A Sad Day

The editor of a scientific journal resigns, apologizing for publishing a paper that questions the conventional thinking about global warming.

So, we are having show trials, now? Or just re-education?

Roy Spencer’s response is here.

Scientific truth will not be determined by how many people agree with a particular viewpoint but by the testing of one hypothesis against another. That process seems to be being curtailed.


  1. For more on adaptation to global warming: see Jonathan Adler’s discussion of PERC’s recent conference here, and this interview with Matthew Kahn.

  2. Maybe instead of blindly rejecting climate science, PERC contributors should be looking for a free market solution. Instead what I’m seeing is run-of-the-mill denialism from economists and journalists who would rather ignore the problem because it’s hard. The paper in question was very flawed and should not have been published. The author did not use statistical analysis on his results to show that they were significant, and did not describe his methods in enough detail for them to be replicated. These are serious fundamental flaws in a professional science paper, and anything that overlooked such basics would be thrown out. I don’t think it was necessary for the editor to resign, but that’s his choice.

    I would prefer to avoid excessive government regulation if possible. I also don’t want to see innocent people’s property damaged by unchecked air pollution. So why don’t talented people look for non-regulatory solutions to global warming instead of avoiding the hard questions?

  3. Jane S. Shaw says:

    I think that PERC has been in the forefront of the process of seeking alternatives. PERC recently held a conference on adapting to global warming. Jane Shaw.