I am the author of the article you have unfairly criticized in this blog post. You have no reasonable basis to conflate my views with those of Larry Bell. I have worked at Forbes for several years. There is no editorial policy on global warming — official or unofficial. If there were an institutional policy regarding global warming, I would never have been asked to write for Forbes. I work for an environmental advocacy organization that promotes a strong policy response to the very real threat of global warming.

Like it or not, I am on your side of the political divide — NOT Larry Bell’s. I find it disappointing that you reflexively dismiss anyone who expresses concerns about emerging political currents in climate science as a “climate skeptic.” This is unfair, petty and counter productive.

While you may not appreciate it, the issue I raised about democracy and climate change is extremely important. A growing number of climate scientists have lost confidence that the political process will establish binding emissions cuts soon enough to avert dangerous climate change, which has led many to support geoengineering.

Shearman’s book expressed the political perspective that I believe is implicitly driving many highly-respected climate scientists to embrace geoengineering. These sentiments are similarly expressed in the late Stephen Schneider’s book “Science As A Contact Sport.” Other giants of climate science have said the same in scores of articles and interviews.

I wish you would have invested half as much time addressing the substance of my concerns rather than trying to make me look stupid. I am not stupid but I am concerned about the future of our planet. Are you?

Best regards,
Bill Pentland

Dealing with those problems is going to require fleets of black helicopters, which is why people like Eli advocate strong action now to protect liberty in the future. If you doubt this, go read Durant or anyone else on what happened to governance after Rome fell.