By Andy May
Well, it is official, Marty Rowland PhD has been fired from his position as Special Issue Editor at the American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES). The reason he was given for being fired was his publication of our paper, Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems. The paper has been cited 23 times according to google scholar. It was first published online May 29, 2024, and is already in the top 1% of all 29 million papers followed by Wiley’s Altmetric tracker. It is the #2 paper published in the 83-year history of the AJES.
Challenges (there are many from the climate mafia) to May & Crok are responded to here, see the bottom of the post for the full list and links to all peer-reviewed and informal challenges and our responses. Dr. Rowland calls his firing “Orwellian,” and we totally agree. The challenge by Tinus Pulles in an article somewhat offensively titled “Climate Denialism” cites two articles that directly compare “climate deniers” to holocaust deniers, see here for our critique of this paper. May & Crok has withstood all scrutiny to date.
The offensive and wildly inaccurate Tinus Pulles critique is the one cited by AJES board most when they explain why they fired Dr. Rowland. In addition, other board members were pressured by Wiley to write critiques of our paper, these are Cobb, 2024 and Gwartney & Lough. Both papers make the same argument that the “consensus” says climate change is dangerous so it must be so.
Pulles’ critique relies on flawed climate models (also see here and here) projections of the future. Models are not evidence:
As to so-called modeling “evidence,” it is the models that we are testing; the model results should not be confused with evidence. (Lindzen, 2012)
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.
The more formal reviews of our paper, by David Wojick, Kenneth Richard, and Sterling Burnett are all positive. In short there was no legitimate reason to fire Dr. Rowland for publishing our fully peer-reviewed, and well received, paper. The peer reviewers all had comments on our paper and every single suggestion they sent us was incorporated into the final submitted version which can be downloaded here.
It appears that firing Dr. Rowland was a purely political act and not based on any legitimate problem with our paper, which is solid as far as anyone knows at this time. His firing for publishing a skeptical article is reminiscent of Wolfgang Wagner resigning over a perfectly reasonable, but counter to the “consensus” paper, by Roy Spencer and William Braswell in 2011, the paper is here and the story is here. As in this case, Spencer and Braswell presented solid observations and facts, and their critics presented model results. If you have trouble downloading the editor’s reasons for resigning from Roy Spencer’s blog, here is another link to his explanation.
The debate between the two sides is complex, and mostly is over the sign and magnitude of feedbacks to greenhouse gas (mainly CO2) warming. This is how science is supposed to work. When an editor proclaims from on high that one well supported opinion is wrong and the other is correct, without proper discussion and debate, it is politics not science.
Willie Soon and Dick Lindzen report that two editors were fired for publishing two of Lindzen’s papers. The first, published in 1990, lays out Lindzen’s objections to the idea that a man-made enhanced greenhouse effect could be the dominant reason behind current warming, the paper is quite reasonable and certainly not a reason to fire anyone. The paper warns, as we do in ours, that more definitive evidence of the potential dangers of man-made global warming must be found before drastic actions, like eliminating fossil fuels, are taken. Model results are not evidence.
The second is Lindzen’s landmark first paper on the Iris Effect. Now, more than 20 years later, the Iris Effect is widely accepted and when incorporated in models it moves model results closer to observations. Certainly, accepting such a landmark paper is no reason to fire anyone. Journalist Tilak Doshi was fired from Forbes for defending J. D. Vance’s views on the dangers of climate change. Dr. Rowland’s firing is not unique by any means.
One must remember that Albert Einstein’s PhD thesis was originally rejected until he submitted his work to Max Planck at the Annalen der Physik. Planck published most of the thesis as four papers, without formal peer-review and Einstein’s reputation was made. Max Planck said that publishing risky papers is important, it is far worse to reject a possibly groundbreaking work. The peer-review process can, and often does, suppress truly innovative work, simply because it is novel and opposed to the “consensus” opinion.
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 the views on climate change to help the public understand the full range of views on man-made climate change. This laudable attempt to examine man-made climate change from all sides in one issue of AJES is what got him fired.
Wiley, which is the publishing and printing company that AJES contracts with, objected to May & Crok and, according to Gwartney and Lough, “forced” the AJES board to “intervene” after May & Crok was already published online. Who appointed Wiley to be the judge of “truth” in science? Aren’t scientific hypotheses, such as the consensus hypothesis that man-made climate change is dangerous, supposed to be debated among scientists until all objections and contradictions are explained and all agree? Fortunately, the board, quite properly, rejected Wiley’s request to retract our paper from the issue. Science is based on free speech and debate and if only one side of an issue gets published, there can be no debate and science dies.
I asked Marcel Crok to help me write the paper because he has thoroughly researched the impacts of climate change presented in AR6 WG2. Our paper supports the skeptical view that fossil fuel CO2 emissions and climate change are not dangerous. Thus, it is both an opinion piece and a literature review paper. We avoided all speculation and deliberately used no models or model results in the paper, only accepted peer-reviewed literature and observations. The elements Wiley and AJES require to retract a paper have not been met, as a result the AJES board quite correctly rejected the Wiley request. However, they volunteered to publish Pulles, Gwartney & Lough, and Cobb’s critical papers. But, as noted above, the critiques are all based on “consensus” opinions and model results, so they are very weak.
When Dr. Rowland inquired about why he was being fired for simply publishing the full range of views on the scientific topic of dangerous man-made climate change, he was told there was only one legitimate view of climate change, that it is dangerous. When Dr. Rowland correctly pointed out that the climate establishment and the IPCC have not identified any current climate change dangers, he was told that the IPCC is withholding conclusive evidence of the dangers from the public. That they have secret data showing that it is dangerous. Dr. Rowland asked why they are keeping such important data secret and received no answer. My view is if anyone believes that is true, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I will happily sell to you. One is reminded of John Stuart Mill’s words:
He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
Besides his now terminated position of special issues editor for AJES, Dr. Rowland is a lecturer at the Henry George School of Social Science, a New York City Parks environmental engineer, and on the Board of Trustees for the Henry George School of Social Science. Losing this job is not a crisis for Dr. Rowland, as much as it is a crisis for science and the freedoms of speech and the press.
Science is never only one opinion, science is never settled, and science dies when all views are not aired in the open and freely discussed and debated. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Dr. Rowland’s idea to publish all well-documented views on climate change in one issue is a good one, that is real science. Firing him for doing this is unscientific in the extreme and a crime against free expression everywhere.
The original purpose of the AJES, when it was created 83 years ago, was to offer a “periodic, systematic synthesis of investigation of social issues” according to Dr. Rowland. This is exactly what he was trying to do since modern “climate science” no longer has much to do with science, it is now a social and political issue. The fact that Dr Rowland was fired for publishing our paper simply underscores that point.
For more on censorship and suppression of proper science, see here.
Bibliography
Cobb, C. W. (2024). The politics of climate denialism and the secondary denialism of economics. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. doi:10.1111/ajes.12606
Gwartney, T., & Lough, A. (2025). AJES Board Response to an Internal Controversy About Climate-Change Denial. Am J Econ Sociol, 84. doi:10.1111/ajes.12609
Lindzen, R. (1990, March). Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 71(3). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26227522
Lindzen, R., Chou, M.-D., & Hou, A. (2001, March). Does the Earth have an Adaptive Iris. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 82(3). Retrieved from https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/82/3/1520-0477_2001_082_0417_dtehaa_2_3_co_2.xml
May, A., & Crok, M. (2024, May 29). Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 1-15. doi:10.1111/ajes.12579
Pulles, T. (2025). Climate Denialism. AJES, 84. doi:10.1111/ajes.12611
Spencer, R., & Braswell, W. (2011). On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sensing, 3(8). doi:10.3390/rs3081603
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
AlanJ says the firing was justified because he wasn’t a real “climate scientist” in 3…2…1…
I find it a little surprising that Dr. Rowland held a salaried position as a Special Issue editor that he could be fired from, as these positions are usually volunteer or honorary, not salaried or contractual. It’s not clear why a paper that seems to be a rambling and unfocused running commentary on topics of personal interest to the authors around the subject of climate science would be a relevant paper to publish in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology to begin with, or how it ever passed peer review in its current form. So I’m not surprised that the journal wouldn’t care to invite Dr. Rowland to do more damage to their reputation.
You found it a little surprising ?? You can’t even type six words without lying can you …. ? Goofball.
It’s not clear why a paper that seems to be a rambling and unfocused running commentary on topics of personal interest to the authors around the subject of climate science….
Have you read it? Not just the summary, the whole paper?
Mr. michel: Prediction- he will say he has read it.
Whether he has or hasn’t, he can’t and won’t comprehend it. As I have surmised before, only a paid commenter would behave this way.
I’ve heard about “paid commenters” since the 1990s. Is it a real thing? How much do they get paid?
Of course, much todo was made in this site about the paper when it was originally published. That is how I formed my perspective on it.
You object to the publication of a peer reviewed study because the editor has an independent means of income? How bizarre.
