The article is nice because it actually debates and counters the arguments in the book, instead of calling it misinformation or denial. The title is clickbait a

The article is nice because it actually debates and counters the arguments in the book, instead of calling it misinformation or denial. The title is clickbait and tries to imply the book is heresy (denial) instead of just addressing the claims the author disagrees with. It don't disagree with the author's points - the science isn't settled but regardless we should act on a balance of probabilities (most of the proposals I've seen on how we act focus on scoring political points and not solving the problem, but that's an aside). Without having read the book or how it's used, I do suspect that it had exploited the obvious opening left by the "science is settled" crowd, and that maybe intelligent discussion of issues is better than religious side taking, which ends up destroying credibility and making it harder to actually do something. I feel like I've seen this happen somewhere else recently too...