The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES) fired special editor Marty Rowland for publishing a paper that refuted evidence of carbon dioxide's effect on climate.
In 2024, Rowland published Marcel Crok and Andy May's "Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems" in a special edition of the journal that wanted to highlight various views of the climate debate.
But to the climate cult, climate change is so sacrosanct, it's taboo to even acknowledge that someone who disagrees with them might have some merit in their reasoning.
Andy May says,
Dr. Rowland invited me to explain the scientific basis for the 'denier' (or skeptical) view that man-made climate change and carbon dioxide emissions are not dangerous. It was incorporated into a special issue of AJES that covers all views on climate change to help the public understand the full range of views on man-made climate change.
The paper was not arguing that climate change is not happening. Rather, it argued that this is a natural process and mankind's addition to it through carbon emissions was not an existential crisis.
May & Crok focusses on the lack of any real evidence that climate change (whether man-made or natural) is dangerous, as summarized in Table 12.12 in the IPCC AR6 WGI report in Chapter 12, page 1856. Pulles admits there are no visible current dangers, but claims models predict that there will be at some unspecified point in the future. Speculation, even using models, does not counter facts and measurements.
As you can imagine, there were immediate cries for the paper to be recalled.
According to The College Fix, Crok said,
‘The standard response of the mainstream climate science community these days to papers that somewhat challenge the CO2-is-dangerous-narrative is to immediately ask for retraction.
‘It's a strategy because it gives the signal that the paper is really bad and most people don't have the time and knowledge to assess the situation.'
None of the calls for retraction submitted claims of inaccurate data or errors.
The article was therefore not pulled from the journal, but the board did fire Rowland from his editor position for daring to publish it in the first place.
May told The Fix, ‘The pressures are huge. Basically, if a climate researcher does not toe the "consensus" line he will receive no funding for his work and will be ostracized. He or she is then often forced to resign or fired.'
Meanwhile, Crok and May's article hit the top 0.1% of all papers followed by Wiley, and it is also the 2nd most read paper published by AJES.
Just recently, the U.S. Department of Energy released a surprisingly balanced view of the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment, which has driven climate cultists crazy. They even went so far as to sue the government to try to get it retracted.
Why is the climate doomsday cult so worried about data that competes with their narrative?
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