The internet and academia are littered with rambling and unfocussed peer reviewed nonsense from the klimate kult but there’s never any objections from you about them.
And you either trust peer review, or you don’t. Which is it?
Mr. Scot: I figured another reader would see that, good pick-up. Mr. J ordinarily cites “peer reviewed” as the gold standard, here it’s brushed off like dandruff. Mr. J is not a thinking man.
No, I question the relevancy of the paper to the journal’s audience, and I question the judgement of the editor who recommended it for publication based on the glaring flaws it contains.
Peer review is a minimum bar. And one has to believe that the journal is following appropriate standards in administering it. Were I providing peer review of this paper, I absolutely would have not recommended publication in its current state. The paper was filled unsubstantiated conjecture and littered with subjective opinions, among many other issues. If it meets the standards of this journal, then it is not a very good journal.
What flaws are in the paper? Many have claimed there are flaws, but they came up with nothing.
All the so-called flaws fall into two categories.
That’s it, high school crap. Do you have a real flaw you can point to? I doubt it.
More here:
The AJES Response to May & Crok – Andy May Petrophysicist
Lots of people have tried, and lots have died.
‘One fist of iron, the other of steel; if the right one don’t get you, the left one will.’
We should tell all the world leaders that’s President Trump’s motto.
“You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter, don’t you call me, ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store”
Wow, I haven’t heard that song since the 1980’s.
Its a great song. I love the Tennessee Ernie Ford version:
Sixteen Tons | Tennessee Ernie Ford | Oct 18, 1956
The failure of Mr. J to reply here tells us all we need to know.
Andy, you’ve been dismissive of any criticisms of the paper. Of course you cannot find anyone who has pointed out a flaw – you’ve got your eyes and ears covered and are shouting “lalalalalala not listening!” at the top of your lungs.
At the highest level, the structure of the paper is not suitable for publication in a serious scientific journal (this is almost certainly why you found a home for it in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology instead of an appropriate journal). Your thesis is that global warming is “not a problem,” yet you don’t attempt to define what a “problem is.” You claim the IPCC says global warming is “dangerous” (they do not), yet don’t define what “dangerous” means within the context of your study. You go so far as to say that the climate of today is “arguably better” than the climate during the Little Ice Age, without elaborating on what this means – it is a subjective value-judgement that has no place in a serious academic discussion. In defense of the argument, you share a tiny handful of anecdotes about a few speficic recorded extreme events.
Your final conclusion, rather than being an assessment of the initial hypothesis, seems to be a bid for specific policy action you favor. This isn’t appropriate whatsoever for a research article or review paper (whichever of the two you were trying to cast this manuscript as, it isn’t clear).
Methodologically, the paper is a mess. A central claim is that the AMO might explain part of the observed warming, but you failed to engage with recent literature showing that the AMO is likely a forced climate response. You dismiss the whole of climate modeling literature in a single line and then fail to ever substantively engage with it again. Vital inferences are made with sweeping generalizations like, “Generally, observations, and modeling show that adding CO2 to the atmosphere benefits plant life, which in turn makes our lives better.” Without any engagement with the full body of literature.
It never should have passed peer review in the state that it did. But this means nothing to you, because you got your buddy (who apparently has now been fired for the favor) to ramrod it through regardless, in a completely irrelevant journal, so you’ll continue glibly dismissing anyone trying to help educate you.
AlanJ,
This is all gone over in the answers to the other criticisms and in the paper, which you obviously have not read, but again:
As stated in the second paragraph of the paper:
That is the definition of “dangerous,” and it is from AR6 WG2, which takes care of your second criticism. These are in the second paragraph of the Abstract, which is how I know you did not read the paper.
The climate today is better than the climate of the Little Ice Age, I not only provide anecdotal evidence of this but cite numerous classic sources who document the same thing, Behringer, Parker, and Homewood. There is little doubt that this is true. It is certainly “arguably true.”
Of course it is, it is an oscillation. The argument is not that it is or is not “forced.” Forced is a stupid meaningless term, what is the force? Is it natural or man-made? Saying it is forced, says nothing. Besides Michael Mann’s 2020 and 2021 papers, which you obliquely refer to, are meaningless and based only on model output, no observations. Models assume that CO2 “forces” climate change, so in model-world CO2 is the forcing. You guys try to equate “forcing” with CO2, which is completely circular.
Numerous references to sources demonstrating that CO2 benefits life are made in the paper including, Idso, Zhu, and Dippery.
You seem to forget this was a literature review paper, it was not a presentation of original research by me. I was specifically asked to scientifically justify the “denier” case, not to do any research.
Quoting AR6 is not the same as defining your own terms. The passage you quoted is a description of observed impacts, not a formal definition of “dangerous.” You never specify what you mean by “dangerous,” nor provide any empirical threshold that would falsify your central claim that warming is “not a problem.” Science requires operational definitions and testable criteria. Without them, your thesis is a value judgment, not a scientific conclusion.
Similarly for your claims about the LIA; “better” is not a quantifiable variable, it’s a subjective value-judgment. Better for whom? By what measure? Globally, regionally, agriculturally, economically, socially? You never define what “better” means or establish any criteria for testing it. Instead you lean on historical anecdotes and secondary sources that document human suffering during the LIA, then assert that modern conditions must therefore be “better.”
This kind of loose, subjective framing should never have passed peer review. Any competent reviewer should have flagged it immediately.
“Forced” is not meaningless, it is the central distinction in attribution science. Internal variability represents fluctuations arising within the coupled ocean–atmosphere system. Forcing represents an external driver of energy balance (greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar, volcanic). The modern AMO-like signal has been shown to track anthropogenic aerosol forcing (Mann et al. 2020, 2021; Booth et al. 2012). That finding directly undermines your claim that recent warming could be explained away as some mysterious natural oscillation.
That’s just hand-waving. You dismiss modeling whenever it’s inconvenient, but models are not “assumptions,” they implement physical laws tested outside the model world (e.g., radiative transfer, spectroscopy). Mann’s work isn’t “only models,” either: it compares modeled expectations to observed patterns.
This kind of attitude is no doubt compelling to your credulous contrarian friends, who are eagerly inclined to accept whatever you say, but it is completely unpersuasive to anyone remotely familiar with the scientific literature. You can’t wave away the entire field of climate modeling and expect scientists to take you seriously. You do this in the paper, as noted, and that also should have bee flagged in peer review.
Models make no such assumption. CO2’s radiative properties are measured directly in laboratories and in the atmosphere. Models incorporate these physics, they don’t invent them. This further betrays a profound ignorance of the literature on your part. Inexcusable for someone purporting to provide a comprehensive “literature review” that is supposed to unravel the entire field.
That clarifies the situation greatly. You started with a predetermined conclusion and worked backwards, cherry picking any scrap that might appear to prop it up. Was your friend Rowland the one who invited you to write the paper? Not surprising the journal wasn’t interested in inviting his continued contributions if so. It’s too late to recover their reputation imho.
Yet more weaving and dodging. The core of AJ’s argument still boils down to the fact that his high priests disagree with it, therefore it is wrong.
AlanJ,
Now you are being deliberately dense to be annoying. Nothing in your longwinded comment makes any sense. I’ll only respond to your first point, although like the others it is silly.
Defining dangerous using the definition from AR6 WG2 is exactly correct. It is the definition and the statement I am addressing in the paper; it was the whole point of writing it. If you prefer another definition, here is what the Oxford dictionary says:
“able or likely to cause harm or injury”
I’ll take your silence on most of my critique as a concession. You focused only on ‘dangerous’ while leaving unaddressed your use of ‘better’ as a scientific claim, your dismissal of models, your reliance on AMO while ignoring the forced-variability literature, and your admission that the paper was written to justify a pre-set conclusion.
What you quoted from AR6 isn’t a definition of ‘dangerous,’ it’s a description of observed risks and impacts. The IPCC WGII SPM the quote originates from does not contain the word ‘dangerous’ at all. That wording is your invention, not the IPCC’s. The Oxford dictionary entry is even less useful. If your central claim is that warming is ‘not dangerous,’ then science requires you to specify measurable thresholds and show they haven’t been crossed. Without that, your conclusion is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
More to the point, this isn’t appropriate framing for what purports to be a scientific literature review. Importing vague, subjective language like ‘dangerous’ or ‘better’ without defining or operationalizing it should never have passed peer review.
‘better’: See Behringer, Parker, and Homewood, all referenced in the article.
“observed risks and impacts” There are no observed risks or impacts, as acknowledged in AR6 WG1, page 1856. The quote is exactly what I am addressing in the paper, your semantic objections are noted, but juvenile. WG2 is describing what WG1 calls potential dangers and WG2 (incorrectly) calls actual dangers.
An aside, do you believe climate change is dangerous? You write like you do not. What do you believe?
