What is Reddit's opinion of
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
ProductGPT
Try the custom AI to help you find products that Reddit loves.
55 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
More death. Period. End of story.
The nuclear bomb won WW2. I know that there are people who disagree, but most boots on the ground agree that the invasion of Japan would've been a long brutal affair with millions more dead. And, without nuclear deterrence, the US may have gone to war against the USSR because conventional wars seem far less of a losing proposition than mutually assured destruction and a potential extinction levelevent.
Nuclear energy, is actually the safest and cleanest energy production method we have. (I highly recommend you check out: this book by Michael Shallenberger for a more thorough treatise on the benefits of nuclear power. In his book, he outlines how oil, gas, and coal are responsible for a LOT of pollution and the shortening of the lifespans of many people due to air pollution-related illnesses. In a world without nuclear power, we move from energy-dense matter-poor energy production techniques to more matter-dense materials. These materials create pollution and are more prone to environmental catastrophes like oil spills, fires, etc.
Now, you may be saying "yeah, but what about wind and solar?" Wind and solar are causing extinction issues in birds and bats, and are woefully inadequate at this time to solve our energy problems. Developing nations are actively lobbying against renewables like wind and solar because they are so unreliable.
So, in summary: Nuclear weapons make the cost of war heavier than conventional warfare. A world without nuclear weapons sees more war in the 20th century and more war-related death. Nuclear energy provides clean electricity and a world without it becomes far more polluted, leading to more deaths and shorter lives.
I have so many thoughts after watching this video.
On climate, pollution, etc.., Smith is repeating basically the same lines that Kenney did. Positive about Alberta energy vs other (dictatorial, more rights abusing) producers and sharing a fairly balanced view of the future of energy and petrochemical products while acknowledging our responsibility to reduce emissions and limit climate effects. She even invokes Shellenberger and (like Shellenberger) talks about lifting people in the developing world out of poverty using Alberta's LNG, etc.
However, these well reasoned opinions are literally opposite of Conserative party policy provincially and federally. Climate change denial is official party policy. Reducing Canada's foreign aid to nations with desperate poverty is party policy.
The fact that she still blames inflation on Trudeau is just embarrassing politicking. It's world-wide and Canada actually faces far less inflation than many other nations. Later in the interview she complains about "legacy" media fishing for soundbites, but it doesn't stop her from using meaningless talking points with no grounding in reality.
Alberta has, under former conservative governments, had among the greatest healthcare and education systems in the world. Yet she describes how those governments did it wrong and proposes to absolutely decimate what is left of those systems to install a wild-west privatized system of service delivery that has never worked ever any other place o the planet.
The last comment I have is that, throughout the interview, it appears that Smith is fully under the sway of the utterly debunked "efficient market hypothesis".
Edit: I'm not suggesting Alberta has a perfect rights record, so I added the more above. We don't have kill squads.
Je te suggère de lire ceci Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All
Bien d'accord. Je termine Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All en ce moment et l'auteur illustre ce point de manière très détaillée.
Since climate change seems to your religion, I suggest you read
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All
I'm about a fifth of the way through after having watched a podcast with the author, and the book might give you a little perspective.
I don’t have time to reply in detail right now but I highly recommend you read his book. Climate change is one of the most important issue facing humanity but it is not the only important issue.
Lots of the policies being pursued in the aim of solving climate change are misguided and often counterproductive.
The solutions that have the best prospects of being effective are also counterintuitive like allowing underdeveloped nations to generate more CO2 now because it will lead to less in the future.
Pour tout les climato-anxieux, je vous suggère fortement ce livre:
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All
L'auteur a participé à l'écriture d'une version précédente de ce qui est devenu le "Green New Deal" aujourd'hui. Je l'ai vu sur un podcast et je n'ai pas encore terminé son livre, mais à date c'est très informatif.
Climates change models have been wrong for decades. Predicting climate change accurately is difficult and maybe impossible. The future may be worse or better than shown here, this is just a prediction, the same ways economists predict stuff that doesn’t empirically work out.
You may want to read this book.
A lot of environmental concern is over hyped to get people to act ASAP. There’s good intentions but having real and directed means of improving our environment is way better than being depressive or panicked about the world unnecessarily.
The science isn’t monolithic and it isn’t a binary question. Furthermore there is ample evidence that the media hypes up the worst case warming scenario for headlines. In addition the solutions are also quite varied.
