Forbes is not a credible source for climate information

There they go again
[Via CEJournal]

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:


The basis for the Forbes writer’s premise is a book jacket blurb. Wow. Cutting edge reporting there. Perhaps next time they can use quotes from urinal walls.

This is after they published an article whose ‘good’ news was pretty much debunked as wrong. Using a variation of the Gish Gallop, this author actually did a pretty poor job of discussing facts but a masterful job using false rhetorical flourishes to make their point.

Misreporting. Something Forbes seems happy providing.

4 thoughts on “Forbes is not a credible source for climate information

  1. “Forbes is not a credible source for climate information”

    Propaganda rags like Mother Jones, HuffPost and “Real” Climate aren’t a step up.

    1. The post was on mistruths from the Forbes article. Explain the mistruths from RealClimate’s rebuttal. Ad hominem arguments are very weak rhetorical devices. Facts usually work best.

    1. Perhaps.

      But since denialist’s discussions of Dr. Spencer’s work have been quite wrong before I think I will wait a bit before declaring the end of Global Warming. Especially as his conclusions– as stated in the paper – are no where near as provocative as his press release or the blog post written by a Heartland Institute Fellow.

Comments are closed.