You’re misrepresenting AR6. Page 1856 of WGI is literally Table 12.12, which shows multiple climatic impact-drivers (heat extremes, marine heatwaves, heavy precipitation, etc.) already observed with medium to high confidence. WGI documents the physical hazards; WGII documents the impacts on people and ecosystems. Pretending WG I said ‘no observed risks’ is just cherry-picking scope boundaries.
But even setting that aside, the core problem remains: your paper builds sweeping claims around subjective terms like ‘dangerous’ and ‘better’ without ever defining or operationalizing them. If a paper came in claiming the opposite, that global warming is a big dangerous problem, I’d expect a competent reviewer to reject it on the same grounds. Scientific reviews are supposed to focus on quantifiable, testable criteria, not value-judgments. That’s why the IPCC avoids words like ‘dangerous’ and instead presents risks, impacts, and confidence levels. Your paper didn’t meet that bar, and it shouldn’t have passed peer review.
All hale the great AlanJ, the expert on peer review! I was a peer reviewer for Petrophysics for 10 years, have you ever peer reviewed anything? I hope not. You would use peer-review to keep out papers you disagreed with as Phil Jones once threatened to do.
The peer reviewers of my paper have tens of thousands of citations of their own work and are well qualified, obviously they disagree with you and your silly criteria. I do as well. Your objections are invalid and would invalidate many literature review papers. I note that in your opinion the paper should have been rejected, but it was not rejected. I’m not offended because I don’t respect your opinion.
I wrote the paper based on the instructions I received. All the papers in the special issue had the same instructions. If your guidelines had been followed the special issue would never have appeared. Personally, I think the special issue idea was a good one and follows the mandate given to the AJES 80+ years ago by the journal’s founder.
Modern peer-review is destroying scientific research in my opinion. Einstein had the same opinion years ago. Peer review puts chains on thought and imagination, it also destroys many potentially groundbreaking papers. I use the example of Lindzen’s iris effect paper, you could also use Einstein’s thesis as an example. When I was a peer-reviewer I tried to keep my opinions out of it and only look for true mistakes, not silly assumed stylistic opinions such as yours.
You’re evading the core issue. My critique isn’t about “stylistic opinions,” it’s that your paper doesn’t function as a scientific literature review. It substitutes subjective framing (“better,” “not dangerous”) for operational definitions and falsifiable claims. That kind of language might fly in an op-ed, but it isn’t appropriate for a paper meant to assess evidence systematically. Any competent reviewer should have flagged that.
There’s also a scope issue: AJES is an economics and sociology journal. Your paper isn’t an economic or sociological analysis at all, but a selective re-interpretation of physical climate science. Publishing polemics on attribution and modeling in a social science journal looks less like “interdisciplinary engagement” and more like bypassing the venues where climate scientists would have reviewed it properly.
And pointing to peer review as validation misses the mark. The fact that the Rowland was, but your telling, removed by the journal only underscores how compromised that process was. What you describe looks less like rigorous peer review and more like a friendly gatekeeper ushering in work that couldn’t have cleared scrutiny elsewhere. That reflects poorly on the journal’s integrity, not as an endorsement of your manuscript.
“doesn’t function as a scientific literature review” An opinion not shared by the actual peer reviewers.
“Any competent reviewer should have flagged that.” They didn’t and they are certainly competent.
“AJES is an economics and sociology journal” Yes, and climate science is an economic, political, and sociological issue. It stopped being a scientific issue decades ago. I mark the beginning of the corruption as when AR2 came out. That was when the scientific text of chapter 8 was ripped out and replaced by political nonsense.
If climate scientists want to be taken seriously as scientists, they must start looking at issues scientifically and from all sides. Your arguments ring hollow because of the corruption in the field and the total lack of understanding of natural climate change and how it really works. My paper highlighted the issues with climate science on the climate scientists’ turf, which is politics and money (via grants). I made them face the facts.
The paper is popular because it succinctly gets to the heart of the matter. It also fits in the mission of the AJES, it is what the journal is all about. Your arguments just make peer review look corrupt, and it definitely is in climate science and in many other sciences, which is too bad.
You’ve confirmed my core critique. Your paper isn’t a scientific literature review at all, it’s a political screed. You aren’t even trying to defend it on scholarly terms anymore, just waving at “corruption” and “grant money.” No more feigned objectivity at all.
Pointing to peer review here is laughable. You were invited by a friendly editor with an agenda, the same editor later shown the door for compromising the journal’s integrity (and who you seem to have a personal relationship with, since you two email about his status at the journal).
The fact that your paper sailed through under those conditions is a condemnation of the journal’s integrity, not a vindication.
Likewise, you’ve not identified anything wrong in the literature review paper, you just don’t like the writing style. I’m well aware that most, if not all, graduate schools insist on the stilted, obscure, academic writing style you insist upon. This is a style that is relatively new and it is a detestable phenomenon that I do not like. If you go back and read earlier papers by Einstein and others you do not see it, they wrote in clear language, which is what I try and do.
I want the public to get their information on science from the source, not as translated by biased and inept journalists. Unfortunately, the writing style you prefer puts them off, it is too obtuse. I’m used to it but still see the lack of clarity in AR6 as an example.
Between the scientific writing style and peer review, science is unapproachable by the general public, which is a shame. It is a problem that should be addressed. Anyway, it doesn’t matter, I will never agree to use that style, and you seem to want it, to the exclusion of seeing what I write published, so we will never agree.
You’re deflecting. I’m not criticizing your writing style. Plain language is good. I’m criticizing the framing. What you present as a neutral literature review is, in fact, a subjective, value-laden polemic that barely engages the literature. And you’ve admitted that by saying your motivation was political, that you began with a predetermined conclusion and worked backwards. A paper written on those terms should not have passed competent peer review. The fact that it did is a condemnation of the journal’s standards, not a vindication of your work. It’s no surprise, then, that your friend Rowland was shown the door and not invited back.
“What you present as a neutral literature review…”
Now you are making sh*t up. I never said it was neutral, literature reviews rarely are or even attempt to be neutral, at least those I’ve read, and I read a lot of them.
Besides I was not asked to write a neutral review, I was asked to make the “denier” case, and that is exactly what I did. Your feeble attempt to malign the journal and Dr. Rowland betrays your dishonesty. Rowland was the most honest person in this whole affair. He proposed an honorable discussion of all sides of the highly political climate change debate, a very laudable goal among honest people, and was shot down merely for looking at both sides. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt your blatant bias would allow that.
You’ve now fully conceded my point, so there is nothing left to argue. Rowland asked you for a polemic with a predetermined conclusion, and you delivered exactly that, not an objective scientific review.
“fully conceded my point”
There was nothing to concede, the point you are seizing upon is right in the post:
Besides this post, the same thing is noted in almost every post I linked to. You would have saved yourself a lot of time and embarrassment if you had just read the post.
Polemic is a strong word and more applicable to your comments than my post, and certainly too strong for the paper. The paper was a structured and well-referenced argument that climate change is not dangerous today. It was what was requested. It is like the other papers in the issue, each had a particular argument they were to support, it is just that my paper was much more popular than the others.
Again, the point is conceded. You admit you purposefully delivered an advocacy piece on demand. Your language in an opinion or commentary section would have been debatable, but at least transparent about what it is. But your paper was presented as a scientific literature review, which carries very different expectations: objectivity, clear operational definitions, falsifiable claims, and systematic engagement with the evidence. And publishing that kind of polemic under the banner of a peer-reviewed “review article” in a journal not even aligned with the subject matter is exactly why this special issue has drawn criticism.
Your final defense is nothing more than, “damn right I wrote a subjective opinion piece! My buddy asked me to!” And if you’re saying you were playing devil’s advocate and this is the best case that could be made for the denier side, well that isn’t a great look.
The proof is in the pudding: the journal ruined its reputation and tried to show Rowland the door after his ruse was called out. Too little, too late, of course.
A rather long winded post saying absolutely nothing.
Vague claims of it being “a mess”, is the best poor AJ can come up with.
I will quote you:
“I find it a little surprising that Dr. Rowland held a salaried position as a Special Issue editor that he could be fired from, as these positions are usually volunteer or honorary, not salaried or contractual.”
You clearly questioned his suitability for his position because he had an independent income, at some length.
If Peer Review is the minimum bar, what is the upper bar? The Peer Reviewers evidently don’t agree with you that the paper was filled with “unsubstantiated conjecture and littered with subjective opinions, among many other issues.” Amendments were made by the authors in line with criticism from them, at which point it was signed off by them as suitable for publishing.
As usual, klimate kult members like you consider Peer Review a one way street reserved for kult members alone.
Sorry, mate, it doesn’t work like that. If sceptics are expected to accept kult member’s Peer Reviewed studies, you compel yourself to accept Peer Reviewed studies from sceptics.
Nor do you get to pick and choose what journals they are published in, that’s the prerogative of the editor.
I’m not questioning his suitability for the role, I’m questioning the claim that he was fired. You simply must work harder on your basic literacy.
My position is that works from contrarians that have not undergone even the basic scrutiny of peer review need not be taken seriously. That does not mean that the works must be taken seriously simply because they have been peer reviewed.
