I don’t need to explain my academic career to anyone because it has always been public, far beyond what is necessary and without consent. Persecutions and attacks inside and outside the “academy”, with extensive media monitoring of internal matters and highly reserved due to the secrecy of “justice”, among others, were the practice. Everything was carried out with the broad support or connivance of all authorities. After all, stifling a dissenting voice from the corrupt system and not evaluating or considering anything that has been said, presented and proven is part of the activities of those who aspire to be, or already are, members of the bestial system that is being formed, intensifying every day. If these agents, bodies of the beast, deeply understood “Ap.19:20” they would have already repented.
However, the worst thing was watching some say that I did all this for personal promotion, as if masochism, annihilation and self-flagellation were my desire. If they knew the meaning of double standards, constantly applied in this case, they would understand the true meaning of Justice. But let’s get to the point, because from the previous subject, the case was presented in detail and highly detailed in all its intricacies and annexes to the greatest of all courts: that of the Justice of God.
In September 2023, in the midst of so much fuss about “droughts”, heat and fires during the dry period that occurred across vast areas of Brazil, where the climate and its distribution of rains is governed by the Intertropical Convergence Zone in the North and in part of the Northeast, the presence of an arm of the semi-permanent anticyclone in the South Atlantic and the arrival, or not, of frontal systems, a subject that has been overlooked, but will be resumed here with excellence, as it always should be.
+ Read more news from the World in West
This is an article published by Patrick T. Brownat the The Free Press, titled “I left out the whole truth to publish my article about climate change.” According to his resume, Brown has a Ph.D. in Earth and climate sciences from Duke University, a master’s degree from San Jose State in meteorology and climate science, and a bachelor’s degree in atmospheric and oceanic sciences from the University of Wisconsin. He has worked on research at the Carnegie Institution, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the NASAthe United States aerospace agency.
Brown is an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University in the energy and climate policy program. He is currently co-director of climate and energy at the private center The Breakthrough Institute. Within the heating spectrum versus skeptics, he is clearly part of the first group, putting his total faith that “climate change” exists due to humanity. Therefore, we have already made it clear that this is one of the assumed members of the “people over there”.
The case of Professor Brown
With the introductions done, let’s move on to the text. Brown adds in the subtitle that he published his article in Nature (oh, the scientific magazine!) because he stuck to the “narrative” that he knew the editors would like and warned that science shouldn’t work like that. The reader already knows how much we have shown that the editorials of vehicles like this are completely declared against scientists from the skeptic group, labeling them “denialists”, a joking title given by the hoaxers, among other unpronounceable adjectives and qualifiers. This is very bad for a publication (and others) that claims to be scientific, considering that climatology, in addition to not being defined, has not yet offered us any evidence of contemporary climate “postulates”, but, precisely the opposite, has brought strong evidence that they are wrong.
More articles by Ricardo Felício
Brown begins his text by focusing on 2023 headlines from various media, such as The New York Times, Bloomberg, PBS News Hour, among others, which reported that forest fires and the smoke derived from them were increasing because of “climate change”. However, considering himself as a climate scientist, Brown reports that, by no means, human climate change, in his “warmingist” view, we emphasize, would be the main factor in a supposed increase in outbreaks, questioning what would motivate the press to highlight this so vehemently during that period.
He then asked that the reason should be the same as his for having been part of the plot that “rewards those who tell it”, showing that his prize was the publication of his article to count points for his career, considering that the system in force, commanded by companies like Google, elects the Nature as a highly prestigious magazine.
In his own words:
“The paper I just published — ‘Climate Warming Increases California’s Extreme Daily Wildfire Growth Risk’ — focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew I shouldn’t try to quantify other key aspects besides climate change in my research because that would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Sciencethey want to tell.”
This is the big problem today that has simply ruined science. It uses corrupt metrics that measure someone’s “scientific level” by the magazine they publish and not by the merit of the theme or subject, including the great relevance it may have for the true maturation of scientific knowledge or the resolution or understanding of problems in the explore the unknown of the natural world.
