Customer Review

5 of 9 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Non-Science, 20 Oct. 2011
This review is from: Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory (Kindle Edition)
It saddens me to have to rate a anti-AGW book one star (and to be accurate, I base this in the sky dragon threads I have read) but this is not the way to disprove anything. The arguments presented here are just as bad a mis-understanding as any other. The proponents seem scientifically illiterate, and unable to differentiate between confusing terminology which is in common use, and bad physics. Read this book if you want a view into the real extreme fringe of what people can convince themselves is true.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Tracked by 2 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 21 Oct 2011 12:41:18 BDT
Dr DB-UK says:
Sean, you should keep blogging rather than making yourself looking silly in trying to dismiss top scientists with non-scientific arguments. Did you actualy read that book, and if yes, please point to a single argument there that you can dismiss with your scientific knowledge.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2011 12:45:57 BDT
I hadn't read the book, but now I have (at least the free kindle part). Chapter 2 is a prime example of the triumph of waffle over definition. There is a conflation of heat/energy and temperature. There is some nonsense about self-illuminant surfaces which would be wrong if the model were more explicit. Cold bodies being unable to increase the temperature of warm bodies is wrong. Not all of the book is wrong, for example the analysis of periodic heating/cooling seems to be reasonable. I don't think this proves that models are wrong to or wrong because they use daily or annual isolation averages - simple models are good enough most of the time.

Fundamentally, the issue with this book is it is aiming to dismantle an industry by attacking the 'trace' nature of one of the gasses involved - but in doing this gets caught up in a manic exercise in assertion of the 'obvious', when in fact it isn't clear to anyone if the models are really over-simplified or not. Currently, the models have too many degrees of freedom and insufficient periods of high quality data to allow much of a definitive answer.

Of much more value would be to focus the efforts in trying to differentiate between cause and effect of the mediating effect of clouds in the feedback question rather than arguing that it can't be CO2. Since I didn't get to the end of the book, what is the sky dragon explanation for the 1.5-2.0 kelvin trend 1810-2010 (BEST) in average land surface temperature? Methane? Generally it is more convincing to present an explanation than to say it clearly can't be 'x' because that isn't logical.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 00:34:23 BDT
J. Matthews says:
So you wrote a review without reading the book?

That figures. I would suggest that it is you Sean that are the scientifically illiterate one, not the books esteemed authors. It seems that you are the confused one and don't really understand the scientific issues the book raises, particularly with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. BTW, since the book was published, the Dragon slayers have further developed their science and strengthened their position. If there is any criticism to be made it is that the book was published too soon.

BTW, it IS impossible for a cold object to warm a warmer object. Heat ALWAYS passes from a warm object to a cooler one, NEVER the other way round. The Sky Dragons have since worked out why- look up Doug Cotton's paper for more on this.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2012 17:36:02 GMT
Zoltan says:
He said he read some of the book. If that portion of the book - one of the early chapters, moreover - is absolute nonsense, it seems pretty reasonable to me to mark the whole book down, since the rest of the book is either going to build on that or it is going to contradict it. Either scenario is enough to condemn it.

BTW, J, it is clear that you yourself don't really understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is an emergent law that applies to closed systems and has a statistical quantum mechanics explanation at its core. Infra red radiation from a point in the atmosphere has no knowledge of whether it is heading to a point that is colder or hotter than where it started. The 2nd Law is not violated because the large scale flow of energy satisfies the law.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details



Location: Cambridge, UK

Top Reviewer Ranking: 62,133