You imagine you’re slippery. You’re not.
Mr. Scot: Yes, he imagines much that is not so. I do appreciate that he took up my challenge, but once again, AlanJ could have shut up and let us wonder. He’d rather speak and show us he’s wrong.
One remembers a quote often attributed to Mark Twain, something similar is also in the Bible (Proverbs 17:28):
Slippery, or slimy? It’s all a matter of perspective.
Of course Rowland was fired, he says it, I say it, Alex Lough, who fired him says it, so does Cliff Cobb who replaced him. All this happened on July 15, 2024. What does it take to penetrate your biases?
So, now peer-review (our paper was peer-reviewed by 4 scientists, and prevailed 3 to 1) is not enough for you, it has to be from “chosen” authors who have been peer-reviewed. So much for free speech and a free press.
This is hearsay. I’ve not seen a statement from Alex Lough, from Cliff Cobb, or anyone but you. It defies my understanding of such positions being voluntary or by invitation, making a termination of employment simply not possible. You need to provide some tangible evidence to persuade me beyond “trust me” because I am a rational and skeptical observer.
It’s a poor paper, and shouldn’t have passed peer review. That makes me skeptical that the reviewers are competent to evaluate literature in this field. Are the reviewers public? Can you provide the review comments on the manuscript and your responses (even anonymized)?
For someone who likes to accuse others of sticking their fingers in their ears, you have a lot of ear wax on your finger tips.
Alan,
It is not hearsay.
As for the peer reviewer’s comments, I have no objection. But I don’t think I’m free to share them, that is something would have to come from the journal or the peer-reviewers themselves. Contact AJES here:
Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems – May – 2025 – The American Journal of Economics and Sociology – Wiley Online Library
As far as I can tell the paper is very popular and it has been well received except by incredibly biased alarmist readers like yourself. It certainly has had a huge impact on the climate change discussion.
You want to exclude discussion on whether climate change is dangerous probably because there is no evidence that it is. As the AR6 WGI table on page 1856 (that you do not like) makes clear, nothing has changed beyond normal natural variability. If you want to claim climate change is dangerous, you must use model results, yet the models are clearly wrong, especially in the tropical troposphere as shown by McKitrick and Christy. These are simple truths that you do not want in the peer-reviewed literature.
Pure censorship. You are clearly using peer-review to suppress science, exactly my objection to peer-review, an opinion shared by Einstein and Max Planck.
I don’t think you understand WG1 Table 12.12. See the attached explanation that I made some time ago.
Of course, that is not what table 12.12 from WGI shows. It shows that many impact drivers have been observed across the system with high to medium confidence. White cells do not necessarily mean “nothing has changed,” or “no change outside of the range of natural variability.” They certainly do not mean, “no change is expected to emerge.” It often reflects an observational constraint (not enough years of observations).
As George Box famously wrote, all models are wrong, but some are useful. You’re presenting models as if they’re all-or-nothing propositions, which simply isn’t how science works. Even if McKitrick and Christy were correct that models misrepresent tropical troposphere trends (a claim heavily contested in the literature), that doesn’t invalidate the wide range of domains where models have proven skillful and consistent with observations. Your argument is a selective dismissal, highlighting one debated metric while ignoring the many areas where models are accurate and indispensable.
And in any case, models don’t tell us whether climate change is “dangerous,” that is not a scientifically quantifiable term. They tell us what the impacts are likely to be, and that allows us to assess risks.
You clearly have not read that AR6 chapter. Read it and think about it. The statement you wrote, quoted above, is clearly and definitively false.
You’ve partially quoted my comment and simply ignored most of it. Failure or refusal to support your own position is a tacit confession, which I’m happy to accept.
As yet, AJ has failed to list any of these glaring flaws, other than the fact that his high priests disagree with it.
Yes, he is blind to the truth and cannot discern between facts and opinions. Notice the rest of the statement that I quoted was:
“Expected”? How is it expected? From models?
Yet, we know that all models overestimate warming in the tropics at a statistically significant level. Further if GHGs are removed from the model, the results move closer to observations.
Comparing AR5 to AR6 – Andy May Petrophysicist
Model evidence is no evidence.
Probably because the imaginary climate crisis is a subject of sociology and not one of science. Alan J seems to have no clue what science is.
And he did but in an overtly verbose manifesto
Not surprising that Alan still defines science as anything that agrees with his religious beliefs.
Yeah you have to a morally corrupt activist scientist to get AlanJ approval 🙂
AlanJ says the firing was justified because he wasn’t a real “climate scientist” in 3…2…1…
Only 42 minutes. Good call.
He’s nothing, if not predictable.
Wotta bunch of cowards. I sometimes wonder how people like that can look themselves in the face when they get up in the morning, them I remember they are two faced and do it all the time.
Overweening self-righteousness and sanctimony is never embarrassed by its own excesses. The only thing which seems to hurt them is mockery and derision.
They are immune from ever feeling that anything they do is ever wrong. Their opponents ignorant hoi-polloi unworthy of either respect or dignity.
MSN recently re-published an article from The Cool Down, for which the main point was that the July 2025 average global temperature anomaly was one of the three highest on record, where they stated “The only other years that had a warmer July were 2023 and 2024.” I tried three different ways to point out that what that meant was the July 2025 had gone down in temperature and did not actually support the idea that the last three years were compelling evidence for continued warming. The first three attempts to submit my comments were denied for violating “community guidelines.” I finally got a 4th variant published, which was later deleted for the same stated reason. Censorship is alive and well.
Climastrology is a secular religion, not science. Science is a procedure, not fixed content, and declaring some claim is “settled”
is contrary to that procedure.
Congratulations on your escape Dr. Rowland. What time’s the party?
This is how science, and freedom, dies. By the statement of “you cannot talk about…” in what is supposedly science.
If an individual working in any facet of climate or meteorology fails to affirm climate hysteria that individual’s career will certainly be destroyed. That’s the real consensus builder right there.
It looks like we’re still in the ether theory of physics enforcement stage. Climate science is so nebulous that there will be no genius to come along and magically fix it with a single hard science study.
“Akin to, and largely responsible for, the sweeping changes in our industrial and military posture; has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution; research has become central; and it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted by, for, or at the direction of, the Federal government. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money, is ever present and gravely to be regarded. In holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific and technological elite.”
-President Dwight Eisenhower, in his farewell address
People should remember that Eisenhower started out WWII as a Major, an aide to General McArthur in the Philippines. A few years later he was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe. He was no dummy.
The man was a prophet, as I’ve said many times.
People should not be fired for publishing scientific papers like this, especially when they challenge mainstream orthodoxy!
Unfortunately, I have become aware in another discussion thread about a legitimate reason for firing or being ostracized that seems to be occurring. I commented about the recent Norman Fenton article on this site, that his claimed reason for being “cancelled” of challenging orthodox views may in fact be linked to his vocal support of a violent far-right faction in English society.
Some supporters of that faction, which is led by a former football (soccer) hooligan known as Tommy Robinson, then attacked me in the comments for being a weakling and coward and unable to defend myself in a real fight. I did not realize how much the climate debate has been taken over by extremist political factions.
Most employers have contract clauses which allow for firing if you bring the organization into disrepute, which probably includes trumpeting your association with the employer at far-right rallies as Fenton did.
So that’s part of the background to all this. On a positive note, I am grateful for this site which has enabled me to educate myself on skeptical, well-informed science based on facts!
What’s your definition of far-right?
In the English case, the English Defense League which Robinson (a former football hooligan who has spent considerable time in prison) started, it has been described as a far-right cult by former members. Its focus has included white supremacist nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-immigrant, and recently anti-Muslim elements. It is pretty violent from reports. Climate change and COVID vaccines have now been included by some supporters like Fenton. I myself am white English and Muslim, which may be why some supporters on this board were triggered.
It is ironic that the global warming political faction is similarly cult-like. Cults often do not tolerate dissent which is why the paper in this article led to an editor being fired.
I personally choose neither. I describe myself as center-right and support this website because they have convinced me with hard questions, logic and facts. I have been called a climate denier and insulted by the global warming cult’s members as viciously as the Robinson cult supporters recently did here.
Sounds like a typical football match in Manchester
I’ll have to read up on them from an independent source.
These days anti-immigrant tends to be anyone who doesn’t believe the borders should be wide open, and anti-muslim tends to be anyone who doesn’t want sharia law to be forced onto everyone.
The EDL was anything but a white supremacist organisation whilst Robinson was a member. He left because the wrong elements infiltrated it, but he was in his early 20’s.
If you want to understand Robinson and his motivations the most independent of sources is The Oxford Union where he gave a presentation to a hostile crowd of leftist students, complete with a demonstration outside, which can be heard during the video, devoted to him.
The students listened to what he had to say and almost to a man/woman applauded him at the conclusion of the presentation.
WARNING TO MDERATORS:
In the UK it is illegal to publicly discuss the criminals or the crimes while the accused is going through the legal process.
