Climate Scientist Boasts About Fudging Own Paper

[@SabineHossenfelder]

This video comes with a quiz that you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1694407123286x542759127691838600

[@zxyatiywariii8]

Mahalo! 😊

[@omarjassar4650]

Does Earth's wobbly orbit around the sun effect climate change ??? And the universe was hot plasma , where did all the electrons come from ??? I ask because my understanding of plasma is a state of matter without electrons

[@patrickbarnes9874]

You end a story about illegitimate climate science by referring to "deniers". Have you ever considered the fact that "deniers" versus the mainstream of climate science are similar to you versus the mainstream of physicists? It reminds me of a story about a doctor and a lawyer reading a newspaper. The doctor says the newspaper got their article on medicine all wrong but I assume the article about the latest court case is accurate. And the lawyer says the newspaper didn't get the legal article right but he's sure the article on medicine is fine.

[@jannikheidemann3805]

@@omarjassar4650 Plasma contains and is held togeter by electrons. Some or all e move around freely. In a plasma the electrons can even have a different temperature than the ions.

[@omarjassar4650]

@@patrickbarnes9874 there is irrefutable scientific evidence that climate change is absolutely real going back hundreds of millions of years

[@xplorethings]

Sadly this is common across science. To publish and to conduct useful research are often two misaligned goals. It's why I preferred to go into the industry after finishing my PhD, the constant need to think "is this publishable/sellable" just doesn't fuel my curiosity.

[@semilog643]

Serious scientists do good work. Their work will be built on, and remembered. There are serious people and the rest in every walk of life.

[@MadsterV]

@@semilog643 serious business. everyone is serious. Some are seriously inflating their results too, in exchange for serious money.

[@sookendestroy1]

Smh big science did it again

[@Stopcolonizinglebanon]

You have fallen at the first hurdle. Rather go to the source and pay more attention to why he did what he did and less to the clickbait headline.

[@sookendestroy1]

@@Stopcolonizinglebanon people literally dont care about sources, they only care about how outrageous the headline is and whether it aligns with or goes against their existing bias

[@EvanKozliner]

I actually think this is great news. The peer review process needs a large amount of public criticism

[@metoo3342]

Yeah but you don't need to feed into climate change denialism while doing it.

[@bwalker4194]

The once gold-standard “peer review” has been compromised across all of academia. Doctors and scientists, in fear for their very jobs and reputations, choose to compromise their moral, ethical and critical thought ideals in lieu of continued employment and not being ostracised and/or cancelled in all of social media. Thank you Big Pharma.

[@gufpott]

Precisely. Public scrutiny is needed to keep science honest. We don't need back-slapping among little cliques of academics.

[@b-m605]

If you read the climategate emails from 2009. Actually read them, you would know that this has been going on from the beginning. SABINE'S COMMENT about the team being betrayed by someone speaking the truth is revealing. What kind of science involves team codes of silence to hide corruption?

[@sjsomething4936]

Agreed, with the caveat that the public review & criticism would need to be done by persons who have a strong understanding of the subject. Otherwise it’s prone to manipulation by external forces, especially industry and corporations who may not like what is being claimed in the research.

[@gewgulkansuhckitt9086]

I spoke with one of my biology professors once and his stance was that basically your paper has to take a very narrow, one-sided approach to maximize chances of being published even if a broader approach would be more accurate and more suited to expanding scientific knowledge. Specifically he wanted me to present one and only one possible explanation for a specific phenomena and act as though I utterly believed this explanation instead of producing multiple explanations with a plan for proving/disproving each of them. He explained that this was the correct way to do science papers. Truly I didn't know the correct explanation, so I approached it from multiple angles. There was one explanation (it turned out to be the right one) that I thought was most likely the correct explanation, but I didn't know that for a fact and didn't think it was ethical to pretend otherwise.

[@6Sparx9]

Notice how most studies since the pandemic looking into anything even slightly controversial had to include in their abstract the effectiveness of the jibjab and masking

[@reekinronald6776]

I recall my supervisor saying something similar after I handed one of my thesis chapters for review. He returned it with a mess of red ink and notes on the margins. He said "waffling" and using fuzzy words makes it impossible for the reader to understand the key points you are making. Use concise statements of thought and your ideas will be understood. He was correct.

[@machtnichtsseimann]

@@reekinronald6776 - Not the point of the OP. Ethically, why present one and only one explanation when multiple can be intelligently put forth and are valid? Yes, be concise in all explanations given,, but that is a point on communication, not truth itself. Keep the issues separate.

[@alegriart]

wouldn't you at least need to submit that this is one possible explanation - and not suggest that it was the only one?

[@timmarshall7292]

Why the Scientist confessed, in his own words: kzbin.info/www/bejne/joDMYZh_d9GWbrcsi=y51oaGmLZrvky7SB Climate Scientist cancelled: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i2GzgmSZhNF2gKssi=c3qhBEnLmK9RA6Wc The great sea level scare: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5SZhamEZs2pgaMsi=NtAzrGOf2Heo-sG5

[@FloThePro1231]

didnt the climate scientist achieve what he wanted? he showed that the article gets published even when other variables are not considered

[@kevinpils4716]

But since he has never submitted a version where all data was incorporated, he didn't prove anything. His paper, as he states himself, is still valid research.

[@aidan5097]

He argues that previously he had submitted numerous articles with nuanced arguments, he never managed to have those published. He submitted this article, deliberately ignoring nuance, to test a theory and was published. Anyone interested in the quality of research and publishing should be interested in this rather than being partisan.

[@mahbriggs]

​@@kevinpils4716 Valid as showing fraud!

[@Erndea]

​@@mahbriggsno, it isn't that simple. Arguments like yours are how we got here. More nuance is better.

[@nlingrel]

Yes he did. But he said the quiet part out loud.....

[@EvidentlyChemistry]

Not commenting on Brown or Nature specifically. However, Nature Energy is notorious for apparently prejudicial choices about what papers to review, selection of reviewers, etc. If the Journals are not publicly called to task, how will this ever be improved? As many have noted, this is likely to be hugely detrimental to Brown's career. A whistleblower with no system to protect him. Thank you for your quality content.

[@kevinpils4716]

If there is some bias it should be possible to back these claims with solid evidence. The way Brown did it is laughable - all he did was state his opinion. No evidence at all. I totally agree with you that any bias should be eliminated, but first of all this bias needs to be demonstrated.

[@b-m605]

​@kevinpils4716 Sabine's statement about him betraying the team should be evidence enough that the science is corrupt. Which kind of science involves team loyalty over loyalty to truth? How do we trust that kind of science? If you actually read his posts, he is just speaking the truth out loud. No agenda or sense that he is a whistle blower. He has no idea that his career is now over.

