> Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
> The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
> Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
> Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
> The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
> The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
> Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
> Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level
> We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
> Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
> Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
> Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture
Beyond the literal truth or falsity of the claims, how do they fit together into an argument that shows climate change is not an existential threat to human civilization? Last I checked, there was broad scientific consensus that climate change was real, caused (or, at least exacerbated) by humans, and would have massive impacts on human civilization. And then there's this person coming along and saying "Nahhh, none of this is a problem."
Who should I believe?