不都合な真実 / An Inconvenient Truth

The visuals make complex climate science accessible, but I wonder if they also risk oversimplifying or overwhelming readers. How did the author balance clarity with depth?

The book clearly advocates for policy change, which can be divisive. Was that a deliberate choice to motivate action, or does it risk alienating some readers?

Given its popularity and influence, I'm curious whether it truly shifted opinions or if it mostly reached those already concerned.