Read also: “Global warming? Capital of Norway records historic cold”
Science has simply become a bureaucracy, disguised as “doing science” and, like all bureaucracy, it exercises control. Thus, as absurd as it may seem, an entity external to a research institution, called private “journals”, governed by metrics from another external entity that is also private, are the ones who say what can or cannot be said by the researcher himself and its institution, most of the time, public. This is because we haven’t even addressed the topic of financing. Brown also reports this:
“(…) It is extremely important that scientists are publishing in high-level journals; in many ways, they are the guardians of professional success in academia. And the editors of these magazines made it very clear, both for what they publish and for what they rejectwho want climate articles that support certain pre-approved narratives – even when these narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.” (Our emphasis)
Here it becomes clear that the innovative concept of “academic production” was created to precisely limit dissenters and not to identify those who do nothing. Furthermore, science is not a factory to have production. The concept is pathetic!
So, guiding what will or will not be published means guiding the beginning of the process. It is the height of absurdity! Research is financed with public money and carried out simply with the aim of being published to enhance the career of any individual who admits to being included as an accomplice in this corrupt process. Science is over for science’s sake. It’s science for the prize, even better, with fat taxpayer salaries. Meanwhile, they create falsely scientific favors to the narrative that will cause drastic consequences in the future, both for the production of society and for the existence of humanity itself. The consequence of this complicity, as warned at the beginning, is to be a collaborator, no longer just with a bankrupt science, nor with nefarious geopolitical links, but actively as an agent of legitimizing the destruction of humanity, with all the weight this carries.
“Science” versus true
Having made this observation, let’s look at another bombastic and almost confessional point from Brown that addresses the diligence of instant success, much sought after today. As he received his doctorate relatively recently, in 2016, he highlights the importance of obtaining a “high prestige” publication at the beginning of your career, being almost essential to obtaining honors instead of ruin. “As for why I followed the formula despite my criticisms, the answer is simple: I wanted the research to be published in the most visible place possible.”
Read also: “Philosopher defends ‘slowing down’ science”
Can this point identify the formula for achieving academic success quickly and safely? Clearly yes, because framing the research in such a way that the false reality of “climate change” is understood in isolation as a precursor to anything. It is the norm for publishing in magazines described as “high prestige”. Brown reports:
“That’s how it works. The first thing a cunning climate researcher What you know is that your work must support the dominant narrative – namely, that the effects of climate change are both widespread and catastrophic and that the main way to deal with them is not by employing practical adaptation measures like stronger and more resilient infrastructure, better zoning and building codes, more air conditioning – or in the case of wildfires, better forest management or underground power lines – but through policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” (Our emphasis)
In addition to exposing the false success formula, Brown reports something that skeptical scientists have long drawn attention to. The general issues surrounding “climate change”, as anything can and will be attributed as its consequence and vice versa, reversing the cart before the horse. Even better if the narrative is overwhelming, catastrophic, destructive and lethal. What also catches our attention is the fact that he highlights the cunning necessary for this success. This is why it has never been a surprise to see interviews with climate “researchers”, especially the “renowned” ones here in Brazil, highlighting that they saw an opportunity in their careers and went that way. It wasn’t a genuine opportunity, it was opportunism!
Read also: “WHO director blames global warming for explosion of dengue cases in Brazil”
We will not exhaust the subject in this article, because some notable points require broader discussion, which will be carried out in the next block, especially with regard to the positioning of scientific journals in the face of issues like this and the terrible example of this success formula for so-called “young scientists”, especially when ambition is rooted in their souls.
In any case, it is becoming increasingly clear to society as a whole that “climate change” driven by “global warming” drives a trillion-dollar industry across the world. With figures in this house, narratives are bought, governments are bought, society is destroyed, humanity is destroyed.
Read also: “Amazonia in flames”, report by Anderson Scardoelli published in Edition 211 of Revista Oeste
