Written by via wattsupwiththat.com
If researchers were perfectly dispassionate reasoners with no motivations other than truth-seeking, their published papers could be taken as a direct, objective view into reality. But as I argued not long ago in an essay in The Free Press, that idealized notion of science is a fantasy. Stemming from a frustration that I felt about not being able to take high-impact climate science at face value, I decided to call out what I see as one problem: The highest-profile research is heavily influenced by cultural forces and career incentives that are not necessarily aligned with the dispassionate pursuit of truth.
n the realm of climate science, the focus is often on the environmental feedback loops that intensify global warming. However, the social feedback loops influencing the creation and dissemination of climate science are equally potent and far less scrutinized. These social mechanisms significantly shape the research landscape, often prioritizing narratives that align with certain political and social agendas over a balanced and comprehensive understanding of climate issues.
The Allure of High-Impact Publications and Their Consequences
Brown discusses how research, fundamentally a social endeavor, relies on communication through publications in peer-reviewed journals. The prestige associated with journals like Nature and Science significantly influences the research they choose to publish. These journals, acting as gatekeepers, preferentially select studies that support prevailing narratives, such as the imperative of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, as outlined in the Paris Agreement.