I'm only a handful of paragraphs in and he's already made several factual statements ranging from straight up incorrect to highly dubious. All the while claimin

I'm only a handful of paragraphs in and he's already made several factual statements ranging from straight up incorrect to highly dubious. All the while claiming they are 100% definitely true. He claims the environment was only set to improve on the future. We now know this was wrong. He says deforestation is a lie, the data seems unclear at the moment(and seems to have been unclear at the time too). Then he goes on a rant about malthus and the subsequent explosion in population without mentioning the very important fact that it would've been impossible without the invention of synthetic fertiliser. Instead he says Malthus missed the fairly obvious fact that livestock and plant populations would increase with human populations. But again, this is imprecise at best.