[@kevinpils4716]

@@b-m605 He is speaking his opinion, not the truth. He hasn't provided any evidence for his claims and even one of his co-authors said so. Nature and independent researchers quickly pointed to recently published papers that go against his alleged bias. Read the reviewers' comments and his response. They pointed out the flaws but he defended them and said that this paper is just a first step of ongoing research, i.e. that there will be more papers with more variables included. He is being dishonest.

[@ronarnett4811]

@@kevinpils4716 I don't think you understand just who Brown is and all the papers he has published in the past. He says he has demonstrated his point by getting this paper published in that particular journal. He says that he has submitted numerous papers which didn't get published. Once he downplayed everything except the anthropogenic factor, it got published. What else can he do to prove it to your satisfaction?

[@kevinpils4716]

@@ronarnett4811 Exactly, HE SAYS he has. It is his opinion. He has shown no proof, he has shown no evidence. The reviewers' comments directly contradict his story. The amount of recent studies that go against his alleged bias contradict said bias. Stop with this unscientific bullsh*t of trying to raise his opinion to a fact. If you want to criticize scientific publishing do it with solid evidence and in a meaningful way. What Brown did is laughable.

[@jimmoses6617]

The author wrote a long paper explaining his actions. Well worth the read. We need more Toms in the climate change public discussion. It's in the NY Post and perhaps elsewhere. Though I doubt other MSM outlets would publish his letter for the exact same reasons and pressures he describes in his letter

[@MiniLuv-1984]

"Junk food tastes better when eaten near a rubbish bin" - classic!

[@jeddaniels2283]

A classic bitch, against who I wonder?

[@garycole715]

Unfortunately this is expected from the puppets. Haha

[@jayr526]

I find a serious flaw in this reasoning. How does one distinguish between what's in the fast food bag in the rubbish container? Would be very concerned about the diner becoming confused as to what the main course is.

[@kaboom4679]

The packaging may be your only clue .

[@64standardtrickyness]

Taste is very subject to environment the popular question why is airline food so bad? is answered by the conditions of being inside an airplane kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6vTZJ6Lasmjjac "how your taste buds perceive flavour of food is influenced by few major factors including humidity, air pressure, your sense of smell, and weirdly enough, your hearing"

[@NZ-fo8tp]

Hi Sabine, you are making a real change in science communication and I love it. There are so many science communicators that have not put in the time in academia to develop a eye for what matters and what doesn’t. It would really cool to see a deep dive in your normal format into a particular piece of research you have published in the past, with the skills you have developed as a presenter over the last few years. I think what interests me most about fundamental physics is the process of model selection and how we can deduce natural language explanations of the universe from mathematical models. As an systems engineer, I use models all time that tell me almost nothing about the systems I use but are convenient math tools to get a job done

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks for the suggestion, I will think about this. (Not an easy request...)

[@rimbusjift7575]

​@@SabineHossenfelder The click-baity, artard luring thumbnail was the last straw for me. Blocked.

[@mki2xa]

​@@rimbusjift7575desperately looking for attention. You're Blocked.

[@CAThompson]

@@rimbusjift7575 This isn't a rocket launch, no need to announce your departure.

[@jayr526]

​@@CAThompsonif it were a Kershaw Launch, it should be announced. They are great knives.

[@larisam6755]

Congratulations, Sabine, on reaching 1 mln subscribers! I hope even more people will enjoy your super educational and fun channel.

[@fulconerra3055]

About the climate scientists tweaking his paper: This is precisely what is happening at the Wageningen university. It is even condoned by the directors, they call it scientific activism.. a shame for science!

[@Krunchtastic727]

I mean were were right about to reach the point were we had so little carbon in our atmosphere that plants couldn't survive and here we are nasty humans putting carbon into the atmosphere to allow for plants to thrive. Wow such dumb humans am I rite!

[@NineInchTyrone]

INSANE. NOT EVEN WRONG !

[@laughingalex7563]

It seems activism in general has become nothing but panic based vandalism, a bad paper is all it takes to set back the fight against climate change decades, and could be the killer of humanity.

[@Soosheon]

Anything to boost funding lol

[@svdgnl]

Yeah I press X for doubt on your story. Wageningen university isn’t known for really caring about environmental issues. They are an agricultural university.

[@eljcd]

We are one million. We are one million! Congratulations, Dr.

[@Frostbiker]

If a scientist "single-handedly damaged the reputation of his entire discipline" then that discipline isn't as robust as it should be. I read his arguments and found them poignant and nuanced. Rather than worrying about reputation perhaps we should address his criticism of the role of journal editors.

[@gufpott]

Yes, I'd be much more interested in views about how to achieve best practice. Not interested in hearing about "disappointment". Disappointment suggests focus in in the wrong direction.

[@jasondashney]

Yeah that phrase got me too. For some reason, the climate has turned into religion with hard-core zealots on both sides. She shows which side of the religion she's on here.

[@6Sparx9]

@@jasondashney well duh she calls it a climate crisis so obviously she's on the globalist side on this one.

[@alegriart]

haha good one! yes should it be this easy to upset the apple cart?

[@alegriart]

I think he revealed something else that Sabine doesn't want to state - that is journals are too quick to publish anything that solidifies the argument that climate change is hurtling the planet towards catastrophic events

[@bodiless99]

Brown knows how to play the game. "Climate science" only gets published if it toes the party line.

[@Book-bz8ns]

Which isn't science.

[@BeholderThe1st]

Especially in the most 'reputable' papers.

[@jasondashney]

"singehandedly", haha. Right. As if this guy is the only one. It's so interesting to me how this particular subject makes people abandon scientific rigour on such a mass level. Evern she does. The tell is "climate denier". That's a religious phrase, not a scientific one.

[@TuesdaysThursdays]

@@jasondashney they are heretics.

[@lachlanscanlan5621]

@@jasondashney exactly anybody using the denier pejorative is either deliberately misleading or clueless about what science is

[@frankbieser]

I remember when that paper came out, and there were a lot of critics of it for those reasons. I wonder if Brown did it on purpose to reveal the problem in scientific publishing today, where journals lean towards sensationalized articles (much like any entertainment journal). This was demonstrated to be true for journals that focus on research in the humanities (see the 20 fake papers published by James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian). Now we have evidence it happens in hard science journals too. Sadly, not surprised that it would happen in areas that are politically charged/controversial.

[@WahrheitMachtFrei.]

If you're surprised by this, you've not been paying close enough attention for about a decade.

[@nonamenoname1942]

The real sad thing is that those who profits fromthis kind of obscurantism threat science and scientists like cr-a-p, like servants. We are, Humanity, never gonna explore and populate the Universe with people like that, NEVER! We are jailed here, doomed to fight with each other for crumbs.

[@waysworth]

the journals were very quick to refute Brown's statements... even quicker than they were to publish his sensationalized paper.