I encourage you to read this book by someone who does believe global warming is occurring but talks about it in a nuanced way and showcases how alarmism is causing problems.
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
Amico mio, sinceramente, non temere per cose che non sono minacce esistenziali. Non posso che lasciare un amabile consiglio sotto forma di libro che possa placare le vostre paure. Cordiali saluti dal Brasile!
I'm glad to hear that you believe knowledge lives in books.
Give this one a try: https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=apocalypse+never&qid=1623829825&sprefix=apoc&sr=8-1
It contains much better knowledge.
These aren’t my views.
This dude was a founder of the environment movement. That is what he said. Like the green peace dude, he says the movement has been taken over by politicians
It was a great read if you care about this stuff
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
I’m definitely open to being scared about it, but as someone who’s never studied it I think I just don’t know enough about it to be scared. Any books you recommend as a starting point? I’ve thought about this one, but maybe that’s aimed more toward the ‘extinction rebellion’ demographic.
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
You should give it a read - you clearly have a different perspective however surely its a good idea to examine another view before wishing eternal suffering on someone. Right?
Local or state subreddits are incredibly cucked.
this reminds me, my friend bought Apocalypse Never because even him, as a lib, was so fed up with this climate change extinction rhetoric
While there’s always work to be done, take the sensationalism of the media with a grain of salt. Their main concern is to sell copies and generate page views, not portray science as accurately as possible.
I’d recommend a more nuanced scientific view that aligns with the comment above. Climate alarmism isn’t nearly as dire as the media makes it out to be. The book “Apocalypse Never” represents a balanced and constructive view of the path forward - in short, many factors are trending in the right direction and they need to be smartly built upon.
Link: https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
I'd like to add one: No scientist who studies climate change has given an apocalypse "deadline." The whole "we have X many years to save the planet" narrative is a total myth.
Source: https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All
About the author: > Michael Shellenberger is a Time magazine “Hero of the Environment”; the winner of the 2008 Green Book Award from the Stevens Institute of Technology’s Center for Science Writings; and an invited expert reviewer of the next Assessment Report for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has written on energy and the environment for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Nature Energy, and other publications for two decades. He is the founder and president of Environmental Progress, an independent, nonpartisan research organization based in Berkeley, California.
The Climate Hysteria movement has always been a scam, and the narrative is crumbling faster than ever. Naturally, the alarmists are turning the volume to 11 on the doomsday forecasts.
Look at the data. Examine the evidence. Get a peek at the inside workings of climate-change cult. It'll give you an entirely different perspective
Apocalypse Never is a great read by an award winning environmentalist (notably one of Times Magazine's Environmentalists of the Year in '08) and author of a precursor the the Green New Deal. Nearly every paragraph has citations to scientific literature or direct quotes from climate scientists... almost all disagreeing with the apocalyptic panic of people like Thunberg.
You might be interested in Apocalypse Never then. Lib friend bought it and seems to enjoy it so far
https://www.amazon.ca/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
Very good book and excellent reviews, I'll be starting it tomorrow... He debunks the whole myth of the world will end and even exposes the eugenics as the culprits in all this bullshit.
Spread the truth and educate yourselves on this subject, they are constantly spreading disinformation on this subject in order to further advance their goals of fascism and tyranny... Fascism going forward will come not only from the "War On Virus" hoax but also the climate change hoax.
Despite decades of news media attention, many remain ignorant of basic facts. Carbon emissions peaked and have been declining in most developed nations for over a decade. Deaths from extreme weather, even in poor nations, declined 80 percent over the last four decades. And the risk of Earth warming to very high temperatures is increasingly unlikely thanks to slowing population growth and abundant natural gas.
Curiously, the people who are the most alarmist about the problems also tend to oppose the obvious solutions.
What’s really behind the rise of apocalyptic environmentalism? There are powerful financial interests. There are desires for status and power. But most of all there is a desire among supposedly secular people for transcendence. This spiritual impulse can be natural and healthy. But in preaching fear without love, and guilt without redemption, the new religion is failing to satisfy our deepest psychological and existential needs.
Agreed! I read a really interesting book on this and do recommend it!
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
You might also be interested in...