The point being that he could claim his trial was not fair if his offence becomes “Common Knowledge” instead of being judged in the courtroom on the evidence.
In other words it’s OK to slam him in a public forum, but it’s not OK to explain the facts.
PS: I just love how you declare him to be a criminal and how crimes were actually commited while the case is still going through the legal process.
BTW, weren’t you the one who was declaring that freedom of speech was so superior in Britain? And now here you are applauding the fact that someone is being put on trial for saying things the government disagrees with.
My fellow Courtney: Appreciate the warning to our mods, from other reports the UK police might try something. Here in the USA, it is perfectly legal to publicly discuss accused defendants because a trial judge can easily remedy the non-problem that your country “remedies” by stepping on the rights of, well, everybody. Are you good with that?
“Far right” today means “relayer of uncomfortable truth”.
Given WUWT and agw scepticism are called “far right”, I’m surprised anyone at all on this blog countenances such blasé smearing of people they don’t personally agree with.
It often means anything not far left.
Pretty much anything even a mm right of centrist
It means using physical violence instead of verbal debate – for right wing causes.
Sort of like those “mostly peaceful” riots from a couple of years ago?
Except in the past several years it has been the far left that has pursued violence. LA riots come to mind.
The EDL no longer exists. It seems to me you’re dragging a personal political gripe into a scientific discussion.
Well to be picky, I did say that he started the EDL and was kind of ambiguous afterwards. I stand corrected on its present status but my last paragraph would presently be accurate referring to “Robinson cult supporters”, one of whom, in his/her/its first comment to me on this board, called me thick, a coward and a weakling and someone who can’t defend himself in a “real fight”.
So it seemed to me kind of the opposite, that some nutter who doesn’t know me was trying to insert a personal gripe against my existence into the conversation, due to my not paying sufficient deference to the Robinson far-right cult. It’s pretty insane that such violent rhetoric has become normalized in what used to be a site focused on climate science.
From post:”…in his/her/its first comment…”.
This really got me to laughing. I think “whom” covered all those.
We have no idea how you provoked those comments from his “cult” supporters. Perhaps you associated him with the EDL not knowing that it has been long abandoned.
Nor are his supporters, Tommy Robinson. Presumably you had no idea who you were discussing him with and trotted out your lines of “white supremacist”, “anti-immigration”, “and anti-immigrant, and recently anti-Muslim elements” which you will realise none of which are true when you actually make the effort to listen to Robinson himself.
Too many people like you listen to the media and political establishment, which demonise a man whose underage female cousin was the victim of radical Islamic rape gangs. We now know our governments, councillors and police conspired to cover up the systematic, industrial scale rape and murder of underage white and Sikh girls.
We now know, and thanks to Elon Musk, the world now knows why the establishment were so desperate to shut Robinson up. They not only conspired to cover up this scandal, many of them facilitated it.
In another forum, FredJ has admitted to being a muslim. That may be why he finds nothing wrong with these rape gangs.
Mr. W: Looks like Fred really meant his mission was accomplished, and he left the building. Of course, his mission failed, as he provoked no racist remarks, he just flew.
You make a very good point, I’m not well-versed in TR saga, but I can see the citizen complaints about immigrants draws no gov’t response against muslim grooming gangs, and an all-hands-on-deck against the citizen complainants, who are branded (by Fred here) as right wing racists. A familiar ring to it……
“The Robinson far-right cult’?
So, to clarify, this implies that you support the existence and activities of Muslim rape-gangs. You do understand that Robinson was reacting against grooming gangs where the then-police and current Prime Minister were indifferent at best to the notion of child kidnaping and rape?
Do you have some opposition to the old days when it was safe to walk city streets and sidewalks?
I asked Grok about Norman Fenton’s alleged links to “a violent far-right faction in English society”. Grok: The claim that Fenton is linked to a violent far-right faction lacks substantiation. No primary evidence, such as court documents, police reports, or direct statements from Fenton himself, supports this accusation. Fenton has publicly addressed smears, including an absurd claim associating his use of clown emojis with white supremacism, which he refuted by noting his family’s history as Holocaust survivors (his Polish father’s family was murdered by the Nazis, and his maternal grandfather fled Arab pogroms in Jerusalem). This suggests attempts to mischaracterize him, but no concrete evidence ties him to any violent far-right group.
Here’s Fenton speaking aggressively in support of Tommy Robinson at a rally in London earlier this year. For a mathematician, he appears to like the sound of his own voice. Robinson was in jail at the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtra-es7RoE
Is that a crime?
Apparently, it is in Britain.
“Fenton has publicly addressed smears, including an absurd claim associating”
So Grok understands “absurd” and uses it in a sentence? Grok has an opinion?
Never thought I would see a mention of T Robinson on this blog. Those alarmists must be desperate.
It is indeed utterly bonkers and in my view, reason has left the building and committed suicide in the parking lot. Just, it appears to be a certain number of commenters on the “denier” side who seem to have joined WUWT to promote T. Robinson’s viewpoint. Is it because they have been banned everywhere else due to violent language? Go figure.
“Just, it appears to be a certain number of commenters on the “denier” side who seem to have joined WUWT to promote T. Robinson’s viewpoint.”
I usually read every article published on WUWT, although I have skipped a few lately, but your reference to Robinson, is the first one I’ve seen on WUWT.
I’m wondering who you are referring to when you say “deniers” have come to WUWT just to promote Robinson’s viewpoint? Maybe I missed a conversation where this took place.
It’s in the discussion under a recent article: “Cancelled Climate Dissenter Professor Norman Fenton Speaks Out.” I posted a critical response with a link to Fenton’s speech in support of Robinson, and a user called “Graemethecat” said I am “too thick” to understand Robinson, and am a coward and weak, and don’t know how to defend myself in a “real fight”.
Significant mental issues, apparently… Anyway, it went downhill from there and someone has just posted asking for me to be modded in this thread.
Ho hum. So it goes.
Mr. J; Will page down to see if it’s me. Thanks for showing us exactly how you did this. Graemethecat says you don’t understand free speech (you don’t) in harsh terms, so he has significant…. I won’t repeat it. You’ve come to provoke, I see it. Now try the ho-hum approach……
Declaring that everything a person says is invalid because of an opinion he holds in an unrelated area is neither logical nor scientific.
As it’s clear you know nothing of Robinson, how could you post a critical response with any authority?
In another article, FredJ has claimed to be muslim.
Says the guy who can’t refute the article in question, so had to try a bit of character assassination instead. You’re also the guy who thinks he doesn’t have to defend his slurs and instead just piles on more.
“a user called “Graemethecat””
Well, he has been here at WUWT for years and I don’t recall him ever promoting T Robinson. He certainly didn’t come to WUWT for that reason.
So you had an argument with a commenter or two about T Robinson. That doesn’t mean everyone at WUWT supports T Robinson. I, personally, don’t have any idea who T Robinson is and or what he has done or not done. And don’t care.
I just thought you were smearing a lot of good people at WUWT for no good reason, is why I brought the subject up.
No, WUWT is not a stronghold for T Robinson and “far right” views (whatever that might be).
I don’t see anyone supporting either Robinson or his alleged point of view.
I just see you whining that everyone doesn’t hate this Robinson fellow as much as you do.
PS: By referring to those who disagree with you as deniers, you have destroyed your credibility.
Mr. W: Yep, we don’t know what Fred J is, but he’s clearly here to provoke replies that will be further tailored to fulfill his fantasy about commenters here. Predictable.
I think the specific connection being drawn by Fred J in this instance could have a more sinister motive. Specifically, by mentioning all of this discussion around T Robinson, the EDL, and other mentions of phrasing specific to “far right”; is designed to boost the site’s rating in the search results for those particular search terms. It is an attempt at weaponized SEO in the same vein of “poisoning the well”. You create hyperlinks via this phraseology to the web crawlers / bots that are responsible for indexing websites and associating them with specific search terms and categories. Purely speculation, but something worth considering. It’s why the concept of “don’t feed the trolls” is so important. The more you feed (online acknowledgement and conversation) the more weight gets attributed to that particular context. It makes for a “thicker” line being drawn between the nodes of the network in the graph.
Cool! It’s like a James Bond movie! Just, am I Bond or Doctor Evil? I can’t figure it out.
Blofeld’s cat?
You’re the busboy who thinks he’s Bond.
Maybe he’s bondo, completely stuck on himself.
Dr. Evil was at least intelligent. The best you have managed so far is pathetic.
PS: Even poorly written bots can follow a script.
What is Robinson’s viewpoint?
No longer matters, he supported someone FJ doesn’t like, so he’s been cancelled.
‘which probably includes trumpeting your association with the employer at far-right rallies as Fenton did.’
So the claim is that being associated with the Far Right discredits your science?
Enrico Fermi was a member of the Italian National Fascist Party—he joined in 1929.
And , of course, Wernher von Braun put a man on the moon.
Roughly 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers (including their families) were relocated to the United States to advance American military, aerospace, and industrial technology.
