Is Climate Change is Coming for Your Hoppy Beer?
... A chance to vote if you would like to find out
In October 2023, the Journal of Nature Communications published an article claiming the future of European hop production was at risk due to climate change. I published an article on October 25, 2023 entitled “Climate Change is NOT Coming for your Hoppy Beer” debunking their claims. The article got worldwide attention.
I contacted the Journal and explained the problem with the misinterpretation of the data thinking it was an innocent mistake[1]. I showed in my article how they confused variety and regional yield data, which led them to incorrect conclusions. The editor’s assistant responded that same day[2]. Two weeks later, I received an email from the senior editor and team manager at Nature Communications saying they were looking into it[3]. One year on, the article is still live on their website. It has been accessed over 23,000 times[4], and ranks among their highest-scoring pieces (#41 of 63,208)[5].
Source: Altmetric.com
METHODS
The methods used by Dr. Martin Možný from the Department of Climate Change Impacts on Agroecosystems at the Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences together with properly interpreted data would have created the impression that climate change benefits hops. This, in my opinion, would also be a travesty. The method ignores new product and variety innovation, effects of the market, surpluses and deficits and changing consumer preferences. Perhaps climate change plays a role in the equation. We don’t know. A more thorough analysis would be necessary to reach that conclusion. At best, the study conducted demonstrated correlation, not causation.
GELL-MANN AMNESIA EFFECT:
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
- Michael Crichton
ANOTHER PAPER?
Would you be interested in reading or contributing to an article that uses the best available data and people knowledgeable about the industry to determine the effect, if any, climate change has on hops? I’ve spoken with a couple people who are already interested in participating. With more interest and support from co-authors across Europe, it would be a topic worth investigating.
If you have an opinion on that, please vote in an unscientific anonymous poll over on Urbanpoll.com. Your identity will remain completely anonymous[6].
THE $64,000 QUESTION
The Journal of Nature Communications that published the article has an Impact Factor (IF) of 14.7[7]. In academia, that means that they are perceived as having strict guidelines for publishing. It seems, however, peer reviewers critique the methods used to analyze data not the data’s accuracy. That is how this article slipped through the cracks.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
- Hanlon’s Razor (Robert J. Hanlon)
MOTIVE
Did the Journal of Nature Communications and the Department of Climate Change Impacts on Agroecosystems purposely mislead the public by printing this article? I think it’s more likely they were victims of confirmation bias. As the old saying goes, “If your only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.”
In an ironic twist of fate, the Journal Nature, published an article in December 2023 touting how publishers are “smashing annual records” as they retract more sham articles than ever before[8]. The fact that nobody retracted the hop article after being informed of the problems with the data is suspicious. It creates the appearance of either a bias or an ulterior motive. I’ll leave the final interpretation of their actions for you to decide.
[1] To whom it may concern:
An article appeared this month in your publication Nature Communications that contained inaccurate information. Here is a link to the article:
Due to the inaccuracy of the historical data used, the projections and conclusions were wrong and the article title is misleading. I detailed where the mistakes were made in an article on my substack today. Here is the link: https://mackinnonreport.substack.com/p/climate-change-is-not-coming-for
I would recommend the article be withdrawn from the journal and the study performed again using accurate data before it is considered for publication.
Regards,
Douglas
[2] Dear Douglas,
Thank you for your email and for sharing your concerns. I have forwarded your email to the handling editor of this manuscript, so they are now aware of your concerns.
Best,
Kileigh
Kileigh Ford
she/her/hers
Editorial Assistant
Nature Communications
[3] Dear Dr MacKinnon,
Thank you for alerting us to your concerns about this publication. We take any issues raised seriously. Nature Communications is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We are investigating this matter in line with COPE guidelines.
Regrettably, we cannot share details of specific publications and investigations surrounding them with anyone other than the parties that are directly affected. However, I can reassure you that we will continue to investigate and take appropriate editorial action.
If you would like to share any more details of your concerns, you are welcome to do so. As part of our investigation, we may need to share this information with the authors of the publication, their institution or other organizations. Although we will make every effort to ensure your anonymity in our communications with these groups, there may be a chance that your identity might be guessed from the information you provide – particularly as we understand that you have already shared some of your concerns directly with the authors.
Best regards,
Emily Jones, PhD
(they/them)
Senior Editor and Team Manager
Nature Communications
Nature Portfolio
Springer Nature
One New York Plaza, Suite 4500
New York, NY 10004-1562
Email: emily.jones@us.nature.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0605-884X
[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41474-5/metrics
[5] https://nature.altmetric.com/details/155286296
[6] According to Substack, Substack polls anonymize results, which means that other voters cannot see who voted and how, but it still allows the owner of the Substack to see who voted and how (
). I have no interest in seeing who votes or how they vote so I created a poll over on Urbanpoll.com where your identity remains anonymous. Have a look at their site if you have any questions about that.
[7] https://www.nature.com/ncomms/
[8] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8