This is simply not true. A mass extinction event is one where 75% of species die off. Last I hear, there were 6% of species that were endangered, with many of them expected to recover.
This sort of hysterical, untrue, alarmism hurts everyone, as this book explains.
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
What you need, my friend, is a copy of Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger.
You could also visit the website of his pro-environment, pro-nuclear activism legalization, Environmental progress, which has the complete case for nuclear.
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
I wouldn't say it is unbiased but it does offer the counter point of Climate Change enthusiasts!
Because it's not meant to be solved. Organizations that "fight" climate change have no incentive to actually fix thing, only incentives to stoke fear and despair.
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
Here’s a book for you to read:
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
Even climate scientists are split on how much damage is being done to the planet
> - Total land for ag & wood fuel is at or near peak <a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a><a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a><a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a> > > > > @RogerPielkeJr The carbon intensity of energy has been declining for 150 years, and global carbon emissions either have peaked or will peak soon, such as within the next decade, as we transition from coal to natural gas and nuclear <a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a><a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a> > > So please don't believe the hype. We have good reason to believe that we can and will leave our children a better natural environment than the one we inherited. > > environmentalprogress.org/apocalypse-nev… > > > > But shouldn't we exaggerate environmental problems to motivate action on them? No! We should tell the truth as a matter of principle, and because it is more inspiring, as the new study proves, than environmental alarmism. > > Consider how much we are improving cancer treatments, reducing mortality by turning the disease into a chronic illness. We are doing the same thing with climate change. We should celebrate and build on those successes, not deny that they exist! > > Imagine the reaction from cancer doctors if there were a movement that actively denied the progress we are making, and insisted that "billions will die" from cancer in the future. > > Cancer doctors would be outraged at the slander against their work! > > > > The fact of the matter is that humans are doing remarkably well at reducing pollution and reducing land required for agriculture. <a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a><a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a><a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a><a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a> > > And we can do even better as those energetic and agricultural successes spread from the developed world to the developing world! <a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a><a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a><a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a><a rel="nofollow" href="https://threadreaderapp.com/images/1px.png">Image</a> > > I decided to write my new book, Apocalypse Never, in part because I was bothered by the huge quantity of apocalyptic environmental misinformation that is contributing to the epidemic of anxiety and depression impacting young people. > > amazon.com/Apocalypse-Nev… > > > > Please consider sharing with worried friends and family this tweet thread, and the link below to all the graphs and charts of data that informed Apocalypse Never. > > And don't give up hope! The future is bright! > > ❤️✊🙏 > > /END > > environmentalprogress.org/apocalypse-nev… > > > > Many people think we are leaving our children a natural environment that is in a far worse shape than the one we inherited from our parents. > > But on most environmental metrics things are getting better not worse. > > My latest for @Forbes — please share! > > forbes.com/sites/michaels… > > > > Here is updated hurricane data from the indomitable @RogerPielkeJr , one of the heroes of Apocalypse Never > > > https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1333434593836318720?s=20 > > > > • • • > > Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
Owner | Creator | Source Code
>I will say I used to myself be a huge solar/wind bull when I saw what was going on in the early 2010s with oil. The more I learned since then, the more I have become that solar/wind are a scam, that is built on climate panic and wishful thinking.
As I have pointed out, you have not learned anything, you just fell victim to obviously misleading pro oil/nuclear propaganda. I have pointed out the various flaws in your sources, not to mention the complete lack of credibility.
Its 2021, the sources you are bashing are simply the cheapest and cleanest sources available to mankind.
>The EROEI of oil is declining badly and no amount of capital or innovation can fix that because the easy sources are just gone. We WILL need something to replace it, and eventually the grid will have to get electrified, and it will be with nuclear and natural gas. But that's a multidecade timeline, like in the 2040s-2060s.
No serious expert or utility believes this. Where are your sources, why are you complety disregarding all acedemic research in this area?
There is strong push back from fossil and nuclear power, but renewables dominate investment and virtually all new energy generation capacity in the world is renewable. All your talking points just didn't stand the test of time, they have already proven to be wrong and we are just getting started.
Your believe in nuclear is even more astonishing. Its a declining industry, it simply can't compete and there is no reason to think it ever will again. Considering the long development of nuclear plants, if we were to see a huge increase 20 years from now it should have started today (Vogtle will come into operation 20 years after it received all the permits, where are all the permits?)