Being Far Right does not mean your science is wrong, as anybody hit by a V-2 will tell you.
T. Robinson has spent a lot of time in prison. Donald Trump faced the prospect of 136 years in prison as a felon convicted on 34 counts.
Actually, I didn’t comment on his skills as a mathematician. He appears to be competent and recognized. What I was saying is that Fenton was whining about being cancelled in that puffball of an interview, and gaslighting everyone that he was just an innocent mathematician with an unpopular view regarding numbers on climate change and vaccines.
The truth appears to be rather darker. No-one forced him to make that speech that I posted earlier in this thread in support of Robinson. He also has had a lot more free speech than others in England recently, with the crackdown on protests. But free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, and he has an entitled attitude that it does.
It is natural that colleagues would wish to distance themselves from such explosive actions. What upside is there for them in sharing a podium with him? Especially in this age where everything is recorded and posted online. As a presumably smart guy, Fenton should recognize this and stop complaining.
So it is right and proper that competent mathematicians get cancelled because of their political views, in your opinion?
To reframe that question, I live in a hot country having left England long ago. I like to think I am competent in my field, but have an issue with body odor once I start to sweat. If I decline to take a shower and refuse to use deodorant and cologne, is it right and proper that my employer shows me the door?
I live in the real world where the employer has that right. If you ask me, Fenton’s employer has been very tolerant as he was still an emeritus professor. He doesn’t have much to complain about if colleagues decide to distance themselves however, although from his viewpoint in his academic ivory tower he clearly thinks he does.
You appear from your question to be rather “woke” in your viewpoint and insist that colleagues must stay with him to defend his “right” to be associated with them. I don’t subscribe to that point of view, and if we started losing clients due to me stinking from bad hygiene, I would learn about how much such imaginary rights mean rather quickly.
You do know what “Emeritus” status is, don’t you?
Living in the real world as I do, I have to confess that the nuances of academic titles somehow escaped my attention. According to the online dictionary:
emeritus /ɪˈmɛrɪtəs/ adjective (of the former holder of an office, especially a university professor) having retired but allowed to retain their title as an honour.
It doesn’t seem to change much. The university is letting him keep his title, which he trumpeted loudly in the speech I posted in support of Tommy Robinson. They didn’t have to do that as it drags their name through the mud but it’s their choice.
In other words, you used that as evidence to support your position, without bothering to check whether it actually did or not.
Why am I not surprised.
It is extremely uncommon for a University to revoke the “Emeritus” honorific, even if his special favourite sheep posts a tiktok video of him in a menage a trois with a goat and a camel.
Mr. J: Your attempt to hijack the thread is noted. The article about an editor fired for a specific reason (can’t have climate sceptics published). You imply a link to a guy named Fenton, who may support free speech. Violent far-right thugs say they like free speech. And here we are.
Your comment string is one of the worst examples of hijacking seen here. If I try to defend Fenton, I’m in bed with far right, all of whom are violent and have no complaint against their government. Now the body odor analogy is just begging for insults. Mods, please watch this one, he’s trying to provoke racist replies.
Yeah well, it probably had to do with the mods being fine with “Graemethecat” telling me I am a coward and weakling, and don’t know how to defend myself in a real fight, along with being too “thick” to understand Robinson. Go figure.
However, I think my mission to survey prevailing conditions on the climate denier planet is complete, and will now return to my starship.
Beam me up, Scotty!
And you think yourself fit to diagnose “significant mental health issues”? It was so hard to tell that you were here on a “mission”.
“you were here on a “mission”.”
I think you nailed it.
To other readers: I encourage all to read the Fenton comment string, and see how Fred R is slandering Mr. cat. Won’t give a blow-by-blow, but Mr. J attacked Fenton for his covid vax scepticism. Provokatuer.
And once again, FredJ reveals his true motive.
In an earlier post, he claimed to be open minded on the subject of global warming. Here he reveals that he is a true believer who’s willing to lie to improve his credibility.
Mr. W: Yep again, isn’t it strange how his views, rolled out over the course of comments, on CliSci, Covid vaxx, free-speech-for-me-not-thee, all line up with Mr. Soros? The body-odor comment has my hackles up!
Perhaps the mods agree with Graemthecat, a normally rational and agreeable character in my experience. Rather funny on occasions as well.
It seems the inherent WOKE within you can’t help but complain at every opportunity about him being a bit rude to you.
The fact that Graemethecat was accurate in his assessment of you, notwithstanding.
Captain’s log. There is no intelligent life on the climate denier planet. We can continue our terraforming plans starting with lots more CO2 to warm it up some more. We will not be violating the prime directive.
Continuing with our 5-year mission.
Mr. J: How fanciful! That you imagine yourself the captain of your imaginary spaceship is so charming, and spot on!
Anyone care to revisit his opener, where he thought kissing the host’s butt would buy credibility? What a quick devolution.
– Scotty, we’re under attack! Shields to maximum! Lock phasers! Scotty, what’s the status?
– We’re all dead, sir.
Captain’s log supplementary. The climate denier planet residents have no sense of humor. Unclear if it’s due to lack of intelligence or if it’s a side effect of the CO2 we’re putting into their atmosphere.
Whatever. There’s a nice beach there I want to vacation at but it’s too cold right now. Continuing with our terraforming plans.
Funny how earlier, Fred declared that his mission was over, and he was leaving. Yet here he is desperately trying to appear intelligent and relevant.
Funny how earlier, Fred declared that his mission was over, and he was leaving. Yet here he is desperately trying to appear intelligent and relevant.
Does this mean you will take your slimy trolling bullshit away from here?
Was it something I said?
We know it was nothing you thought.
I would say that Fred has no intention of saying anything intelligent, but then again, he’s never tried to.
And once again, Fred has no actual arguments, just rather pathetic insults.
I imagine that when you go upstairs to talk to your Mum, you will no doubt regale her with tales of how you bravely confronted a whole planet worth of deniers and came out smelling like old sweat.
The Mask has come off.
“However, I think my mission to survey prevailing conditions on the climate denier planet is complete”
So you already had your mind made up about WUWT before you came here.
Using “denier” tells me just where you are coming from. You did come here to cause trouble. Now you are running away.
I don’t think anyone on this blog is the slightest bit interested in your unsavoury bodily functions.
Was Fenton fired because he stank?
No, he wasn’t fired at all. He is an emeritus professor, a common term amongst the academic community you would know of were you educated to a higher standard.
Nor was it colleagues past or present that “abandoned” him, it was a concerted effort from the media, politicians and the establishment that conspired to suppress his opinions because they didn’t conform to the prevailing narrative.
It appears that despite living in the “real world” you understand little of what’s going on around you.
Translation: Having the wrong political opinions is a reason to fire anyone on the right.
Fenton obviously knows more about Tommy Robinson than you ever will.
Trump was convicted before his lawfare trials on pimped up evidence on inapplicable laws. I don’t know about UK law, but it sounds like a similar situation.
Trump will end up being vindicated of these charges, and his persecutor, the New York Attorney General, may go to jail.
My God, we all-mostly-hope for that. If the loony lefties don’t shoot him first…the sum of all fears, I guess.
The Loony Left are definitely Loony and are getting worse. They live on a completely different planet. A horrible, scary planet. No wonder they are going crazy.
Losing their political power and their Socialist/Marxist Dreamworld is the worst thing in the world to the Left. It’s the best thing in the world for the rest of us who live in the Real World.
Trump’s approval rating is up to 54 percent, despite the best efforts of the Leftwing Propaganda Media to smear him. That must be killing the Loony Left.
The chances of that quarrelsome, useless, ugly, smirk-faced fatty going to jail is zero, unfortunately.
The law was not only inapplicable, for the most part it didn’t even exist. What little did exist was a federal law that federal prosecutors had already declined to prosecute. The state has no authority to prosecute said laws.
Absolutely correct and true; I simply didn’t want to bore non-Yankees with all the sordid details of Trump’s railroading. That said, one point is that there were no victims in his “fraud” trial; indeed, the “victims” were financial experts and bankers that were extremely pleased with their business-and profits- with DJT. And there’s so much more.
In Trump’s application he advised the bank officials to get their own, independent valuation, which they are requried by law to get regardless of Trump’s recommendations. The bank got an independent valuation and that’s what they used.
The judge in this case decided on his own, that both Trump’s and the bank’s valuations were way too high and based on nothing more than his own opinion, set a valuation that was way below either of the other valuations, and was in fact less than the house had sold for 20 years earlier. PS, the judge was in NYC and the house in Florida.
Nazi’s were socialists. So of the left not far right.
Fascists are creatures of the left. Somewhere between socialism and pure communism.
Just one thing – the Nazis were far *LEFT* not right.
Ayup, if you can’t invalidate the argument besmirch the character of the author. Big Left Playbook! (US Liberal Left)
Clearly, you know nothing of Tommy Robinson.
He made a presentation to a hostile Oxford Union crowd of students, who applauded him at its conclusion. You might want to educate yourself.