[@geraldfrost4710]

More fodder for climate deniers? Nah. When someone makes a cause and effect paper about a complex system, and only uses one variable, that person has already admitted their bias. For example, as ice cream consumption goes up, shark bites increase. Conclusion: ban ice cream! That's an example of false correlation and a dumb conclusion, but no worse than some made by both climate zealots and deniers.

[@frankbieser]

@@waysworth Of course they were. A journals value is directly tied to their reputation. Being caught publishing bad papers hurts them deeply. Just like those humanities journals that were bamboozled. In their case, they attacked the paper writers for sending them dishonest papers, overlooking the fact that it was their editor's one job to weed out the crap. LOL

[@TheSirse]

Your sense of humour is so sharp and the content is fantastic. I love your videos!

[@timothyvincent7371]

As a retired chemist and long time spectrometrist I accept Sabine's apology but must inform her that we have known about the quantum nature of chemistry for quite some time now. The news about O-28 is quite surprising; I'll have to look that up as I didn't quite follow the pathway as Sabine presented it. I'm sure it expands on my chart of the nuclides (of the knuckleheads, as we say in the business). As for free neutrons (called "zoomies" in the business) a couple of feet of water between two panes of leaded glass is usually sufficient shielding while allowing a good view of the fun.

[@oldoddjobs]

As a

[@felixmoore6781]

@@oldoddjobs As someone

[@armara70]

​@@oldoddjobsIt's called Arguement from Authority.

[@pappaflammyboi5799]

As for free neutrons, a mere sheet of paper will do the trick.

[@breezywilson760]

both paper and water will BLOCK the free neutrons and you wont get off.

[@illeism9119]

Thank you, Sabine, for making science content that is not only informative but also entertaining! Your videos are a true delight! 🚀🔬🌌

[@deepnofin]

2 + 2 = 5 ♫♥

[@captaincapitalism264]

@@deepnofin According to that 'scientist' who fudged climate science data, exactly.

[@drfirechief8958]

One of the many things I love about your channel is the way things are explained and humor is always around the corner. I also think that you help explain to me the difference between data and information. Like a describing a hammer and a nail is data. Information is what you can do with the data.

[@grahamnumber7123]

Sadly she avoids that actual science and choses media propaganda instead and personal attacks at such smart people like Prof Jordan Peterson. Who can also read literature. here it is exposing her channel has great content to also hide the big secret the big lie. It's not because she cites the attack dogs the guy already exposed. I am not sure Sabine agrees with the entire media system, since it owns her narrative and it's controlled by the private banking elite. The same system that funded the rise of Hitler but also the suffering of the German people trying escape the Banking cartel. Anyone can see how Churchill was hell bent on a war because of course a country escaping control from the fraudsters would not be a good thing for them. anyway back to Science and not the reality of why it's compromised.- Here's an example. Sabine knows (because she's not an idiot) that if she would actually READ the science arguments against climate activism/alarmism, she would not be so derogatory or ignorant to call anyone who exposes the lies and major flaws in "the narrative" as a climate change denier. That's like saying a wind denier, day and night denier. I think the term is Gaslighting. So let's "google past co2" Images and we find the great hockey stick of measured CO2 added onto the ice core record. Over and over again. The "Hockey stick" ""Consensus" Using NASA GISS website as an example as an Official source and checking their source. (links are not allowed) they claim for a Millennia, CO2 has never been over this line (and that line is about 280PPM Parts per million). (search 200033381_Climate_and_atmospheric_history_of_the_past_420000_years_from_the_Vostok_Ice_Core) Checking the actual data they cite from Vostok ice core data on page 434 it actually shows CO2 increase LAGS temperature rise by some 600 years +/-400years. How inconvenient - with a caveat of course that it's too early to tell due to a course record" (actually good science) Also some problems with the claim CO2 was not over the claimed level of 300PPM by NASA GISS and pages 2k ad all the other rehashing the deception for their pay checks. Oh look it's a big fat lie that "For millennia, atmospheric CO2 hass never been over this line" (1 spike touching 300PPM) (citation nasa GISS website "how do we know" (a LOT wrong with Mr Gavin Schmidt who runs the GISS but that's another topic. As seen here - it's a lie- 380PPM 500AD pg 57 Kouwenberg, L. L. R. (2004). Application of conifer needles in the reconstruction of Holocene CO2 levels. Here- circa 425PPM circa 12750 yrs ago- Fig 8 compared to why GISS use misleading and false data: Steinthorsdottir, M., Wohlfarth, B., Kylander, M. E., Blaauw, M., & Reimer, P. J. (2013). Stomatal proxy record of CO 2 concentrations from the last termination suggests an important role for CO 2 at climate change transitions. Quaternary science reviews, 68, 43-58. And here as recently as

[@lanierosenberg]

RE: Patrick Brown - The very first time I read about "global warming" was in the magazine Scientific American, which would have been back in the 1970's or 1980's, I was puzzled by the lack of discussion on the obvious benefits. The article talked only about the negative consequences of global warming. As someone who hates cold weather, I could think only of the benefits of less snow and ice. Warmth does not cause car crashes, broken bones from slipping on ice, deaths from freezing if the heat goes out, etc. Warmer winters would result in less salt and other harmful chemicals being spread on roadways, less use of fossil fuels to heat homes and businesses and longer growing seasons for food and other green plants. This lack of discussion of both sides of the issue made me instantly skeptical of the motives of the author and publisher. I remain so. Dr. Brown was right to question the scientific integrity of the publisher.

[@spazoq]

With much of the land mass on earth non-agricultural due to short summers, a warmer planet could double the number of acres we could grow food on. Imagine growing crops over half of Russia. The planet could handle 10 times as many humans.

[@roygardner2374]

One possible disadvantage is some far north building foundations are designed with the depth of the permafrost in mind. The buildings might subside.

[@philhogan5623]

What about people who live in warm climates who's land will become uninhabitable? Or people in low-lying coastal areas? The harm from global warming far outweighs the benefits to a select few, if any.

[@RustyWalker]

@@philhogan5623That's why it's called "global" warming and not "the bit of the globe where I happen to live" warming.

[@spazoq]

@@philhogan5623 We aren't talking 10 degrees here, we are talking 1 to 1.5. No place on earth becomes "uninhabitable" with that. And low-lying coastal areas won't see any change for 1000 years. This is all overblown hype. Anyone that believes we will be using the same power sources we have now in even 200 years without any massive attempt to force those changes because of some dreamed up "we are going to ruin the earth" excuse have never looked at history at all.

[@jeffgriffith9692]

Sabine, just wanted to clarify the other side a bit - it's not that they deny climate change it's that they deny man is a major factor and that there's much we can do. If you're told that 1 international plane flight is more emissions than driving your entire life, you start to wonder what's really important and why things are changing. It's not to be green most of the time, it's for control and power - and the "rules" don't apply to them, only the lower class people (us).

