What do you think?
Rate this book
Why There is No Climate Crisis: The Surprising Evidence You Should Know
568 pages, Paperback
Published June 30, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 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
When a book about a scientific issue, aimed at a general audience, is technical to the point of being borderline incomprehensible to anyone without an advanced degree, you have to wonder what its purpose really is. Is it trying to explain the science to the interested layman or is something else going on? Anyone who's come across the blind-them-with-science approach used by creationists to try and persuade their readers that radiometric dating doesn't work, geology is a matter of personal interpretation, and geneticists don't know what they're talking about will find this book depressingly familiar. It isn't about the science - it's never been about the science - it's about discrediting scientists because their message doesn't sit well with one powerful group or another (in this case the energy industry and their political and economic allies who believe in deregulation and perceive environmental issues and their advocates as a threat).
The book is divided into chapters addressing different aspects of climate change, including historical climate fluctuations, the contributions by the Sun and the Earth's orbit, feedback loops, clouds, oceans, aerosols, and volcanoes. A final summary addresses, among other things, the energy needs of the future, especially considering the huge energy usage by the AI industry, and why renewables are totally unsuitable and "clean" fossil fuels and nuclear energy are the way of the future.
One of the main claims of the book is that humans aren't causing nearly as much global warming as climate scientists claim they are, but that a lot of it is caused by the Sun, cosmic rays, and the Earth's orbit. With that in mind, I ran chapter 7 by a solar physicist to get some feedback. The answer was that the chapter was misleading because observations weren't backing up the hypotheses of a grand solar minimum or cosmic ray effects..
Every chapter is sending the same message - the scientists are telling you that global warming is a problem but it really isn't, in fact it's a good thing (I suppose that's a minor improvement over the previous message that it isn't happening at all). There's a constant theme of claiming that the IPCC is exaggerating the problems associated with climate change and the considerably more pernicious claim that there's some sort of conspiracy going on in the scientific community to silence any challengers. Research done by academic researchers is described in exhaustive detail, along with claims that their results show that climate change isn't as bad or happening as fast as the scientists claim, and that a lot of it has nothing to do with human activity anyway. The opinions of some well-known climate change deniers including a few non-climate-scientist Nobel laureates are included for good measure. And of course the inevitable conclusion - people shouldn't be spending all that money on finding solutions to what isn't a problem, or at least a big problem, or at least an imminent problem. Just concentrate on adaptation and let the energy companies (particularly gas and nuclear) do their thing.
The one saving grace of this book is an extensive set of endnotes, including links to original research articles. It's quite instructive to read the articles (or even just the abstracts when the complete articles are behind paywalls) to see what the authors themselves are concluding from their data. Most of the time it isn't the "nothing to see here" dismissal you might think it's going to be from reading the book. Be warned that the notes also include plenty of articles by global warming deniers, so stick with the papers published in reputable journals.
The book is divided into chapters addressing different aspects of climate change, including historical climate fluctuations, the contributions by the Sun and the Earth's orbit, feedback loops, clouds, oceans, aerosols, and volcanoes. A final summary addresses, among other things, the energy needs of the future, especially considering the huge energy usage by the AI industry, and why renewables are totally unsuitable and "clean" fossil fuels and nuclear energy are the way of the future.
One of the main claims of the book is that humans aren't causing nearly as much global warming as climate scientists claim they are, but that a lot of it is caused by the Sun, cosmic rays, and the Earth's orbit. With that in mind, I ran chapter 7 by a solar physicist to get some feedback. The answer was that the chapter was misleading because observations weren't backing up the hypotheses of a grand solar minimum or cosmic ray effects..
Every chapter is sending the same message - the scientists are telling you that global warming is a problem but it really isn't, in fact it's a good thing (I suppose that's a minor improvement over the previous message that it isn't happening at all). There's a constant theme of claiming that the IPCC is exaggerating the problems associated with climate change and the considerably more pernicious claim that there's some sort of conspiracy going on in the scientific community to silence any challengers. Research done by academic researchers is described in exhaustive detail, along with claims that their results show that climate change isn't as bad or happening as fast as the scientists claim, and that a lot of it has nothing to do with human activity anyway. The opinions of some well-known climate change deniers including a few non-climate-scientist Nobel laureates are included for good measure. And of course the inevitable conclusion - people shouldn't be spending all that money on finding solutions to what isn't a problem, or at least a big problem, or at least an imminent problem. Just concentrate on adaptation and let the energy companies (particularly gas and nuclear) do their thing.
The one saving grace of this book is an extensive set of endnotes, including links to original research articles. It's quite instructive to read the articles (or even just the abstracts when the complete articles are behind paywalls) to see what the authors themselves are concluding from their data. Most of the time it isn't the "nothing to see here" dismissal you might think it's going to be from reading the book. Be warned that the notes also include plenty of articles by global warming deniers, so stick with the papers published in reputable journals.
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 - 3 of 3 reviews