.
>Elon Musk is full of shit about solar panels.
Let's assume your criticism is correct, that's is stil a loooong way from your initial claim. And again, solar is just one of many tools in our pocket. Just because we can do 100 percent solar doesn't mean we shouldn't do wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal etc.
>Lithium prices are only set to go up for the next few years by the way - because everybody wants batteries for smartphones and now EVs...
You are wrong. Energy storage is not as important as you make it out to be, and there are many forms other than lithium batteries. The cost of energy storage is also in free fall.
Predictions that your sources made have simply already proven to be wrong.
The 'sources' that 'informed' you use a number of obvious tricks. One of them is dated data and predictions, only considering old installed capacity and ignoring the technology and prices of today. But more importantly, they confuse costs with investments. Those batteries aren't simply cost, they will prove to be very profitable. Energy will be free, or even have a negative price, for large parts of the year. This is already happening in more advanced places like Western Europe. Storing energy that is that cheap and selling it later is a very good business, which drives these massive investments.
>There is this idea out there about cost being in "free fall" for various technologies. Many countries, particularly in the West, have been pouring billions upon billions into renewables for the past 20 years or more. At this point, after all that there still needs to be orders of magnitude improvements in efficiency and cost to make them actually viable. I just do not think that is going to happen.
Do you have a clue about the subsidies nuclear and fossil received, and are still getting? It dwarves renewables subsidies, and unlike nuclear, renewables has actually produced technologies that now are viable on their own without much support.
Existing nuclear is getting bailouts everywhere, including in the latest US infrastructure deal. Those are plants that should have become profitable a long time ago and produce energy a lot cheaper than any new build nuclear (mostly because there is no more financing involved).
>Apocalypse Never, 190-191, https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
You can't possibly believe that this is an informing book, in my previous post I already showed a lot of flaws with it.
This calculation overestimated the amount of storage required, ignores all other technologies and is also using false (dated) prices for the technologies it does focus on, and completely ignoring that those costs are rapidly declining.
If you base your investment decision on these charlatans you are going to have a bad time.
Most of your arguments I think are already addressed by what I wrote and the information provided, or don't strongly affect the central idea of thesis. I will say I used to myself be a huge solar/wind bull when I saw what was going on in the early 2010s with oil. The more I learned since then, the more I have become that solar/wind are a scam, that is built on climate panic and wishful thinking.
The EROEI of oil is declining badly and no amount of capital or innovation can fix that because the easy sources are just gone. We WILL need something to replace it, and eventually the grid will have to get electrified, and it will be with nuclear and natural gas. But that's a multidecade timeline, like in the 2040s-2060s.
Two points worth bringing up:
There is this idea out there about cost being in "free fall" for various technologies. Many countries, particularly in the West, have been pouring billions upon billions into renewables for the past 20 years or more. At this point, after all that there still needs to be orders of magnitude improvements in efficiency and cost to make them actually viable. I just do not think that is going to happen.
Elon Musk is full of shit about solar panels.
> What about Elon Musk's claim that an apparently tiny square of solar panels could power the United States? It was deeply misleading.
> If the only requirement was producing the same total electricity the U.S. currently does, regardless of the time of day or season, Musk underestimated the land area by 40 percent. Even is the solar panels were placed in the sunniest area of his sunniest option, the ecologically sensitive Sonoran Desert of Arizona, his solar farm would require an area larger than the state of Maryland.
> Musk misrepresented the amount of energy that would need to be stored. His square of solar desert would generate 2/5 of its annual electricity in the autumn and winter months, but the United States consumes almost 50 percent of its annual electricity during the colder portion of the year.
> What that means is that roughly 10% of yearly demand in the United States, about 400TWh, would need to be stored from one half the year for use in the other half in batteries (which would only charge and discharge once per year). At current lithium battery prices, that adds up to $188 trillion.
Lithium prices are only set to go up for the next few years by the way - because everybody wants batteries for smartphones and now EVs...
> That's an enormous cost but we can solve that issue by overbuilding the solar farm by 30% so that it takes up an area of 18k square miles. That would be 80% larger than Musk's original calculation, equivalent to Maryland and Connecticut combined. Doing this we can get much closer to Musk's claim that we'd 'only' need 16TWh of storage at a cost of $7.5 Trillion.
