How this book was allowed to be published is beyond me. If I could get it a zero I would. Not only are the arguments against climate change and for fossil fuels old and tired, they have been dealt with over and over again. We are at a time where we need climate advocacy and for people to be given proper information on what's going on and still you allow THIS to be published? This is basically a conspiracy theory as so much of the "science" is cherry-picked and completely inaccurate. Whoever allowed this book to go to publication should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

This interesting book makes a case for fossil fuels against the prevailing public sentiment and the growing ESG movement. Epstein’s argument is fairly straight-forward and admittedly compelling, focusing first on the historical benefits of fossil fuels as a relatively cheap and reliable energy source and its potential to lift billions out of poverty. He then proceeds to break down the counter-arguments, covering everything from “climate catastrophizing” to unreliable alternative energy sources like solar and wind to the green movement’s bewildering dismissal of nuclear and hydro-electric power. In the end, we’ll all pay (both literally and figuratively) in the mad rush to Net Zero, but the world’s poorest will pay the heaviest price of all. A recommended read that presents a reasoned counter to the current narrative.

Warning, I am going to be very negative in this review. I am also going to spoil a lot of the main points in order to point out how absurd they are so if you want to read book than don’t read this review. I’m going to heartily say to not bother reading the book though. It was a waste of my time and it’s going to be a waste of your time.

The basic premise of this book is that in order to save humanity from climate change and increase the quality of life for humanity what needs to be done is use more fossil fuels instead of less. And not just use less fossil fuels, remove almost all regulations from their use.

I can see that the author is passionate about the subject but this book may actively go against his cause. I’m trying to be diplomatic in my review of this and oh boy is it dang near impossible. It’s been a long time since I’ve read worse logic and reasoning in a book. I didn’t know the arguments in here were ones that people actually use in real life. I thought they were fake arguments.
Some of the gems are:

- Who cares if global warming increases the planet’s temperature. Air conditioning exists and that totally cancels that out.
- Global warming affects things more in the winter than summer and we all want it to be warmer in the winter am I right?
- Rising global temperatures will mean that people will stop freezing to death and that’s a good thing.
- Stronger storms aren’t a big deal just build sturdier buildings.
- The infrastructure needed to support green energy is cost prohibitive to build. But drought isn’t a bad thing because we can totally afford to build a bunch of irrigation infrastructure to fix that. And aid can always be shipped in if we can’t that totally isn’t a burden on other countries.
- Wildfires aren’t a big deal. Just increase logging! Wildfires can’t happen if you cut the trees down.
- Increased CO2 in the air is a good thing because plants eat that so more CO2 equals more plants.
- We don’t have to worry about runaway climate change because we definitely will invent new ways to deal with climate change in the future. Don’t know what ways but I’m sure it will happen trust me.
- Green energy isn’t viable but if it was the system would oppose it. Okay I have no proof but I’m gonna say that it would be anyway trust me.
-Oceans can be mastered even though we know almost nothing about them. But if it can’t be who cares the land is more important than the ocean.
- If the climate gets too bad in one part of the world people can just move to a better part. Also climate refugees are barely going to be a thing.
- Dangerous thunderstorms and hurricanes aren’t all that bad after all the setting can be very romantic.
- Experts about climate change might be wrong because they were wrong about slavery being a good thing right?

The author claims that we need to listen to experts in their fields for knowledge in subjects and then says that he will only accept that you are a climate expert if you agree with him. Dismisses the opinions of everyone that is worried about climate change and climate disaster as being biased but the people that are more moderate or agree with him are definitely correct and not biased in any way. If you support green energy in any way you can’t be trusted.

Just about the only thing I agree with him on is that we need to find a way to increase the use of nuclear energy.

Also this book is way too long. It would have been so much shorter if he didn’t repeat himself so often. I don’t need a chapter recap in the middle of a chapter. I just read it. You don’t need to summarize previous chapters multiple times. I started to feel like I was going to be quizzed at the end.

I’m almost convinced that this is some kind of elaborate satire/troll that I’m just not getting. I refuse to believe that someone can be this stupid. I won’t believe that someone can be this stupid. Writing this right after finishing the book I may come back later to edit or add to make my point more clear. As of now I give this one star. Don’t read this. It’s not worth your time.

I admit I could get no further than about 10% into this collection of false arguments in favor of fossil fuels. Written by a self-proclaimed philosopher (eat your heart out Emmanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche) and an admitted non-scientist, this book is nothing more than a gigantic shill for the fossil fuel industry. While technically it is well written, it is full of misinformation, disinformation and propaganda.

It took me a good while to believe in core ideas of anthropogenic climate change (10 years or so) but I have seen and read enough to know that the extraction and burning of fossil fuels is an existential threat to life on planet earth and while we may have the technology to stave off the worst effects over the short term, the long term impact is likely to be catastrophic. That the author of this book can argue that the continued use, and even expansion, of these fuels can be of benefit to mankind beggars belief.

Here are a couple of nonsense thoughts expressed in the early pages and thusly paraphrased.

* Fossil fuels are the most cost effective way (euphemism for corporate profits) to drag billions of people out of poverty even though there is likely to be significant impact on climate. The loss of life is likely to be minimal versus the benefits. The author cites the fact that more people died of extreme weather events a 100 years ago than they do in the current era. Pure sophistry. The fact that weather forecasting, storm preparedness and rapid response rescue is vastly superior today than a 100 years ago appears irrelevant. I suggest the author read Erik Larson's. excellent account of the 1900 Galveston hurricane, Isaac's Storm, to gain some knowledge of the associated technical difficulties and incompetence resulting in significant loss of life (between 8,000 and 12,000) and property.

* The chutzpah of the author, wearing his philosopher moniker, is best represented wherein he quotes an interchange he purportedly had with Senator Dianne Feinstein (the interchange is given no citation so the reader is left to question whether this is a real dialogue or simply the fanciful wanderings of a philosophical mind). Apparently Ms Feinstein questioned Mr Epstein's scientific qualifications on the issue of the day (assumed to be fossil fuels but, again, not cited) and was lectured that he was not there to comment on the science, he was not a scientist, but to change the way Ms Feinstein thought. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud.

I could go on but found what I read to be sickening and skipped over the rest of the book. To be sure, the pronouncements of the climate `experts', the Michael Manns and James Hansens of the world, have long been the subject of criticism and rightly so, and there is no doubt that there will be continued need for fossil fuels while the growth of non-polluting substitutes are established. Certainly such fuels are necessary in the manufacture of the constituent parts for wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and the like, but to represent the industry as some sort of savior of mankind is about as low as an author of books about energy can go.

I am sure this book will adorn tables in the lobbies and boardrooms of the energy company corporate headquarters and appeal to those who are prone to confirmation bias but if you are concerned about the pseudoscience that these companies emit, along with their more tangible pollution, this tome should be consigned to where it belongs, the dustbin of history,