Peter Gleick, Astroturfer?
UPDATE: For those interested in abrupt climate changes of the past
I recently surmised Peter Gleick be an astroturfer trained to make greens look less than…bright. This article would be compatible with that hypothesis, as the author shows no grasp of the history of climate, including what are known as Younger Dryas and the PETM.
It should also be obvious to all that the longer we look in the past, the lower our ability will be to discern one decade from another, and then one century from another. The climate might as well have changed dramatically every year a million years ago, still the paleo traces will only show some kind of long-term average of it.
We cannot seriously compare contemporary records with those of the past without considering that. It would be like saying more things happen now than in the Middle Ages just because more people write now than in the Middle Ages.
The continuous mentioning of the fabulously flawed 97% figure (it’s 97% of 77 out of 1,372) is just the cherry on the cake. Is Exxon funding the Pacific Institute?
The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE 
And it’s the Pacific that is getting smaller. 200Ma it will be gone, if plate tectonics continue as now but things can change. He fails to remember the facts about recent warm periods as well. For him the Hockey Stick is fact.
Agree with your assessment…it is just an appeal to authority; a set of assertions with no attempt to support them; and the usual tired cliches about “shills”. Why do Forbes use him?