Journal axes editor after publishing paper in defense of carbon dioxide

09/18/2025 / By Ramon Tomey

The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES) fired editor Marty Rowland for approving a peer-reviewed study challenging climate alarmism, despite the paper’s strong academic reception.
No factual errors were identified, only ideological opposition. Critics, including the study’s authors, labeled the backlash “Orwellian.”
Rowland’s firing mirrors past cases like Richard Lindzen’s censorship in the 1990s and Wolfgang Wagner’s forced resignation in 2011 for publishing climate-skeptical research.
Wiley, AJES publisher, pressured the journal to remove the paper, claiming it contradicted the “only legitimate view” of climate danger – exposing how institutions enforce consensus rather than scientific debate.
The incident underscores how climate science has become politicized, silencing dissenters like Rowland and undermining the scientific process – echoing past suppression of groundbreaking work, including Einstein’s early rejections.

The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES) removed special editor Marty Rowland in August for approving a peer-reviewed paper arguing that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and climate warming pose no significant threat.

The controversial study titled “Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate Are Not Problems” was first published in May 2024. Retired geologist Andy May and Marcel Crok, director of the Netherlands-based climate policy group Clintel, were listed as its first and second authors. The study quickly gained traction – ranking among AJES‘ most-cited works and reaching the top 0.1 percent of papers tracked by Wiley, the journal’s publisher.

The dismissal of Rowland – a lecturer at the Henry George School of Social Science in New York state – followed pressure from Wiley and critiques by climate researchers, who smeared the study as “denialism” and equated it with Holocaust denial.

Meanwhile, Rowland denounced his firing as “Orwellian,” a sentiment the study authors agreed with. “This was purely political,” May told the College Fix, noting that none of the paper’s detractors identified factual errors. “The consensus narrative cannot tolerate dissent, even when backed by evidence.” (Related: Studies: Current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels NOT a threat to humans or the environment.)

This development mirrors past instances of scientific suppression, such as the forced resignation of Remote Sensing editor Wolfgang Wagner in 2011 after publishing a climate-skeptical study by climate scientist Roy Spencer. Similarly, Massachusetts Institute of Technology climatologist Richard Lindzen faced censorship for challenging mainstream warming projections in the 1990s – only for later research to validate some of his claims.

Rowland fired by the climate science gatekeepers for publishing the truth

Critics argue that climate science has increasingly prioritized political consensus over open debate. “Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one,” said H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute, who praised Rowland’s “bravery.” Burnett cited a recent Department of Energy report pushing back on alarmist claims as a sign of shifting discourse, though Crok warned that its authors now face “severe” backlash.

Rowland’s firing underscores a broader trend of institutional gatekeeping. Wiley, which pressured AJES to intervene post-publication, insisted the paper contradicted the “only legitimate view” of climate danger – a stance Rowland called unscientific. He asked why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is hiding secret data that apparently proves the climate catastrophe, but his question fell on deaf ears.

Brighteon.AI‘s Enoch engine points out that “the mainstream science establishment censors climate-critical studies because they threaten the globalist agenda of control through fear-based climate policies and carbon taxation. They suppress the truth about CO2’s benefits to plant life and natural climate cycles to maintain their false narrative and justify authoritarian restrictions on energy, food and freedom.”

The incident raises concerns about academic freedom at a time when climate policies – from carbon taxes to central bank digital currencies – increasingly hinge on unchallenged claims. As May noted, even Albert Einstein’s groundbreaking work was initially rejected before finding a publisher willing to risk controversy.

Science thrives on dissent – but when dissent is silenced, the public loses. Rowland’s termination serves as a warning: In today’s climate debate, some truths remain too inconvenient to print.

Watch this video about why CO2 is not a pollutant, as mentioned in the study that got Marty Rowland fired.

This video is from the Abide in Christ channel on Brighteon.com.