>it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad Does it? I read the article to be saying "you should be much

>it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad Does it? I read the article to be saying "you should be much much more concerned with the burning of fossil fuels than a forest." I read the article to be an attack on sensational journalism distracting people from the crux of the discussion. Its further point is that being concerned about oxygen and not temperatures rising is a logical error.