The problem is climate skeptics (like the person who sent me the article) then cherrypick points as a gotcha.
Yeah sigh. The "someone changed their mind so the whole thing is a sham" vibe is very strong. I'm sure lots of the points could be very carefully unpicked, but my initial reactions were:
Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’ - That doesn't mean we're not wiping out huge numbers of species and harming our own wellbeing
The Amazon is not ‘the lungs of the world’ - so? It doesn't mean it doesn't have value in terms of biodiversity.
Climate change is not definitively making natural disasters worse - Note that he says "not definitively", which is absolutely not the same as "definitively not"
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003 - Hmm... the trend does look quite upward since the 90s in the USA at least. Is that a bit selective in terms of a baseline?
Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have declined in Britain, Germany, and France from the mid-1970s - Good, so?
Netherlands is becoming richer, not poorer while adapting to life below sea level - Classic reactionary gotcha right there. It's a very rich nation, which might have done even better if it didn't have to maintain extensive sea defenses. How do we think places like Bangladesh will fare? Note that this does admit to the reality of sea level rises.
We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter - In the places that need it?
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are potentially larger threats to species than climate change - Habitat loss is potentially linked to climate change. Also, why can't we address all of them. Again, note that climate changes is accepted here.
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels - Agreed.
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less ‘industrial’ agriculture - That seems like a statement which will have much more detail in the book.