Mark Silbert, I just re-downloaded the preview for the book, and I’d say it confirms my interpretation. What I referred to was from Ian Plimer’s chapter, the first chapter of the book, but judging by what the book’s introduction says, I suspect Bob Carter’s chapter would be as troubling (if not more).
Anyway, the reason I can’t bring myself to read the book is it claims to be providing “The Facts” but begins by denying global warming. If I can’t trust it on simple things, I see no reason to trust it on anything. And if terrible essays are considered acceptable within the book, I see no reason to think it is worth spending my money on. That’s not “ruling it out based on a synopsis.” That’s saying when you accept low-quality work, you give me no incentive to spend money on your product.
Other people might find the book worthwhile. I’d probably read at least some of the essays in it if I had a copy of them. I just don’t see myself spending much money or time on a book whose message includes things like, “[T]here is no evidence the next 50 years will bring human induced warming.”
But I’m glad to hear you liked my book! I’ve actually been working on Part II today. I’ve been restructuring it in light of the new paper Michael Mann co-authored recently (which I first heard about on this site). That paper shamelessly re-uses the Mann 2008 data set, and I think I ought to include that in the book. People often say things have “moved on” from Mann’s hockey stick, so this can be a good example of (one reason) why his hockey stick papers still deserve focus.