If what the editor-in-chief of Nature says is true, Brown intentionally published a misleading paper that he could later walk back from in order to promote an anti-scientific climate skeptic narrative. Whatever his reasons for this are, the consensus is that climate change is being accelerated by human activity and is leading to more inclement weather. It's Brown, not the establishment, that has resorted to trickery in order to push a narrative.
Brown has given credence to what many of us have long suspected: climate science is being misused to promote alarmist narratives and political agendas. The claim that climate change is to blame for wildfires does not square with the reality of the fires being mostly started by humans, and that the percentage of land ignited by these blazes has shrunk year after year. Academia and the media work together to promote an activist agenda at the expense of real climate solutions.
A fair attempt at correlating wildfire risk to human-induced global warming can be seen in services for journalists like the World Weather Attribution Initiative. For wildfires, the Initiative states that there's likely an underlying climate signal, but wildfires are much more challenging to correlate due to issues like forest management and ignition sources. The Initiative also attempts to call reasonable balls and strikes for what specific wildfire events may, or may not, potentially be tied to global warming. In general, media outlets need to do a better job of sticking to long-standing, nuanced guidance from well-meaning scientists rather than getting swept up in either alarmist or denialist hype.
There is a 50% chance that wildfires will destroy a total exceeding 10Mha of global tree cover in any year, by the end of 2030, according to the Metaculus prediction community.