[@kaasmeester5903]

It doesn’t sound like mr. Brown is boasting about fudging his paper, he admits doing it, explains why, and points out the problems with the publishing process. Seems to happen a lot though. Even the summary of some of the IPCC reports were fudged to be more alarmist, much to the chagrin of some of the scientists who worked on it. And some of what scientists told us about COVID turned out to be plain lies, and they knew that. Politics has firmly embedded itself in some branches of science, and it’s a worrying development. If we can’t trust scientific institutions anymore, what is left to trust?

[@robonator2945]

"I intentionally did the study poorly to get nice and clean results that would be easily digestable and marketable" "no, no, NO, YOU DID IT RIGHT, WE VERIFIED IT" "I literally wrote the study, am I tellin-" "NO, IT WAS RIGHT GOD DAMNIT, WE *_ARE_* THE SCIENCE"

[@martinherald6492]

Yes... By the way, that looks remarkably like a definition of an ideologically indoctrinated mind lol...

[@martinherald6492]

Correction: The diagnosis of an ideologically indoctrinated person (the respondent).

[@knerduno5942]

The science is settled!

[@tc539]

see complete bs there ya go hippys. go hug a whale while i drive my v8

[@Espadasilenciosa]

You're misrepresenting the situation. There are valid criticisms for that scientist's claims, who hadn't really proved his point about journal bias: -A smaller scope topic ("effects of climate change in wildfires") is as valid as paper topic as a big one ("all factors of wildfires"). I admit the later has more intrinsic value, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the former. -He hasn't proved this "simplified paper" lacked publishing quality. As I understand, he never sent the full paper and hadn't got the chance of being rejected, so it may have been published. -According to Nature, its reviewers suggested him to analyze the other factors (they were mentioned but not analyzed in his paper). -Other papers that aren't focused on Global Warning or that disconnects its effects from specific phenomena has been published on Nature and similar journals. From my point of view, the only bias Patrick T. Brown has proved are his own.

[@xIPatchy]

Hey Sabine, when you spoke of the reason for why noble gases were named as such, it struck me as an odd explanation, and I remembered hearing that same explanation back in high school chemistry. But it struck me as a little odd. It kind of makes sense, but in a transcendental sort of way. The defining feature of "noble" gases is that they are inert. In fact, they used to simply be categorized as "Inert gases". But that term had to be replaced in 1962 when it was discovered by Neil Bartlett that Xenon did indeed react with Platinum hexafluoride, proving that group 18 elements (noble gases) weren't completely inert. The term was then decided to be replaced with "noble" in reference to another group of elements, noble metals. This fit well, because noble metals are known for their defining feature of being resistive (but not totally so) towards corrosion, among other unique properties. As for where noble metals got their name, wikipedia claims the term dates as far back as the 14th century. However the reference for this claim is a dead link. If it were to be true, then maybe the term originated in alchemy, and somehow survived the advent of modern science and the field of chemistry. My best guess is that it's due to the association between the most prominent noble metals(gold, platinum, and silver) and the wealth of nobility.

[@JohnShalamskas]

Noble men refuse to associate with or touch the rabble. That's where the term "noble" comes from in chemistry.

[@xIPatchy]

​@@JohnShalamskas I'm not sure you read my post, I'm fully aware of that supposed explanation. I'm saying that looking at the historical context of science, the term more than likely couldn't have originally meant that. Just like the terms "noble art" and "noble profession" quite literally referred to actual professions and arts that nobles practiced, whereas nowadays they've taken up completely different meanings of morality and wholesomeness, due to the word noble having two very different definitions. The connection between nobles not associating with rabble and a group of elements that don't interact chemically quite literally didn't exist when they term supposedly already existed, it's a quirk of the english language that allowed the connection to be made after the fact. I'm sure there's a term for this kind of thing happening within the english language, where terms and phrases change their very definitions due to a cultural, regional or historical change in context.

[@ZeroPlayerGame]

@@xIPatchy Well, alchemy knew noble metals were hard to tarnish or dissolve - that's why the secret to immortality was often sought in gold - so I'm not sure the connection didn't exist.

[@netgnostic1627]

@xlPatchy - I think your explanation makes more sense than the other

[@eekee6034]

Interesting. :) Smol correction: platinum wasn't very valuable until industry started using it in the 20th century.

[@andreass2301]

Demonstrating that the peer review process is completely broken is a good thing.

[@francoisleyvraz3920]

Not really: the reviewers did pick up on the problem The isseue, in this case, seems to be Nature. And, of course, the author,

[@archiedentone5950]

​@@francoisleyvraz3920it goes deeper than that in things that are at best still not fully understood becoming scientific orthodoxy "scientific consensus" I can't think of anything more anti-science

[@drbachimanchi]

My daughter is 9 months now..i hope she will grow up to be like you.. brilliant funny and with a lot of conviction.

[@gabor6259]

Don't hope. Make it so.

[@asdu4412]

Any blow to the credibility and prestige of the for-profit scientific publishing industry is a net good in my book.

[@mark8161-b2d]

I appreciate that Brown Patrick has a conscience. He only expressed what those of us in science and academia are well familiar with.

[@lawrencejwinkler]

I read the initial study and read the edited study as Brown is responding to the reviewers and making modifications. Brown's study is being modified daily. @robonator2945 comment in which he fictitiously quotes the participants makes a strong case of how clueless non-scientists are. I've not seen what Brown actually said, so I'm sure it's not been accurately reported -- like when has the Press ever really reported science stories accurately? BTW, Nature has a couple of journals dedicated to Climate science, but this Brown study was published in the main Nature journal whose audience is typically the more general public --- maybe people like college grads and undergrads with an interest in getting into the field. The paper includes the computer code, written in MatLab (which many universities provide licenses for) and references to many climate science open source software simulation packages available. This study seems quite useful for getting practice in reproducing the study results, learning to use a couple of the many numerical packages Matlab offers, and extending the results with more complete data. The paper has supplemental links to GitHub with instructions on how to install Matlab on your own computer and the necessary Matlab libraries and the raw data used. All this is just good publication practice as suggested in the report "Developing a Toolkit for Fostering Open Science Practices: Proceedings of a Workshop (2021)" by National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.

[@johnjdumas]

The biggest fudges are not publishing papers without results. The conclusions based on multiple self-selected studies would seem to lack reliable confirmation.

[@Dave_of_Mordor]

What do you mean by reliable information? What is it lacking?

[@douginorlando6260]

Junk climate science fraud tastes better when everyone in academia who takes a bite is promoted. I remember a few years ago when the IPCC was claiming the earth’s Oceans were warming and all 12 of their science models proved this was happening … and then comprehensive sea surface temperature measurements from a new satellite proved the oceans had not increased temperature and all 12 climate models were wrong. IPCC then said the warming occurred deep in the ocean depths, not on the surface. The top Harvard professor who’s published research was recently exposed was based on fabricated false data. This proves academia rewards fraud. As long as you don’t get caught as a fraud, you will rise to the top ranks.

