The climate cult may be down, but they’re not out.

The American Journal of Economics and Sociology recently removed special editor Marty Rowland from his position for publishing a paper refuting climate change argument about carbon dioxide, according to the paper’s authors. 

“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,” Marcel Crok, a co-author of the paper and director of the climate science group Clintel, told The College Fix. 

“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,” Crok said in an email Tuesday.

As it turns out, the manuscript did not deny the existence of climate change but instead posited that it is a natural phenomenon, and that human contributions through carbon emissions do not constitute a catastrophic threat.

Andy May points out:

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.

According to The College Fix, shortly after its publication, there were calls for the paper to be retracted.

‘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.’

However, none of the people engaged in the outcry provided any proof that there were any errors or flaws in the data provided. Despite not being retracted, Rowland was terminated resulting from his allowing the study to be published, despite its data having been peer-reviewed prior to submission.

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.’

Despite all of this, Crok and May’s article ranked among the top 0.1% of papers tracked by Wiley and is the second most-read paper published by AJES.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a notably even-handed report on the environmental effects of carbon dioxide, which outraged climate change advocates, prompting them to file a lawsuit against the government to demand its retraction.

This is another example of how corrupted the field of climate science has become. Any and all efforts to present the other side of the argument are met with anger that results in Stalinistic purges of any and all dissenting voices. In other words, the science is settled and heretics will be burned at the stake for questioning it.