I agree (with Daniel Muir in week 3) that the content actually presented is thin, and the potential for a lot more reading is vast. However I think we should have some sympathy for Exeter: The course is introductory in the sense that it introduces a lot of things which *some* registrants have not been familiar with. I have been startled by the lack of prior knowledge revealed by some of the posted comments. My principal frustrations are two-fold: (1) The links to really good data or analyses are sprinkled throughout the video and textual material and I would find it useful to have them collected in a single place to which I could refer. (2) We have not explored any topic in depth, and therefore at all stages of a very complex argument we effectively have to take someone’s word for it. I cannot personally challenge the albedo experts or the aerosol experts or the jetstream experts or the storm experts or the CO2 measurement experts or the tree-ring daters. All I can say at each stage is “OK, so that’s the approach they take – I’ll have to believe their conclusions because I cannot do better.” It might be interesting to get us to construct (via a spreadsheet perhaps) a simplistic predictive climate model. We could then explore its sensitivity to the input parameters, which could be very revealing.