[@timothyrussell4445]

What lacks reliable confirmation is the BS spouted by climate change deniers: no one can reliably confirm BS because it’s BS

[@johnjdumas]

The studies that had no results. Studies which do not show significant results do not get published. Imagine doing a metastudy based on papers that only showed one side. @@Dave_of_Mordor

[@pseudonayme7717]

@@Dave_of_MordorHe said 'reliable confirmation' Dave, not 'information'

[@benhuffington8482]

I love your courage. Reminds me of my late mom. Doesn't matter what people think when you're right.

[@jcboyle82]

But, like…what if she isn’t? Have you considered that?

[@salganik]

The disappointing part of that forest fire paper is that its author is using non-scientific reasoning to prove his claims. (1) Statistics matters. And the vast majority of papers discussing climate are not actually claiming anything about its sources. They just present novel models and observations. (2) It is super strange to call biased the reviewers who actually suggested to include more factors. The author decided to make his analysis simpler, the reviewers agreed with his claims about small effects of other factors and agreed to publish the paper with mentioned limitations. Reviewers cannot improve paper analysis themselves, it is not their job. Meanwhile, the author failed to show that a similar study with more factors considered would be rejected.

[@eonasjohn]

Thank you for the science news.

[@kateapple1]

Thank you for your comment. 😂😂😂😂

[@eonasjohn]

@@kateapple1 do you suffer from mental Illness ? I am quite concerned.

[@Teth47]

On that climate paper thing. It almost seems as if the guy is trying by example to point out problems in the way papers are chosen and published by large publishing organizations. Almost. I think that would be a good lesson to take from this, that that's something that at least should be looked into. The obvious lesson of "Don't make your paper worse for clout" is obvious.

[@kevinpils4716]

Then he should have tried to get another version of his paper published. The way he did it he didn't prove anything at all.

[@bernddasbrodt8533]

@ Teth47 I also thought maybe he did it with good intentions but executed it badly...

[@alexandreavon]

Although it is not properly fraud, this case illustrates all main constants of fraud: - funders with a clear idea of what they want the results to be - hence results perfectly in line with the funders ideas that are generally the consensus, at least to a local extent - stakes in terms of power, not in terms of money.

[@dustynuts4sale]

Yes, I'm thankful I'm not the only one who "felt" that notion. And perhaps Sabine also wanted to draw light to it for this very reason.

[@robertjennings397]

@@kevinpils4716 It did prove he lacks integrity.

[@JC_923]

I'm surprised by the amount of comments about how this guy destroyed the reputation of his field. He didn't. It's not like he conducted a rigorous experiment and proved anything. His paper got accepted and he decided to attribute that to a reason but he had absolutely nothing to back it up. I'm not saying his claim is wrong btw. I'm saying he has done nothing to prove his claim. The fact that people thought he did something simply shows their inability to think critically without letting their biases taking over. It's like a guy submitting a photo of a dog to a photography competition and got selected to be in top 10 and he said this is proof that people unfairly let photos of dogs win.

[@loganbrown9520]

From what it looks like, the point of the climate paper was to expose bias, and I wouldn't necessarily say the author was being an enemy. What does concern me is his wording about controlling variables to get 'cleaner' results. It makes me wonder how many other papers do the same thing and neglect important variables while overemphasizing others just to get published. That's on the verge of cherrypicking data.

[@bonnie115]

But he didn't expose bias - he simply showed he could get a paper with cherry picked variables published. He didn't show that without that cherry-picking the paper wouldn't have been published.

[@FrostedCreations]

@@bonnie115 That's not really the point, a paper with cherry picked data shouldn't have been published in the first place

[@kevinpils4716]

@@FrostedCreations It is still relevant research and from the discussion with the reviewers it is clear that incorporating other variables is hard. In an interview Brown even said he sees this paper as a first step of ongoing research. It is completely normal to publish findings that can stand for themselves even though the method can still be refined. I wouldn't call this cherry-picking data.

[@yamishogun6501]

Patrick Brown was actually being honest this time, whereas a few years ago he said that all climate scientists think that humans have caused between 90% and 110% of warming over the past century. They do not. According to a very large survey in 2015, only 30% of climate scientists agree with this. Brown used to be a climate alarmist as he assumed warming would increase by over 4C by 2100 where only 3% of climate scientists polled believe this likely.

[@ivoryowl]

I'd argue corruption and self-interest are probably the biggest threats of our time due to how widely (and intrinsically) spread they have become. Institutions, careers, ideals, values, justice, politics, even information! Nothing remains untouched. Everything nowadays is governed by greed, emotions, agendas and bias, instead of critical thinking, objectivity and nuance...

[@Paremata]

I just got quoted to me beween 65% and 130% a couple of days ago on Sam Harris video. It didn't make sense to me for it to be this much. I would think that would mean that all natural forcing had no impact. Can you link me to that 2015 survey?

[@ivoryowl]

@@Paremata I would like to see it as well but I'm not sure if they will be able to. KZbin's algorithm is very aggressive at taking down posts that look "suspicious"... Anything with a link probably won't even go through. KZbin is not the best place to be having a serious, long winded discussion and sharing surveys and data as evidence of what is being told.

[@yamishogun6501]

@@Paremata top of page 8 of the report www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

[@richardprice8348]

The publishing of that climate paper is not the main problem. The problem is the disreputable action of putting forth a scientific paper that the author knew was bad science just to get a paper published. By the way, Sabine, The question is not whether the earths climate is changing because it has been changing at least since the planet developed an atmosphere and an ocean but there are many serious and well recognized scientists including Nobel Laurates who question the extent, if any, that human activities have any serious impact on the changes and what is being clamed by the lunatic fringe.

[@rickmcintosh1771]

Don't you mean the political fringe ?

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

I live in California. We know that fallen power lines and lightning can cause wildfires. (It normally rains only in winter so by late summer forests and grasslands are bone dry. Southern California Edison will preemptively cut power in fire prone areas.)

[@coreym162]

I approve of this as a fellow Californian.

[@hsnopesium]

It's hard to say I "Like" a video about people lying, especially in science on such a topic. But I do very much like your reporting!

[@elysium619]

LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, weekly science news. Didn't think I could love Sabine's offerings more, but hey!! Even more in love. Sabine's humor is brilliant and spot on! Brava, Sabine!

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

I just wanted to say that there's a study by a statistician that shows that the results in bio/social high-impact journals are not really any more likely to be correct than in low-impact journals, and some specific h-i journals are actually more likely to be wrong.

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

I should say, the context to this is that in the past 10 years understanding of quantitative methodology has increased a lot in bio/social circles, but the people who got very popular doing research the old, wrong, p-hacking way are exactly the ones who became editors of high-impact journals. If you're an actual expert in your field and in quantitative methodology it's not hard to tell them apart, but individual people and even just professionals who aren't specialized shouldn't be trying to interpret studies for decisions that have a real-world impact.

