New View on Climate Narrative with Marty Rowland

Key takeaways
Marty Rowland shared his experience of being removed as special editions editor at the American Journal of Economics and Sociology after publishing a paper presenting skeptical views on climate change.
The group discussed how scientific narratives can become dogmatic rather than encouraging open debate and skepticism.

Participants explored the relationship between power structures, narrative control, and how alternative viewpoints are often suppressed.
The discussion highlighted concerns about the climate change narrative being used to control populations and extract profit.

Participants agreed on the importance of individual action, community connections, and questioning dominant narratives.
Discussed topics
Marty Rowland's experience with climate skepticism publication
Discussion about Marty's removal as editor after publishing a paper with skeptical views on climate change.

Details
Marty: Explained he was editor of special editions for the American Journal of Economics and Sociology and wanted to present both dominant and skeptical views on climate change to encourage debate.
Marty: Published a paper by Andy May, a petrophysicist with oil industry background, that questioned aspects of climate change narrative.
Marty: The electronic version was published without his explanatory introduction about presenting multiple viewpoints, causing backlash.
Marty: Despite the paper going through peer review, he was removed as editor to appease critics.
Conclusion
The incident demonstrates how challenging the dominant climate narrative can lead to professional consequences.
Scientific journals may prioritize accepted narratives over open debate.
Climate science skepticism points
Discussion of scientific arguments questioning aspects of the climate change narrative.

Details
Marty: Mentioned there are 31 areas where skeptics disagree with the dominant climate narrative.
Marty: Argued that the 1.5°C temperature rise since 1850 could be part of natural climate cycles rather than primarily CO2-driven.
Marty: Questioned the concept of "average global temperature" as a meaningful metric.
Carol: Raised questions about the sun's effect on Earth's climate and the relationship between temperature changes and CO2 levels.
Alanna: Mentioned warming on other planets suggesting solar influence rather than human activity.
Conclusion
Climate science contains areas of legitimate scientific debate that are often suppressed.
Historical climate cycles may explain some current warming trends.
Science as religion
Discussion about how science has taken on religious characteristics.

Details
Elizabeth: Recommended "A World Without Women" by David Nobel which explores how science is rooted in religious thinking.
Elizabeth: Argued that science claims objectivity but often operates on belief systems similar to religion.
Marty: Quoted a physicist saying "science is about doubt, and religion is about faith" but noted these have been flipped.
Elizabeth: Described how those challenging scientific orthodoxy are treated as "heretics."
Conclusion
Modern science often functions like a belief system with dogmas that cannot be questioned.
Scientific institutions may suppress dissent rather than encouraging debate.
Power structures and narrative control
Exploration of how powerful interests control narratives across various domains.

Details
Elizabeth: Shared her experience with Afghanistan reporting in the 1980s, where facts on the ground contradicted official narratives.
Elizabeth: Described how Hollywood and academic publishers blocked truthful narratives that challenged official positions.
Ginger: Noted that corporations prioritize short-term profits over long-term environmental concerns.
Ginger: Suggested powerful interests are accelerating their agenda as more people begin questioning dominant narratives.
Alanna: Used the metaphor of "rabbit holes" leading to underlying issues of power, land, and money problems.
Conclusion
Narrative control serves financial and power interests rather than truth.
Media, academia, and corporations work together to maintain control of information.
Individual and community responses
Discussion of how individuals can respond to these challenges.

Details
Marty: Emphasized the importance of daily actions and working with like-minded people.
Elizabeth: Suggested "an act of kindness every day to a stranger" as a way to change the world.
Elizabeth: Emphasized healing within families as fundamental to healing society.
Alanna: Mentioned efforts to revive sister city relationships between American and Russian cities.
Marty: Proposed creating dialogues with historical figures like Henry George to address current problems.
Conclusion
Individual responsibility and daily actions are important for creating change.
Building connections between people across divides can counter divisive narratives.
Challenges
Overcoming dominant narratives that suppress alternative viewpoints in science and media
Finding ways to connect like-minded people who are "disconnected in clumps"
Addressing the psychological impact of climate doom narratives on young people
Creating grassroots movements that can effectively challenge powerful interests
Healing family relationships as a foundation for broader social healing
Action items
Marty
Write notes for the session to be included when the video is posted
Send email about the Henry George avatar project idea to Alanna for distribution to the group
Alanna
Post the recorded session to Rumble and YouTube within 24 hours
Email her sister and brother about their mother's birthday
Group
Consider future discussion on healing family relationships
Explore ways to connect with others to form more organized resistance to dominant narratives