What do you think?
Rate this book
Why There is No Climate Crisis: The Surprising Evidence You Should Know
Not yet published
Expected 16 Jun 26568 pages, Paperback
Expected publication June 16, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Read
April 26, 2026I have read this book recently. It is based on reality. This book is written by Thomas Kurz. The author uses satire to criticize. It covers many topics about climate change, disbalance in nature and global warming etc. It exposed greediness, selfishness and over ambition of human beings. It tells reasons and measures of climate change. This book describes how can We correct our mistakes and make a healthy environment. This book has information of many places of the world which are important for our Earth. It also gives suggestion Why should We protect it. It has given more details of several species in our planet. This book is very to gain knowledge about the nature. This book could have been better if it had more diagrams.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
[I received an advance review copy of this book from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.]
This book reads like a real-life version of “Don’t Look Up”. It sets out to convince the reader that there is no climate crisis—but does so by cherry-picking data, shifting context, and dressing weak arguments in impressive-looking numbers. It’s a textbook case of “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Right from the start, the author leans on the familiar line that “the climate has always changed.” True—but that’s only half the story. What’s conveniently left out is the rate of change, which is precisely what makes the current situation so concerning. Saying “it’s happened before” while ignoring how fast it’s happening now is like missing the forest for the trees.
Throughout the book, large numbers are used to create shock value without proper context. For instance, wind turbines are blamed for hundreds of thousands of bird deaths annually in the U.S.—a figure that sounds dramatic until you realize it’s a drop in the bucket compared to other human-related causes like cats or building collisions. Without that comparison, the argument doesn’t just fall short—it falls apart.
The same pattern shows up in the discussion of renewable energy. The claim that green energy will devastate low- and middle-income households feels more like a slippery slope argument than a balanced analysis. Transitions are rarely smooth, but that doesn’t mean the destination is worse than the status quo. With thoughtful policy, renewables can be both affordable and stabilizing.
The section on coral reefs is another example where the argument doesn’t hold water. The idea that “corals like warmth” ignores the well-established fact that they depend on a narrow temperature range. Push them beyond it, and you get bleaching—not thriving ecosystems. Comparing reefs in different regions without accounting for local conditions is comparing apples to oranges.
When it comes to extreme weather, the book again plays fast and loose with the data. It points to selective trends or short timeframes to suggest that nothing significant is changing. But the broader scientific picture—summarized by IPCC—shows clear shifts in heatwaves, heavy rainfall, and other extremes. Ignoring that wider context is, at best, misleading.
What makes this book particularly frustrating is not that it asks questions—that’s a good thing—but that it repeatedly moves the goalposts and sidesteps the bigger picture. It gives the impression of rigorous analysis while quietly stacking the deck.
That said, it was still an interesting read in one respect: it offers a clear window into how climate skepticism is constructed. If you approach it critically, it becomes less a guide to climate science and more a case study in how arguments can be shaped to fit a conclusion.
This book reads like a real-life version of “Don’t Look Up”. It sets out to convince the reader that there is no climate crisis—but does so by cherry-picking data, shifting context, and dressing weak arguments in impressive-looking numbers. It’s a textbook case of “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Right from the start, the author leans on the familiar line that “the climate has always changed.” True—but that’s only half the story. What’s conveniently left out is the rate of change, which is precisely what makes the current situation so concerning. Saying “it’s happened before” while ignoring how fast it’s happening now is like missing the forest for the trees.
Throughout the book, large numbers are used to create shock value without proper context. For instance, wind turbines are blamed for hundreds of thousands of bird deaths annually in the U.S.—a figure that sounds dramatic until you realize it’s a drop in the bucket compared to other human-related causes like cats or building collisions. Without that comparison, the argument doesn’t just fall short—it falls apart.
The same pattern shows up in the discussion of renewable energy. The claim that green energy will devastate low- and middle-income households feels more like a slippery slope argument than a balanced analysis. Transitions are rarely smooth, but that doesn’t mean the destination is worse than the status quo. With thoughtful policy, renewables can be both affordable and stabilizing.
The section on coral reefs is another example where the argument doesn’t hold water. The idea that “corals like warmth” ignores the well-established fact that they depend on a narrow temperature range. Push them beyond it, and you get bleaching—not thriving ecosystems. Comparing reefs in different regions without accounting for local conditions is comparing apples to oranges.
When it comes to extreme weather, the book again plays fast and loose with the data. It points to selective trends or short timeframes to suggest that nothing significant is changing. But the broader scientific picture—summarized by IPCC—shows clear shifts in heatwaves, heavy rainfall, and other extremes. Ignoring that wider context is, at best, misleading.
What makes this book particularly frustrating is not that it asks questions—that’s a good thing—but that it repeatedly moves the goalposts and sidesteps the bigger picture. It gives the impression of rigorous analysis while quietly stacking the deck.
That said, it was still an interesting read in one respect: it offers a clear window into how climate skepticism is constructed. If you approach it critically, it becomes less a guide to climate science and more a case study in how arguments can be shaped to fit a conclusion.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews