I have not read the book but going off the statements he makes, his views are very flawed. A lot of his claims are true, but it is bad faith within the context.

Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”

He contradicts his claim like a few lines later by saying "Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change" and climate change partially causes a significant amount of habitat loss.

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s

Due to de-industrialisation, by moving manufacturing elsewhere, and the increasing adoption of more renewable and nuclear-based energy in remaining industries.

Fires have declined 25 percent around the world since 2003

True but not because climate change is false, rather urban development is spreading and removing sources of flash fires such as forests, farmlands and savannahs.

Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels

True, although for far more detailed reasons than he implies within this statement. However, wood fuel is not the only alternative to fossil fuels.

“Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 percent more emissions

True. factory farming is more efficient and environmentally friendly, but that argument is unrelated to climate change but rather animal rights and most environmentalists prefer reducing meat consumption even by half or fully through veganism (which I oppose as veganism is not a healthy lifestyle and the ethics behind it is based on flawed premises IMHO).