There is nothing ‘out of context’ about trashing scientists who don’t agree with you and strong arming editorial boards and screwing with the peer review process. It’s arrogant, and extremely harmful to science. Anyone can make a mistake, and there are probably few scientists in the world who couldn’t have at least some of their data questioned at some level, but this is over the top opportunism that has hurt people. A confident scientist would let his or her data speak for itself, and would have no problem debating and defending their findings and hypotheses with those who have different data and different opinions. It’s healthy for science to have arguments and competing theories etc. It’s not healthy for science to be controlled by a group of collaborating elites who are all in agreement with each other, dominate the funding, dominate the peer review process, and suppress opposing views. That’s crime, not science. Suspend funding pending investigation.
He received several responses from scientists refuting his statements about the warming of Antarctica, but the important part was his reasoning about worldwide economic changes.