Apocalypse Never, 190-191, https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
i totally recommend reading Michael Shellenberger's book, Apocalypse Never.
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All https://www.amazon.com/dp/0063001691/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_QX9HG9JWK0MH9SE452JS
The book Apocalypse Never doesn’t cover this but would be a good addition!
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691/ref=nodl_
Some reading for ya.
Don’t let the same kind of fear mongering used by JWs to manipulate you a second time
You should read Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael Shellenberger.
You won't find many Ancaps supporting catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
We're anarchists which means against government.
The I in IPCC stands for "intergovernmental".
Stoics value rationality. That's a good place to start. Separating the "stories" from the facts.
First, analyze the claims being made. Who's making them? Do they have a track record of accurate predictions? What motives do they have? Who disagrees with them?
Certainly, the predictions sound horrible. In fact, the panic of impending climate catastrophe hasn't changed much in a very long time. And none of the predictions have come to fruition.
There is no "climate crisis"
​
Stoically speaking, it's a shameful waste of time and energy to get hysterical over nonsense.
>paari sajandi pärast on see planeet täitsa putsis
>enamus meie praegusest maismaast on vee all
>lapsed (keda mul ei ole ega vist ei hakka olema ka)
>keskmine talve temperatuur on 50°C
>Ma olen alles 16
No näed, Joonas. Kliimateadust eitad - eitad. Nihilistlikku maailmavaadet omad - omad.
Need kuradi maailmalõpustsenaariumid on puhta valed ja nad panevad sind rumalalt käituma ja tekitavad ilgelt stressi.
Loomulikult on tõsine probleem. Loodan, et mõistliku jutu rääkimine läheb varsti moodi. Siis sa moeteadliku teismelisena saad sellest ebaausalt sinu peale pandud ängistusest päästetuks.
Loe vahelduseks näiteks Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All Hardcover – Illustrated, June 30, 2020 by Michael Shellenberger
See EI OLE teaduskonsensuse vastu. See on üles pekstud emotsioonidel põhineva viimsepäeva kultuse vastu.
It’s not about denying climate change. It’s about being suspicious of efforts to only look at a single cause. A single cause that has a strong profit motive.
The shipping industry and sulphur containing fuels are a massive problem that was only barely addressed in 2020, and non compliance is high. Everything else is getting ignored for carbon.
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/02/20/john-kerrys-climate-mccarthyism-demeans-science/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366
Did u miss the part where cali has been burning for centuries?
Michael shellenberger started the original green energy movement until he realized it was a complete scam.
Check out his book, its amazing.
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
Bruh thats some serious FUD.
Not denying that climate is warming, we literally burn trapped plant matter for energy from a time when North Dakota looked like an amazon jungle.
I can tell you though we are fine, solutions exist.
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
Great book on the subject.
Cheers
This is very ironic.
Don't you hate it when people paint lockdowns skeptics as "maga-tards who don't think Covid is real"? Do you see the similarity in painting people who don't buy the most apocalyptic climate change scenarios as "not thinking that it's real"?
I understand that you didn't get a comprehensive rebuttal and assumed the downvotes you received meant that nobody here thought it was real or whatever, but to deny that there are similarities between the doom surrounding Covid and the endlessly prophesied doom surrounding climate change is very close-minded. The same forces that propagate Covid hysteria exist amongst those who claim the end is nigh every single decade for the past dozen decades.
As for myself I think climate change is very much a problem that we should deal with and that the environment is super duper worth conserving. From the bottom of my heart I believe that. I'm also increasingly skeptical of climate measures that harm the working class most especially while letting big corporations continue to thrive and do more harm as seen in France a couple of years ago. Notice a similarity?
This is a book written by a lifelong environmentalist who talks about the risk in portraying climate change as this unstoppable force and not as the manageable problem that it is. In being honest about the risks of global warming you can actually spur more people to action that in fact gets more done environmentally than scaring everyone shitless with the most doom-filled predictions. That causes resignation and makes things worse. Ah, another similarity.
For a good read from an environmentalist without the clickbait shit and a look at long-term solutions check this out. It's a very sober book.
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All https://www.amazon.com/dp/0063001691/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_zBqhFbZCW2AD6
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
Do you know more than these climatologists?
Easy doomer, read this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
Popular alternatives to Apocalypse Never: Why Envir...
