I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published

Right. And how do we know his paper wouldn’t still have been accepted without his self-censoring?

I’m not saying I don’t believe him, or that we shouldn’t take such concerns seriously, but he could at least have acknowledged that this is effectively unfalsifiable conjecture.

Even if it would have been accepted, maybe part of his point is that at least some scientists (for example, himself) are self-censoring out of fear.

The tone of the article doesn't sound bitter - it sounds coldly rational, and a bit resigned. It also sounds like other things I've read about - primarily on HN - regarding the state of academic research and publication.

Simple, we use logic and and logic says it doesn't matter.

His bitterness could be due to the biased prevailing attitudes about climate change he mentions.