[@alegriart]

makes sense ----- good reason to use a deeper search tool that isnt affected by popularity algorithms

[@rashkavar]

Oh the story about oxygen 28 is super interesting. I've long been of the opinion that science gets more out of the "...that's weird..." results rather than the "aha, exactly as predicted" results, so I have high hopes for oxygen 28's surprising lack of stability leading to a bunch of theoretical refinement at the very least. And there's always the slim chance that its explanation turns out to be the gateway to the next big theory. (Previous "big theories" being things like Newtonian dynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics and so on.) I'm not too hopeful it's the latter - big shifts in how people understand physics aren't exactly common events in history - but after all the hype about purely mathematical theories like String theory, it'd be really cool to see physicists getting excited about some groundbreaking new thing that actually has some unique experimental evidence to back it up.

[@jovetj]

It most definitely does. Science cannot rationally prove things correct. But it can prove things wrong, and sometimes it doesn't take much.

[@danielnln]

Patrick Brown is correct about publishing scientific articles. James Lindsay proved this theory when he published the 'dogs display toxic masculinity in dog parks'

[@UsernameInvalid48]

This is actually good that hopefully the public now has a bit more understanding of how biased these journals are.

[@jimmcneal5292]

So basically this scientist did a good thing, demonstrating how so-called 'scientific consensus' about global warming is made. Because of politization of this issue we can't really know how bad it even actually is, or if it is accelerating or slowing.

[@Paremata]

It's always been that way. It's called uncertainty. We do know pretty accurately the climate has warmed .7 Celsius since 1980 just not how much is caused by humans.

[@metoo3342]

@@Paremata The climate has been increasing near lock step with the amount of carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere for decades. We also know that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is being caused directly by humans because of its unique isotope. There is no other mechanism going on in the world that could cause such a sudden shift in global climate besides the carbon dioxide currently being emitted.

[@Paremata]

@metoo3342 So there was cooling from 1940 to 1970. But emissions were obviously continuously increasing. Correlation is not necessarily causation. Scientists do not all agree that the majority of warming is from humans. If you only listen to one group of scientist and the media then you won't know that there is uncertainty among them. There are natural cycles that happen over a decade, multidecadel and over centuries but now we are saying it all humans.

[@AnOriginalYouTuber]

My biggest problem with global warming/climate change is the *ignorance and profiteering* from activists, politicians, and the media. I focus on the models and data. They predict a range of possibilities instead of a worldwide sea level rise of 6 ft by 2020! One is honest. One is dishonest.

[@hurmzz]

As a chemist I don’t mind my field being absorbed by another. Just means my field expanded. And into a rather interesting one too.

[@Ed-quadF]

The climate scientist Brown did not damage the reputation of his discipline at all. (my opinion only) When your funding comes from repeatedly saying, "the sky is falling" you've reached the center of the argument. Here's a remedy, go plant a tree. That means You, go plant a tree. (yes I've done that.)

[@robertpendzick9250]

A tree will only capture CO2 prior to its decay, when it will all be re-released. So the roof of Notre Damn captured CO2 for a few hundred years and then when burning released it in in the most inconvenient time.

[@l0zerth]

You're still assuming that deforestation/carbon release is an actual issue, let alone the primary one. The claim not only has to be that the sky is falling, but we evil human are knocking down the pillars holding it up, and everything would be perfect, except for us existing.

[@Fulschermd]

“Climate change denier” is term that takes a wide range of people with diverse questions about the science and lumps them all together as a single data point.. which makes it easier to be dismissive of the questions they pose. That is unscientific, unless your science is that of rhetoric. The fact that he DID get published without any serious scrutiny about additional variables… kinda proves his point. Doesn’t it?

[@hmmmblyat]

Congratulations on 1.000.000 Subscribers!

[@BeholderThe1st]

Patrick T. Brown said the quiet part out loud. The incentives around this scientific discipline fuel the narrative and hurt actual scientific pursuit. He isn't the only one playing at that game. This is the real Inconvenient Truth.

[@justinsmith2363]

Dipping fluorine into liquid hydrogen to make oxygen 6:55 ? What are they claiming here exactly? That hydrogen is a catalyst for an ATOMIC reaction? Why not make gold from mercury rather?

[@annaczgli2983]

I just read the article that Patrick Brown, the climate scientist wrote in "The Free Press" - the one that started all this brouhaha. It's well written & quite eye-opening. I never knew so much nuance gets excised when publishing a paper in a prestigious journal. Really makes you wonder how deep the problem is.

[@traianmusatescu7191]

well, egg all over the climate alarmism face. of course they ignore on purpose water clouds/albedo/greenhouse effect in order to paint co2 as the main culprit. but who cares

[@stuart207]

Follow the money.

[@NineInchTyrone]

It is VERY deep

[@ezbody]

Science is self-correcting, and it fully expects human behavior from the human scientists. If only all other human institutions were as "corrupt" as science is, our progress would be much faster.

[@nova_supreme8390]

I wonder when journals go the route of social media platforms and the titles on papers will become pure clickbait.

[@MCsCreations]

Thanks a bunch for the news, Sabine! 😊 But yeah, sometimes it's good to know what the biases are to expose possible future frauds. It has been happening a bit too much lately... Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

It was not about fraud it was about simplify the paper in an dishonest way so it gets easier to publish. It was not about data being fraudulent or anything wrong with the analysis.

[@esecallum]

More climate change fraud by any other name....

[@kayakMike1000]

​@@lubricustheslippery5028 Is it okay to fudge data for whatever reason?

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

@@kayakMike1000 He didn't fudge data!

[@jasonpapai]

I would suggest scientists manipulating the system to get published or funding is much more widespread than we think

[@jeptoungrit9000]

He didn't damage the reputation of his entire field. It damaged itself with fraudulent practices. He just let everybody else in on what was happening.

[@theinstituteofmonkeygunvio2542]

Yeah, he said the quiet part out loud

[@shimrrashai-rc8fq]

The trick is you must separate the churn of papers from the core foundations of a field. C.f. Veritasium (iirc)'s video that "most published research is crap". This applies - unfortunately - in *ALL* fields. Hence by this standard we should put _all_ of them as "damaged" to the same hilt, more or less. Yet you will ignore Newton's law of gravitation to your peril if you don't have a parachute regardless. Because that's in the rock-solid core of the field (physics), not the churn. Even if 90% of the published research is crap, 10% is not, and the 10% that is not is often where the basics are. Seldom are fields totally uprooted in the sense that their entire basics are completely invalidated. Showing the greenhouse effect not to exist would be equivalent of showing that atoms do not exist in Chemistry, I'd think, and showing CO2 is not a greenhouse gas (so that pumping it into the atmosphere by the petagram is harmless) is like showing iron is not an electrical conductor.

