5 of 7 people found the following review helpful
slaying the sky dragon but will it lie down?,
This review is from: Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory (Paperback)
The expectation for anyone reading this book is that the green dragon would be dead at the end, and for most readers that would be their wish. Unfortunately, it may be mortally wounded, especially it's name, but it still breathes fire. After repeatedly (8 times usually) going over many very interesting and informative climate changing mechanisms and the physics (not to mention the out of reach , even if necessary mathematics), the whole book is like a journey up a mountain where you never get to the peak, but go round and round, occasionally seeing the peak and even heading directly to it sometimes, only to turn and go around again.
The objective seems to be mainly to prove that the "greenhouse effect" is falsely so called, and that it couldn't apply to a planet anyway. This falsely called "greenhouse effect" cannot be responsible for the warming because it doesn't exist as such, and therefore Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is impossible. However, just because the name and analogy is wrong, doesn't mean that there is no mechanism for warming from erroneously called "greenhouse gases".
In the final chapter, the climate scam is shown to be unravelling rather fast with both Climategate and Kiwigate explored, and the reader is left in no doubt that much of the so called science is "bent".
Occasionally, the authors mention the "blanket" theory of warming, and then just dismiss it, then also admit to heat being reflected back to the ground, but they never really deal with the global averaging of it. We all know from experience that the more something is insulated, the less heat loss there is, therefore in terms of a planet, the more insulation it has the more it will warm up. Clearly it will never get hotter than source heating it (depending on distance and available energy), but there seems to be plenty of room for a planet to heat up. This doesn't effect the balance of the equation of heat in and heat out any more than the water flowing into and out of a dam changes after the transient period of filling up. This is not addressed as such in the book because the principle of heat transfer from cooler things (atmosphere) to warmer things (land or sea surface) is logically impossible and so overrides the question yet this is nothing to do with insulation and prevention of heat loss.
It is shocking to see the charts from the IPCC and even NASA showing the heating effect, much like trying to pull yourself up by your boot laces, but I can't help wondering about who is misrepresenting whom.
In the end, it is clear that water vapour is as much a cooling "greenhouse gas" as it is a warming one, and the role of CO2 is barely significant, if at all.