Next up on the schedule is a book burning of skeptics and data generators. Followed by a bonfire setup for a stake burning.
Next up on the schedule is a
bookburning of skeptics.The burning of sceptics was de rigueur in the times the climate worriers wish to return to.
This was exactly to be expected. For those of us with long memories, the Climategate emails were filled with confessions of Phil Jones and a host of co-conspirators stating in their own words their intent to pressure scientific institutions and journals. The purpose of all this, stated by Jones, was to ensure that contrary views were never published.
Now the climatistas are losing everything with the shutdown of GISS and the elimination of much of the alarmist research base in the US. The billions of dollars in so-called Climate Research is now getting canceled. So, they are getting desperate to expunge whatever contrary research they still can irrespective of its merits.
Congratulations, T. Pulles. You just qualified for the International Order of Bookburners everwhere. Your Sturmabteilung membership card should be in the mail any time now.
I read that Pulles article.
It was one of the most atrociously anti-science pieces of bovex I have ever seen.
I looked the guy up and he’s just another regulator jobsworth. In fact, not only a has-been, but a has-been who never was. Sounds like he might be looking for an Editor’s job somewhere. What a tool.
Firing Dr Rowland was an incredibly stupid decision. Has Pulles never heard of the Streisand Effect?
The climate alarmists should be called the climate nazis since they use the same tactics.
That’s what I call them. Among other things. 😄
So he got fired because he is wrong because there is a consensus.
And there is a consensus because disagreeing with the consensus gets you fired.
Of course, if they didn’t fire people for disagreeing, there wouldn’t be a consensus.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This!
Brilliant!
“he was told that the IPCC is withholding conclusive evidence of the dangers from the public. That they have secret data showing that it is dangerous.”
??? Seriously, and there was I, thinking that “I know something you don’t know” was a 13-year old girl thing.
I was amazed when I read that. The IPCC should be asked to confirm or deny this statement. However, if they deny this statement, they would be confirming that global warming is not dangerous.
That is exactly what they said! Amazing that people believe that.
That’s called “living in a fantasy world”.
Delusional. They have to be delusional to say something like that.
If the data was secret, how could he know?
Of course UN security protocols are suspect, widespread.
That was a spit-the-food-out-of-your-mouth laughing assertion. The IPCC HIDE anything that would feed their endless climate propaganda??!!
😄😆😅🤣😂
Those who speak truth to power and get fired for their honesty, give us all a clear indication of just how fragile and threatened those welding the power actually are.
So much for that Diversity requirement these woke champions bang on about at every turn, eh?
DEI applies only to the chosen few.
WASPs are automatically excluded. Hence full diversity.
Where is the evidence to support any of these claims. Starting with the fact that Dr. Rowland was fired and inlcuding the new conspiracy theory that “he was told that the IPCC is withholding conclusive evidence of the dangers from the public. “? If you want to make such claims then you need to provide some evidence for them.
Dr. Rowland’s webpage for example still lists him as a “ Special editions editor for The American Journal of Economics and Sociology.” So he was never an editor in the first place and secondly special edition editors are usually only appointed for the special issue. Given that the issue is over it is probably not surprising that he is no longer an editor.
That said I completely agree that he shouldn’t have been fired for allowing Dr. May to publish his article. If that is in fact what happened.
You have two eyewitnesses to all this, myself and Dr. Rowland, what other evidence is required? Since when was a “special editions editor” not an editor? Rowland was told explicitly that he was fired for publishing our paper and that the pressure to fire him came directly from Wiley. Both Cobb and Gwartney and Lough refer to the pressure from Wiley that was due to the paper. There is all the evidence you need, if you will just look at it.
The evidence seems to be, “trust me, bro.”
The ancient Golden Rule of every debate is that never take a denier at face value, and Izaak is apparently a rule-abiding person.
I really wonder how this was actually worded. Maybe he is correct. Maybe he heard what he wanted to hear. Maybe they were in a noisy place. At the moment we don’t even have a he said / she said situation, as Izaak has correctly pointed out, because his “termination” seems to be due to natural reasons (oops, climate science has cooked my brain, sorry 😉 ).
They were pressured to publish criticism, as per your own exposé of the matter. This is a far cry from firing or whatever you claim, furthermore, they were happy to be obliged, as per your exposé of the subject, again.
The only Golden Rule I have ever seen published is “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
Maybe you should mull that one over a bit.
As to your bogus Golden Rule:
FYI from Google AI:
The golden rule of debate is to treat your opponent with the same respect you would want them to treat you. This includes listening actively, being clear and concise, using evidence, and staying calm and respectful, even when faced with strong disagreement according to MyPerfectWords.com. It also means focusing on the issue at hand and avoiding personal attacks.
This should be the motto of this site.
As you wrote earlier: What makes Wiley the arbiter of science facts?
Mr. May: Thanks for producing this entertaining little sub-string, exposing the usual suspects. If your testimony busts their bubble, well, that’s not evidence then. Mr. J (the harmless one) rejects all testimony with a waive (he is so casual to question the credibility of authors here), while Mr. nyolci has written the rules, determined the golden ones, and also determined the rules only apply to “deniers”. Just wondering, the concept of “debate” was around for a few thousand years before your propaganda arm came up with the term “deniers”, so when was this golden rule written?
They seem to love jumping out of their depth.
No, exactly the opposite. These rules apply to normal people when they have talk to deniers. You deniers always mess up everything…
You are not “normal people.” You are a religious zealot.
You sound very convincing 😉
Andy,
which parts of the above were you an eyewitness to? Did you see or hear Dr. Rowland be fired? Did you see or hear the pressure put on Cobb et al. by Wiley? If not all of this is just hearsay and wouldn’t count as evidence in court.
Again if you want to make extraordinary claims then you need to be able to present evidence for it. As this stands all that appears to have happened is that a special edition was published, the special edition editors finished their jobs and as a result they stopped being special edition editors.
Mr. Walton: Court, huh? How’d you get us into court? If we aren’t in court (hint- we’re not), then you are wasting your valuable time here. Or do you bill clients for your time spent here?
In typical callous fashion, Marty Rowland was fired via an email, which I have a copy of. I’m very sure of my facts here, there is absolutely no doubt. And no, I will not post the letter for you to download, so don’t ask.
Ask Marty yourself, he is on X. The fact is, he is fired, and nothing will change that fact. But, being an alarmist, you only recognize facts that fit your narrative.
Well, Rule Nr. 1 still applies, and the burden of proof is on you. In other words, we still don’t know what happened, and this is the charitable interpretation.
By the way, the “pressure” on Cobb, Gwartney and Lough seems to be pressure to publish counterarguments, right?
Once upon a time, women weren’t allowed to testify in court, they weren’t considered reliable witnesses.
In modern leftwing tribunals, deniers aren’t allowed to testify, even about things they have personally witnessed.
He claims to have seen a mail. Some people claim to regularly see the Virgin Mary. Perhaps coughing up this relatively small piece of digital information would help even in a leftwing tribunal (or whatever the fokk you hallucinate).
Whoa, say something the warmunist doesn’t like, and they go straight for the vulgar. Then again, it’s not like they can actually defend their positions.
I see, you try to sneak out, elegantly pretending there was nothing before 😉 Well, where is the email? I’m asking for the evidence. Feel like this is a rightwing tribunal.
Vulgar is vulgar. Nice of you to try and defend the indefensible.
And there we go again, the left wing belief that anything they disagree with is by definition right wing.
Then again, it’s not like you’ve ever had an original thought.
So you are out of argument. Again.
It would be against the law for you to publish Mr. Rowland’s email without his expressed, written consent.
My employment has rules, regulations, and laws that dictate what I cannot reveal in a public forum. It also has company policies that prohibit my making any comments about the corporation.
Exactly!
So this whole circus is based on an (allegedly existing and allegedly) incriminating email that only a few chosen can see. Good to know.
Ah, okay, so this is really the “trust me bro” type of evidence.
Despite the fact that 3 witnesses to this even have come forward, the fact that Andy himself isn’t a witness means we must discount this event from ever having happened.
This is getting funnier 😉 Let’s quote Andy himself:
Okay, Andy has (allegedly) seen an email that is (allegedly) The Definite Proof (and allegedly genuine), so being a literal eyewitness may be a bona fide belief on his side. Allegedly. We still don’t know what the email actually says (or whether it exists at all), I’d like to see the wording etc (if it does exist).
But long story short, now we know that the whole “commies fired the poor Einstein-like being because he published science” thing pivots on this single piece of digital information, apparently, so the circus show is still running (entertainment guaranteed).
I hope no government money is going to either of these two organisations?
Doge anyone?
That is an astonishing claim about an astonishing claim. That can’t just be a passing remark left unexamined.
It screams “dig here”. Someone is lying or someone else is absolutely bat-sh*t, and we need to know who.
I don’t criticise this blog post for not doing the digging. Posts need focus. But there needs to be a follow-up item because one or the other of those claims is a big deal.