[@IsomerSoma]

He claimed that there's a bias towards a clean narrative in journals. That's not exactly fraudulent.

[@theinstituteofmonkeygunvio2542]

@@IsomerSoma Biased science masquerading as rigorous science seems fraudulent to me.

[@jeptoungrit9000]

@@IsomerSoma These papers are all written as foundations on which careers as scientists are established, and if successful he will determine the direction and goal of research, and eventually public policy.

[@robertfreeman5354]

Sabine, I love your sense of humor!

[@VincentPaulS]

You can get the journals to publish any nonsense as long as you cater to their obvious biases. Everyone who publishes in this field is well aware that reinforcing the climate catastrophe as a result of human activity narrative is the only conclusion that these journals want to hear.

[@kurofune.uragabay]

So, neither Nature nor Mr *Brown* come out of this smelling of *roses* then. [imagine link to snickering Muttley gif _here_ ] Thanks Sabine. That super-mega-maxi cluster is incredible...

[@shaneintheuk2026]

I missed the story after the joke about the English Summer because I was laughing so much. 😂

[@TheNerdyAro]

I have been looking for a decent daily news in sciences for literally 12 years! I thought about starting my own KZbin channel out of college and then didn't. Keep it up!

[@michaelcaine8311]

"Approximately the length of summer in the UK" Thank you Sabine, it's now official 😂

[@kevonz1]

I lived in the not very United Kingdom for 14 months. I joke it only rained twice, once for 6 months and then for 8 months :)

[@tnekkc]

In Stalin's Soviet Union, "Show me the man and I will show you the crime." In today's academia, "Show me the funding and I will show you the hypothesis."

[@jasondashney]

I agree with you, but only if we acknowledge that the journals themselves are part of that equation.

[@tnekkc]

yes, thank you, I missed that.@@jasondashney

[@popswrench2]

Lady , just your title and photo , i a m proud of you as REAL scientist . a science teacher i knew , from "left" persuasion , argued with me , from FARM background and the more he researched , he found the same and said ; " sadly , i found , follow the money and accolades and awards. and i thot that was just you rightwing types" . we had some GREAT talks accepting each other as sparing partners . so , thankyou . integrity matters for all of us .

[@allenshepard7992]

Another great video. It is not only what we know, but the contrapositive that can be inferred. Learning is good - imagining what to learn next is critical for progress.

[@PavloPravdiukov]

The joke about "just applied quantum physics" hit me hard 😂 Love your podcasts!

[@herrbonk3635]

"Podcasts"?

[@nrqed]

He did not "boast" about it, he had the INTEGRITY to reveal it. As opposed to the majority of scientists who don't have the courage to point out the huge flaws in climate alarmism.

[@brucecheesman2781]

Very interesting sections on chemistry today, especially the section on oxygen-28. It challenges the current understanding of the strong nuclear force that holds atomic nuclei together. This discovery opens up new questions about how nuclei are structured and how elements are formed in the Universe.

[@r4raced4doom2]

I wonder if this will lead to new stable isotopes of various atoms that were previously assumed to be unstable?

[@tenbear5]

How so?

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

I just hope it can be used for more efficient nuclear reactors.I'm tired of fusion being ten years away.

[@justinsmith2363]

So you just dip fluorine into liquid hydrogen to 'remove a proton '?!!! 6:55 Why are we digging gold mines then? We could just be dipping mercury into liquid hydrogen instead.

[@MrWilderNapalm]

I remember a few years back one or two scientists got caught cooking ocean level data. The way they got caught was scientists in other disciplines that used that data plugged in the cooked data and their models fell apart. The people that did it admitted it was to keep their funding.

[@kevinpils4716]

What were their names?

[@MrWilderNapalm]

@@kevinpils4716 I can't find anything on it now which doesn't surprise me seeing as Google suppresses information. What I do remember it was Australian Researches that discovered the cooked data.

[@RDM-346]

Larry Fine, ,Moe and Curly Howard

[@Joe-rr3ip]

Things I don't understand. At he beginning of humans looking up at the stars, We understood the sky to be something painted above our heads and the sun to be a glob circling above us. The stars came out at night because the sun was behind us. Eventually we understood that the earth was not around but it circled the sun along with its companions the other planets. This left the sky as a global with the stars painted upon. Eventually we recognize the stars to be sun’s. As a strength of our telescopes grew we found to our amazement that some of these bright splotches in the sky to be accumulations of several stars which we called galaxies. As we continue to scan the night sky we found other galaxies. Over time we came to understand that there were in fact trillions of suns and trillions of galaxies within our visible universe. With this background knowledge someone proffered that there could be other universes thus was born the theory of the multiverse. It seems to me that as our knowledge continues to grow from one earth and one sun to trillions of planets circling trillions of suns, trillions of galaxies etc. It should be easy to expound that there are trillions of universes ad infinitum. The understanding of which is frightening.

[@Janustus79]

Ye-haa! 1.000.000 subs! Congratulations, Sabine!

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks!

[@campbellpaul]

@@SabineHossenfelder Yes, I think it must have turned in the last few hours to 1,000,000! *CONGRATULATIONS*

[@edwizard62]

Hi Sabine. Watching your videos makes me feel smarter. Thank you. ❤

[@owenkeller2748]

The journals and the peer review process are broken. There needs to be a replacement/correction of this bogus system.

[@guillermoelnino]

All that is required is honesty. But that is illegsl in this dsy and age.

[@nziom]

i remember a year ago when you made a comment about how they should try to find intelligent life on earth and it finally came true

[@bioxbiox]

I am addicted to your content, Prof. Hossenfelder. I am watching the current one in the subway and almost missed my train 😀

[@FredPena-rd5cf]

And another issue is Chevron USAs gas pipeline from Niger to Europe. Niger just put the brakes on it. The plan was to eliminate cheap Russian oil and gas to profit from it directly. Not to push reduction of fossil fuels. #StoptheGrift

[@WeAreSelfTaught]

congrats on 1 million subscribers!

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks!

[@bmayaa]

And 100 million views!

[@gilgamecha]

​@@SabineHossenfelderso well deserved.

[@mattgloyn3928]

I nearly spat my coffee out when you said intelligent life on earth 😂 that's a good one .

[@stirlingmoss4621]

speak for yourself

[@mattgloyn3928]

@@stirlingmoss4621 I speak for the whole planet Einstein.

[@stirlingmoss4621]

@@mattgloyn3928 american

[@SomeMorganSomewhere]

I'm with Monty Python on this one "... and pray that there's intelligent life, somewhere up in space, because there's bugger all down here on earth" kzbin.info/www/bejne/mKbUpZemqr-rrM0

[@mattgloyn3928]

OK princess .

[@jayjay-gl4fj]

You are awesome! Thank you for the videos!

