My New Book – Soaring on Amazon – Get your copy now!

Dear Anthony,

thank you for making this available!
It is a nice little book, but of course everyone is a critic! 🙂
I had a quick look and found a few points you might consider working on ..
Or ignore my critique and see the positive, most of your book I found nothing to crique on 😉
In fact it is a well balanced between raising awareness of a topic and the complexity of the issue and a very nice read!

-It is my view that CMIP5 and any older model was discredited by that fact that CMIP6 models show significant different feedback values after improving the local cloud parametrisation. No only should any critique of the consensus point out that older models are thus shown completely useless and any prediciton based on them unreliable, you should also not use them yourself!
I would like to see a further discussion of R. McKitrick´s paper from last year as well, when climate feedbacks are discussed and your online chapter shows a neat little figure missing in the book with differences between models and measurements.

-The behavior of maintstream towards sceptics is not mentioned, but in important aspect. I looked up some random thought about skepticism:
“Scepticism is the first step towards truth.”
― Denis Diderot, Pensées philosophiques
“Nevertheless, (Jefferson) believed that the habit of skepticism is an essential prerequisite for responsible citizenship. He argued that the cost of education is trivial compared to the cost of ignorance, of leaving government to the wolves. He taught that the country is safe only when the people rule.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

“Do you consider your position so weak that it cannot withstand debate?”
― Data
–
(inspired by a recent post somewhere Quoting Huxley with “Skepticism is the highest duty and blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”.. maybe Steele´s recent video??)

-I found the chapter about Ocean Acidification lacking. How to call a reduction in pH from 8.1 to 8 is not only completely irrelevant for the debate, but also my guess is that if you would ask a lot of Chemists (who have the monopoly on pH!) plenty of them would a) agree that “acidification” is indeed the right word for it and strongly disagree that the change by 0.1 should be described with the word “merely”.
Taking this linguistic aspect away, what remains in your article? More CO2 is beneficial even in oceans? Dungeness crabs might disagree with you on that.

It is measured as a surface effect and thus named incorrectly, as there is no data available for the Oceans in general about their pH changes, even so you can follow isotope signatures.
The real issue is that many species are either spread over a wide pH range naturally or encounter a wide range of pH, as the pH changes with temperature, latitude, depth, daytime, along migration paths and seasons. A trout for example naturally lives in a pH ranges between 4 to 9.
For this chapter I would highly recommend a rewrite!

-The cost of questionable measures. Here I found Moore´s “planet of humans” eye opening. Actually, the first half of his movie about the real cost of some alternative energies seems be a bit outdated, but his chapter about burning biomass instead of fossil fuel is nothing but scary!
In general there should be plenty of examples how half measures or over zealousness do more damage than good. For example the struggle of the Canary islands, which unique in the fact that they have lots of cheap land and are backed by EU funding. They seem to be far behind any schedule and experience that a little bit of a new technology is a good thing, too much of it can get very expensive.