The Professor Speaketh
The late Dame Mary Douglas, a British anthropologist, once said, "Pretensions to moral superiority are devastatingly destructive."
Malcolm Stevenson Forbes Jr., better known as Steve Forbes, is the Chairman and editor-in-chief of Forbes Magazine, a business publication. Forbes, a Republican, was a candidate in the 1996 and 2000 Republican presidential primaries. He appears regularly on Fox News and the Fox Business Network. Citing the American tax system as outmoded and too complex, his perspective in those campaigns rallied around a flat tax.
Thus, I found it politically ironic that any digital Forbes article I have ever read on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) or human-induced climate change is on the theory’s advocacy and promotion.
I link the latest Forbes article entitled, “What You Need To Know About Climate Change In 2025”. It is written by Robert Eccles, a visiting professor at the Said Business School, University of Oxford, and self-acclaimed expert on energy. On his Linkedin page Professor Eccles uses the pronouns “he/him” and claims to be a leading authority on how companies and investors can create sustainable strategies through the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG).
I have written on ESG a number of times, “Environmental Inquisition” and “The Inhumanity of ESG” are two such examples. Considering Professor Eccles proclivity for progressive ideals, I must assume that he is politically progressive.
Ecceles states he can explain climate change in 1,000 words and then declares in his article, “It is exactly 1,000 words (excluding the title)”. Being skeptical, which is my entire outlook on climate change, I placed his article into wordcounter.net. It contains 1,230 words. That’s the first lie from this professor, who obviously does not teach mathematics. I found that the entire article was naïve and unsophisticated and ought to be used as partisan propaganda for early elementary school children.
He alleges, “Global warming has consequences for weather. According to NASA, global warming is impacting extreme weather across the planet. Record-breaking heat waves on land and in the ocean, drenching rains, severe floods, years-long droughts, extreme wildfires, and widespread flooding during hurricanes are all becoming more frequent and more intense.” These conditions, I have refuted constantly using graphs from expert organizations, including the activist United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Climate Realism counters Eccles’ weather-related contentions well in their article, “Forbes Cites NASA to Mislead Readers About Severe Weather Getting Worse.”
The professor claims there has been a 2°F increase in global temperatures since the inception of the Industrial Revolution of the mid-1800s. If it is global then the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s and was historically claimed to be in two distinct components. Furthermore, it is the contention of many scientists climatologists and climate statisticians that the temperature increase is due to faulty weather stations and Urban Heat Islands (UHI). I have written about these failures time and again, the latest article being “Corruption at the Source”.
As far as the claim citing a 150% increase in carbon dioxide is concerned that is a decided and deceitful mathematical illumination. It sounds much more than saying an increase of 130 parts per million (PPM) has occurred – the reality is that an increase in emissions was 97% natural and not caused by manmade activity. Furthermore, as ice cores have proven, carbon dioxide follows warmth and not the reverse as these global warming devotionalists argue.
In engaging on energy sources Eccles says, “Nuclear power provides carbon-free baseload power but faces challenges of public acceptance, cost, and permitting.” While true that the cost of a traditional nuclear plant is higher in construction costs and operational apparatus, it eventually balances out with lower fuel costs. Challenges from public acceptance are another coercive tactic used by climate change promoters because they understand that nuclear power would be the ultimate compromise and remove the progressive political power the scary theory seems to bring. Further, small modular reactors (SMRs) can be built in prefabricated units and shipped to the site, reducing construction time and costs. They can also be aligned incrementally as more power is needed. Fuel in an SMR can last for up to 30 years.
Illustrating that climate change is a political issue, Eccles writes, “I have written about the vast divide between Republicans and Democrats, with Independents in the middle, (closer to Democrats). For many Republicans the very terms “global warming” and “climate change” are associated with a more general progressive Democratic political agenda which they don’t support.” He claims this “polarizes” the nation. Well, of course it does because some research while some simply follow the fictitious narrative
The entire Eccles article sounds like he’s lowering and purposely devaluing his elitist pretention, so that perhaps the common, unexceptional, and uninformed person will understand where his brilliance comes from.
I say this in exactly 819 words, not including the title.
