people die from heat waves, and crop yields are increasing despite climate change. In other words, mankind is more prepared to deal with its effects than the official narrative wants us to realize.

If you are asking how that relates to the automotive world, that's pretty simple. Paris has recently announced it will eliminate asphalt in several streets to curb heat waves. That means several streets will cease to exist, being open solely to human traffic. The city will also plant more trees – which alone would help reduce heat. Again, cars were judged, convicted as villains, and banned without consideration for less radical options.

Think about the push for electrification. It is presented as the final solution for climate change and carbon emissions. However, transport as a whole contributes only 15% of all carbon emissions, which demonstrates passenger vehicles have just part of that responsibility. Include boats, airplanes, trains, and everything else that moves people or cargo, and they will still be limited to 15%. What about the other 85%?

What Brown's story stresses is that people deal with climate change in a rather Manichaeistic fashion: either it is the world's doom or something irrelevant. Considering other factors at play may be as relevant or even more crucial to solving issues – as Brown wanted to do – is seen as denialism, which is something he felt is restrictive and wrong. Brown abandoned his academic career to work for The Breakthrough Institute. This private nonprofit research center is not limited to this need for publishing on Nature or Science, and he is finally free to tackle essential subjects in a scientific fashion: based on evidence.

Meanwhile, if a dead whale washes ashore, it is due to climate change. If a colder winter kills more people in some places, that's climate change. Do we have more algae on beaches? Climate change. Name any deadly or unusual natural phenomenon, and it will have the same lazy excuse with the same cries for action. How dare you, right?

If we are serious about dealing with the impact humans have on the environment, why aren't we trying to establish an actual circular economy, with goods that last for longer and can be recycled more easily? It would be perfect to replace the current model of measuring financial success with higher sales volumes, which demand more and more resources. Yet, some people who claim to care for the environment want us to build hundreds of new mines, sell millions of battery electric cars, and keep business as usual – only without smog.

Climate change has to be addressed, but we must do it rationally. We can't pretend it is the one-size-fits-all cause of all bad things happening around us – particularly among scientists. Journalists have to challenge the easy explanations. That's what we are here for: to ask the difficult questions. To dig deeper. When journalism and science fail to do that, they lose credibility, which is their very foundation. We are already witnessing its erosion, and it is a pretty depressing show. As Nelson Rodrigues used to say, "All unanimity is stupid." I'd add that when it is used to guide any strategies, it is also hazardous.