I’m talking about Forbes magazine, which today published another howler
Yesterday, Real Climate deconstructed a post at Forbes in which Larry Bell bludgeoned journalists for failing to report “good news” about climate change. The trouble was, almost all the alleged good news Bell referred to was absolutely bogus.
Today, Forbes is at it again, this time with a blog post by William Pentland (that’s him to the left) in which he asks:
Does a liberal democracy have sufficient resolve to stomach the economic and political sacrifices required to stabilize global warming?
Here’s his answer:
A growing number of climate scientists believe the answer is “no.” In their view, democratic institutions are perpetuating climate change by precluding implementation of the politically unpalatable actions needed to reduce the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
His evidence that a “growing number” of climate scientists believe this? The text from the jacket blurb of a book published three years ago and co-authored by a man who appears to be an Australian MD. I’m not kidding. That’s it.
Here’s what Pentland says:
The back-of-the-book blurb, which I would strongly urge readers NOT to buy, describes the author’s argument like so:
And what does the blurb say?
Having brought the reader to the realization that in order to halt or even slow the disastrous process of climate change we must choose between liberal democracy and a form of authoritarian government by experts, the authors offer up a radical reform of democracy that would entail the painful choice of curtailing our worldwide reliance on growth economies, along with various legal and fiscal reforms.
The book, titled “The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy” (HURRY! Only 1 left in stock!), is by David Shearman, whom Pentland describes as a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Adelaide. Except, he’s not. Or at least you won’t find him listed among the staff or faculty at the university. I checked. Maybe they just forgot to list him because he’s a visiting professor. Who knows?
But Shearman was one of literally hundreds of contributors to Working Group 2 of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, and he’s co-authored other books on climate.
In his post, Pentland predictably invokes Godwin’s law, with references to Hitler and the Nazis. You get the idea. A growing number of climate scientists are promoting Nazi-like policies . . .
Look, I really don’t know anything about this. I didn’t read the book, and I have no intention of doing so. And in 25 years of covering climate, I’ve never heard of Shearman. He’s written about climate, but apparently he’s not a climate scientist. Like I said, I don’t know.
And most important, neither does Pentland — because he obviously hasn’t read the book, or even part of it, or even bothered to check ANYTHING out about it and the co-authors. He’s so shameless he even admits that his sole bit of evidence that a growing number of climate scientists are becoming like Nazis comes from the bloody book jacket.
So first Larry Bell and then this? I realize that we’re talking about a blog here, and that it’s a challenge to feed the blogbeast every day. But are there ANY editors over there trying to uphold even MINIMAL journalistic standards?
How can anyone ever take this publication seriously?