Indeed, the first part of his post was reasonable, it is true that other factors are extremely important or perhaps dominant in some of these cases, loss of habitat and insecticide use for the loss of insects, and for wildfires, suburban settlement into forests leading to suppression of regular burning and a consequent build-up on the fuel load.

But then he takes a totally unjustified leap into using a quote from an insurance executive to draw sweeping conclusions about academic institutions and climate science in general. Very strange.