Below is an excerpt of an intriguing article I found yesterday.
It’s by a climate researcher, who purposely left out portions of his article that did not go along with the climate change narrative. The reason he did that, to increase the likelihood of it being published in prestigious science journals.
It’s a travesty, and truly displays the manipulation at the upper tiers of society to conform to a specific narrative. It displays how everyone is willing to force their beliefs on you and how little value everyone places on free speech.
The excerpt…
In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.
Here’s how it works.
The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative—namely, that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic and that the primary way to deal with them is not by employing practical adaptation measures like stronger, more resilient infrastructure, better zoning and building codes, more air conditioning—or in the case of wildfires, better forest management or undergrounding power lines—but through policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