Somebody is definitely lying about the IPCC having evidence for Human-caused Climate Change because there is no such evidence. Not one shred of evidence exists.
If there were such evidence, we skeptics would already know about it, and the IPCC would not be hiding it, they would be shouting it from the rooftops.
Exactly.
Hard to judge what has really happened, even the AJES explanation is behind a paywall. What’s clear on visiting the site and looking at the helpful references is the weirdness about this thing they call denialism. Lots of articles referred to (all behind the paywall of course) trying to explain or diagnose this thing, whatever it is.
I don’t even understand what it is supposed to be. Maybe AlanJ can explain, What specifically is it that thinking it makes one a denialist? What is the difference between being a denialist and having a different opinion? Are string theorists, or their opponents, denialists? Before Godel were people persuaded of decidability denialists? Or was Godel one? Can you be a denialist and then cease to be one without changing your opinion?
Indeed!
Normally I don’t mind being called a climate denier, but when they explicitly compare me to a holocaust denier, like Pulles does by citing Hoofnagle, I get upset. I’ve actually visited Auschwitz/Birkenau, it is truly upsetting.
To read Hoofnagle, go here:
What is Denialism? by Mark Hoofnagle, Chris Jay Hoofnagle :: SSRN
My history with the Holodomor and the Holocaust makes me view the term “denier” a criminally offensive slur. Having said this before, the Climate Nazis called me someone seeking victimhood or some other such insult.
The difference is straightforward: having a different opinion means weighing evidence differently or favoring a different interpretation in areas where the science is still uncertain, while denialism means rejecting well-established evidence and consensus in favor of contrarianism. The example you give of string theory involves legitimate debate at he frontier of scientific understanding where the evidence was incomplete and reasonable disagreement was expected. Climate change isn’t in that category; the evidence that recent warming is human-caused is as well supported as gravity or plate tectonics.
Certainly, but doing so requires engaging with the evidence beyond rehashing long-dispelled contrarian talking points. I don’t see many in the contrarian space doing that.
Well I maintain that the GAT construct fails the standards of probity and provenance required of scientific “data” used as the platform for all subsequent “findings” about future climatic conditions and behaviors.
My background in auditing screams “requires investigation and verification” every time I read a climate claim that uses GAT as an ingredient.
So on this score, I accept being called what you lamely call a “climate denier”.
I don’t accept it, because THERE’S NOTHING TO DENY. The is ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that atmospheric CO2 levels drive the Earth’s temperature. “Speculative bullshit” and “models” (that ASSUME the said “speculative bullshit” to be “fact) is *NOT* “evidence.”
As the saying goes, THE BURDEN OF PROOF is on *THEM.*
From post”…evidence that recent warming is human-caused is as well supported as gravity or plate tectonics.”
You continually update your dumbest thing written file. This tops the list now. When I do an equation needing a numerical input for acceleration due to gravity I can input 9.81 m/s^2. I can do that anybody in the solar system. The tectonic plate movement that is splitting Iceland has been measured to the centimeter per year.
Climate science cannot tell what the numerical sensitivity to CO2 is. There is very little accuracy. Wide uncertainties. And constant revisions to something that is settled.
And NO EVIDENCE that supports the assertions. Just hypothetical bullshit.
The paper provides evidence, mostly from AR6, that climate change (whether man-made or natural or both) is not dangerous. What is your “well-established evidence” that it is dangerous? Why did you not address the point of the article and try to change the subject?
Mr. May: Here’s what I wonder- before CliSci took the pejorative “denialist” term from the holocaust context, contrarians were called “flat earthers” or something, but I’ll wager the term was not used in the context of science debate until the “consensus” decided such an insult was ok to hurl at those who question. Maybe Mr. J can do some research on the history of the term.
If Mr. J does do some research it will apparently be, for the first time.
CliSciFi modelturbation is not evidence.
The models have spoken, the warming is all caused by CO2, even though no previous warming was caused by CO2, even when CO2 levels were 10 to 30 times higher than present.
All hail the sacred models.
So the models, that ASSUME THAT ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVELS DRIVE THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE, say that atmospheric CO2 levels drive the Earth’s temperature.
Well, QED, eh?
/sarc
That pretty much sums up the contents of all the IPCC reports. They use up tens of thousands of pages, but that is all they really say.
The problem comes down to whether climate science at the moment consists of a set of theories so well-established that rational good faith dissent or skepticism about them is impossible.
I would have thought one glance at the spaghetti charts would tell anyone that this isn’t the case. Its not at all like Newtonian gravity theory, which generated large numbers of quantitative predictions which could be, and were, verified by observation.
””denialism means rejecting well-established evidence and consensus in favor of contrarianism….
Well, the question is whether the evidence is well established, and whether the consensus among a group carries any weight. Who decides when its permissible to hold a different opinion, and when it isn’t?
In the end the slogans about denial, denialists, denialism are just ways of trying to close down discussion and scrutiny. The nearest analogy would be the notion of heresy in pre-modern times. Can’t persuade by argument, resort to abuse or sanctions.
E pur si muove.
I don’t think that is the problem, because rational, good faith-skepticism is possible around any scientific theory, no matter how well established. The reality is simply that as the evidence for a theory becomes more and more insurmountable, the odds that a person expressing skepticism is actually doing this asymptotically approaches zero. There is a real possibility that someone finds legitimate scientific evidence against plate tectonic theory, but realistically, nobody in the world today currently decrying plate tectonic theory has any such evidence.
It’s always permissible to hold a different opinion. You are not entitled to have your opinion respected by the scientific community if it is ludicrous. You might get called names you don’t like, like “denialist.”
The quote “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong” is often attributed to Albert Einstein, though the exact wording and context can vary. Online fact-checking sites have also discussed the quote. It highlights the nature of scientific theories, which can be supported by evidence but never definitively proven, while a single contradictory finding can falsify them.
Here’s a breakdown of the quote’s meaning:
Support vs. Proof:
Scientific theories are built on evidence and observation. No matter how many experiments confirm a theory, it’s always possible that future experiments might reveal inconsistencies.
Falsifiability:
A key aspect of scientific theories is that they must be falsifiable, meaning there must be a potential way to prove them wrong. A single experiment that contradicts the theory is enough to cast doubt on it.
The Power of a Single Counterexample:
The quote emphasizes that while many experiments supporting a theory don’t make it absolutely certain, a single experiment that disproves it can be a game-changer. This is because it points to a potential flaw in the theory’s fundamental assumptions or scope.
Einstein’s Response to Criticism:
The quote is also said to have been Einstein’s response to the book “100 Authors Against Einstein.” It reflects his confidence in his theory of relativity and his understanding of the scientific method.
Oh my. I don’t usually post comments, but your comment “the evidence that recent warming is human-caused is as well supported as gravity or plate tectonics” is sadly and pathetically wrong. The “science” of climate change is very immature, with much “evidence” taking the form of model results. I could go on about the weakness of many climate theories and data, but wasting anymore time on the comparison with the validity of the theory of gravity is stupid. The theory of gravity has been tested, to extreme precision and accuracy countless times, ultimately allowing the guidance of space probes with extraordinary success. The generalization of gravitational theory accomplished by Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity further refined the science and has also been tested thousands of times. To put any form of climate science understanding in the same category as our understanding of gravity is simply foolish and shows a glaring lack of knowledge about science.
What well established evidence?
The output of models is not data. Especially when they conflict with data from the real world.
Anyone who thinks that science is defined by “consensus” has proven himself to be no scientist.
There is simply no evidence that CO2 is the control knob for the climate.
There is simply no evidence that a few degrees of warming is bad for anyone.
Oh? The climate science is settled and we have a consensus? Then there is no need for further funding, Trump letting “climate scientists” from NOAA and NASA and EPA and DOE, etc., etc., is perfectly acceptable.
I have yet to see and evidence beyond reasonable doubt that CAGW is real.
Irony: noun. Climate Nazis comparing those attempting to tell the truth about climate to holocaust deniers.
Secret data?
Untortured?
No chance
Well applying their own standards it’s time to shut down the Journal as well… blaim Putin, Trump or whomever you choose, including yourselves lol. What a leftist ecotard’s joke The Journal prooves to be. should merge with “The Guardian”… well guardian of what? Used recycled toilet paper with biodegradable chunks attached to it? Yes guard it, please 🤣
“Planck published most of the thesis as four papers, without formal peer-review”
They didn’t have “formal peer-review” as we know it today back then.
And somehow, science not only survived, it thrived.
Being reviewed by Planck seems pretty formal to me.
I think we see the root of the problem we have today.
I believe ‘Orwellian’ is becoming another term devoid of meaning through overuse and misuse.
I read George Orwell’s books as a child, and I think this situation fits his meaning and thesis.
May and Croc will win the long game. I struggled to publish in second tier journals for 30 years. Now 13 years after I retired, I am running 1-3 citations/week.
Being right counts in the long run. But on a much smaller and less complicated issue it took 20 years.