Hogwash. Read "Apocalypse Never". So much climate bullshit debunked.
Lol.
Reviewing
Apocalypse Never for
Yale Climate Connections, environmental scientist
Peter Gleick argued that "bad science and bad arguments abound" in
Apocalypse Never, writing that "What is new in here isn't right, and what is right isn't new." Gleick criticizes Shellenberger for using flawed arguments to dismiss the threat of
species extinctions due to climate change, saying that Shellenberger confuses the concept of
species richness with
biodiversity, and that he misunderstood the study that he cites. Gleick claims that Shellenberger uses a set of
logical fallacies, misrepresentation, and selective use of evidence in his book. He complains that Shellenberger used cherrypicking of events and out-of-date research in arguing that people were wrong to say that recent extreme events like forest fires, floods, heat waves, and droughts, were worsened by climate change. According to Gleick, Shellenberger ignored an increasing abundance of literature that shows strong links between climate change and worsening of extreme events, including
hurricanes, heat deaths, flooding and decreasing ice.
[12]
In the
Los Angeles Review of Books, environmental economist Sam Bliss wrote that "the book itself is well written", but that Shellenberger "plays fast and loose with the facts". Furthermore, "...he seems more concerned with showing climate-denying conservatives clever new ways to own the libs than with convincing environmentalists of anything."
[13] Writing in the
conservative journal
The New Atlantis, social scientists Taylor Dotson and Michael Bouchey argued that, as an "environmental activist" and
ecomodernist, Shellenberger's writing in his books and on his foundation's website "bombards readers with facts that are disconnected, out of context, poorly explained, and of questionable relevance", and that ultimately, his "fanatic, scientistic discourse stands in the way of nuclear energy policy that is both intelligent and democratic."
[14]