[@seanmostert4213]

I loved the way you explained everything in this video, you simplified complex subjects really well into concise simple terms for everyone to have a clear basic understanding of complex subjects ❤

[@mitchr8481]

This isnt "complex." Its just Marxism, exactly like it has always been. Its simply a set of political tactics for the Socialist left to use so they can take over every aspect of YOUR life. The Climate Changes too much is simply Marxist LOSERS screaming for artificial POWER.

[@AliceErishech]

"Today we'll talk about ... Intelligent life on Earth" Did scientists finally find some?

[@axle.australian.patriot]

Fortunately they added context to the claim that JWT found intelligent life with an accuracy of 88%... So it could have been an error.

[@marcusdirk]

Given what CFCs do to an atmosphere, are they an indication of intelligence?

[@Rodhern]

And the 88-percent model behind the find seems to be a variation of "you are what you eat" that I suggest we call "You are what you breathe".

[@axle.australian.patriot]

@@marcusdirk If it is on a hot dry planet, then yes if they have highly effective refrigeration :)

[@norlesh]

I think 'cherry picking' would have made for a more accurate description to 'fudging' in the heading.

[@jerryshelton1481]

It just goes to show that if you are considered a expert you will get published and people will believe it without asking questions about methods used to come to that conclusion or whether that person may be biased on the subject

[@wizarddragon]

huh? Of course, Experts are prioritized but it's not without questioning by other experts. You got the wrong idea about science. By the looks of this comment section, you are not alone. If we didn't prioritise experts then we would have people like Trump claiming Bleach is safe to drink and good for you.

[@luck3yp0rk93]

@@wizarddragonhe never said that.

[@TheSkystrider]

You're awesome, Sabine! And your whole team! 🤩

[@seraphin01]

I don't even know what to think about the brown climate change paper anymore.. like his action is inexcusable but the journal is hugely at fault here and it shows the underlying problem in science paper in general. I just wish it happened on a much less problematic topic because with the rise of climate change deniers that was the last thing we needed.. that kind of things will take years to repair if ever.. That being said your videos are top notch, you deserve the 1m+ subs

[@crabby7668]

And this is the problem. You (seem from this comment) and many others want to claim to be right without being able to prove to the sceptics that you are right. You (generic) should be more interested in getting to the bottom of any bias in scientific studies rather than crowing about how you are right and they are wrong and that they should be deplatformed. That has no place in genuine science. That is a big problem with the whole climate change narrative, it is all about telling people, but often not supplying any credible evidence that their science is well done and therefore credible. To be fair much of it is scaremongering by media and politicians, but climate scientists need to bring everyone else along with them if they have a reasonable case. Too often they don't, and fixing the process to suite only their viewpoint doesn't look good for obvious reasons. If climate scientists have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

[@gufpott]

I agree with the reply from crabby. Your focus should be on how to improve scientific practice and to hold feet to the fire to assure best quality. Instead you depressingly witter-on about "deniers", as though you have the metaknowledge to determine who is right and who is wrong in a scientific controversy. Top marks for delusion and self-aggrandization. What is a "denier" BTW. Is it people who follow the hockey stick and think the climate SHOULDN'T be changing?

[@martynspooner5822]

Sabine you are simply the best, love your work and your humour intertwined just makes it an addictive watch Cheers for all you do and share

[@emanuelelombardi9824]

Watching you videos, always informative and entertaining. If I had you as a professor I do not hesitate to say that you would be a favorite.

[@captaincapitalism264]

No doubt. One of my favorite university professors said this to us once: "I'd like this on my tombstone someday -- He didn't have all the answers, but he asked good questions" (Alan Wood, University of Washington at Bothell).

[@BlackWolf-uk2yb]

Didn't James Lindsay demonstrate this issue, and worse, regarding published work several years ago?

[@roberthowe321]

"Why lie when you can omit?" - Mr Spock

[@geraldfrost4710]

Numbers, when tortured, will confess to anything.

[@GoSlash27]

Sabine just got a glimpse behind the 'climate science' curtain. Welcome to the real world.

[@bobfleischmann5208]

Did you notice the subtle reference to conservatives being "climate deniers"? It was the placement of the article in the background. The two don't go hand-in-hand like the media portrays. In fact, my liberal friends are the most trash-producing, non-recycling, gas-guzzling, plastic-wrapped, climate-destroyers I know. They just CLAIM to be concerned about it.

[@oldtimefarmboy617]

Just because you refute the assertion that humans are THE cause of climate change does not mean you are denying climate change. The climate has been changing ever since there was a climate. One look at the paleoclimatological record clearly shows the climate changes and has been changing for 100s of millions of millions of years before humans ever existed.

[@Noqa101]

Does he boast fudging a paper or is trying to signal pathologies within prestigeous journals? After seeing Nature accepting paper about "endogenous DMT" I am siding with growing population of scientists who have doubts whether this prestige remains well-earned

[@ishmiel21]

Climate change is real and humans, are in part, speeding that process along. That said, that scientist is absolutely correct when he said that leaving out certain variables will help you get published faster. Nature of the magazine is about publishing stuff, not really about publishing good or accurate science. Nature is all about getting that money. That's the most important thing to that magazine.😊

[@SabineHossenfelder]

How do you know he is correct, other than that he made this claim?

[@ishmiel21]

@@SabineHossenfelder Because that's how magazines work. There have also been others to make similar claims. Could I be wrong? Totally.

[@jswets5007]

​@@SabineHossenfelderThe case of Dr. Patrick Moore is one indicator. He has a PhD in environmental science, and was a co-founder of Greenpeace who has been ostracized for questioning some of the *crisis* aspects of the natural process of climate change.

[@kevinpils4716]

@@jswets5007 Dr. Patrick Moore is not a co-founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace has put out a statement about this issue long ago. Moore was a big player at some point, but he did not found Greenpeace. He further has a PhD in forestry which doesn't really translate to knowledge in climate science. Besides all that, he parrots the same old climate denier talking points and has not published a single paper on the topic.

[@jswets5007]

@@kevinpils4716 You should do some actual research into the history of the subject and the individual instead of parroting the exact ad hominems that have been level against him for a decade now.

[@erikjohnson2594]

Scientists massage the discussion section all the time to encourage publication, especially with hot topics. They just usually don't tweet about it. It's actually nice of have someone admit it!

[@RubenKelevra]

So does this mean we went from rubbing sticks together to make a chemical reaction to understanding it on a quantum level? 🤔

[@jayr526]

What inquiring minds want to know is do Maxwell's demons carry his silver hammer?

[@ShadeNinja2990]

You are FEARLESS Sabine, love your channel

[@captaincapitalism264]

Informative and amusing, thank you Doc!

[@jguitar23]

Super episode, loved the publishing exposé🎉

[@andersemanuel]

Thanks for keeping the science in climate-science.