Editor Fired for Publishing Scientific Paper Skeptical of Climate Change

Dr. Marty Rowland allowed Marcel Crok and Andy May’s article, “Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate Are Not Problems,” to be published in this special edition. Now, as you can see from the title, this article did not claim the climate isn’t changing. It is, and we can all observe that. They simply disagreed, for scientific reasons, that it’s alarming and dangerous to the future of the planet. The paper (which has not been retracted) has been very popular, appearing in the top 0.1% of all papers followed by the publisher and sitting at number two in popularity in the journal’s history.

As you can imagine, anything questioning the narrative that we’re in a man-made climate crisis will face backlash and intense scrutiny (but the researchers claim they’ve been able to answer all the objections to their paper, hence why there hasn’t been a retraction). And this particular paper apparently resulted in the firing of the editor. I suppose when he was planning a special edition to highlight all sides of the issue, he should have just ignored the side that questioned the consensus!

This isn’t surprising to creationists because we understand that science isn’t neutral.

But this isn’t surprising to creationists because we understand that science isn’t neutral. Many people view science as some kind of level-headed, strictly data-driven endeavor with no bias—scientists simply going where the evidence leads. But that’s not true (human nature alone should tell us that can’t possibly be true!). Every scientist has a worldview and has biases, and evidence must be interpreted (and, of course, the scientist has to decide what evidence to include and what to discard, and that can dramatically influence the results).

The problem only gets worse when an issue (like climate change) becomes emotional and political and when there are billions of dollars at stake. That’s why we see this kind of censorship in certain scientific fields. Really, the climate change movement is an anti-God religious movement.

This holds back science and makes it very difficult for differing opinions to see the light of day—even if those views are based on observational data. As one of the study authors noted,

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.

The other author said,

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.

The article reporting on this issue notes the response of an environmental policy expert who was contacted in reference to the editor’s firing:

Burnett said the field of climate research is heavily censored and not open to dispute. “No one should suffer for their belief in open inquiry that is at the heart of the scientific endeavor, but in the field of climate science, far too many academics do.”

According to Burnett, academics are commonly ostracized or fired “for daring to raise perfectly legitimate questions about the causes and consequences of climate change, and about the policies proposed by the ‘settled science’ community as a response to climate change.”

We’re constantly told that we need to “follow the science,” but censorship like this highlights the problems with that kind of view.

We’re constantly told that we need to “follow the science,” but censorship like this highlights the problems with that kind of view. Really, the “follow the science” mantra is just another way of elevating man and man’s wisdom, assuming that humans (at least if we’ve reached a “consensus”) are infallible, have enough understanding to speak authoritatively, and can be trusted without question. But humans constantly make mistakes. We don’t know everything—in fact, compared to what God knows, we know next to nothing—and we don’t have all the information. That’s why we need to always start with God’s perfect Word and critically examine what we hear. Remember “in whom [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3).

It’s God who has all wisdom, not man.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.