Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

A young friend of mine recently contemplated putting an early stop to her well-going art career to become a full-time climate activist. Needless to say, this would amount to nothing globally. But personally, it would also be a terribly negative turn in her life, wasting away all of the previous efforts, passionate study, and the early success she accrued thus far. Yet under the right conditioning, having been sufficiently brainwashed into the alarmism, it is a perfectly rational decision to make if you truly believe the world will end before your natural life runs out. This personal anecdote is far from being the worst example of the harm that climate alarmism will cause us all. All over the western world, green "protestors" are blocking traffic, disrupting the daily lives of innocent civilians; in extreme cases even preventing ambulances and first responders from doing their jobs. Again, having sufficient faith in the axiom of the climate apocalypse, none of this behavior is irrational. Nothing can possibly trump saving the planet and all life on Earth. Next time you come across, say, an Extinction Rebel in England, try to tell them that not only the world is not going to end but also that by the end of the century it is likely that we will have eradicated abject poverty from the face of the Earth. Show them that the polar bear population has in fact increased and that the Northern Hemisphere now has more trees than it did 100 years ago. Ask them to join you in rejoicing over the bright future of mankind. What do you think would be their reaction? Shouts, screeches, and possibly violence would be their response, as a few Youtubers have demonstrated. Strange, is it not? For a group of people beating the drum of planetary salvation to be so hostile to the possibly bright outcome of our world. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel prize laureate, described Bjorn's book as "pollution of the mind" in what he calls a review on Lomborg's work but to me seems a lot like a miserably failed hit piece. Notice the deeply orthodox religious language. Did it become normal now for Nobel prize holders to argue in such irrelevant terms as opposed to providing actual facts and data? By the way, if you are interested, Lomborg himself has posted a response to the criticism. Having watched many of Bjorn Lomborg's lectures and presentations, I understand that he is very hesitant to attribute malice instead of ignorance to people. But we see climate alarmists all over the world propping up children to follow the lead of Greta Thunberg, pumping them full of rage and hatred, cheering them on as they stop their education to scream at adults on the streets. We see the extremists openly calling for policies that would coerce the developing world into curbing their development, which would undoubtedly lead to lives lost. We see news anchors shaming women who decide to become mothers, accusing them of doing net harm to future humanity. This will lead to a culture of madness. How would you prove that the top proponents of this movement actually have good intentions? How to reconcile words and actions that are so far apart? The answer is that the green movement has now become a religious death cult that has all of the negative aspects of traditional religions but possesses none of their moral wisdom. It has whipped its followers into a death craze, replacing the concept of original sin with carbon dioxide, and offering a twisted sense of salvation through the deprecation of humanity. If it did not start out this way, it surely has been hijacked. Now we have to put a stop to the extremism and bring environmentalism back on a much more moderate track.