Public Employee Unions: A Democrat Disease ...
Losing YOUR privacy one device at a time: Media Players ...

Global Warming: A dragon worth slaying ...

The burb …

Summary (from the back cover) …

Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming.

Eight leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature.

By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three – are exposed and then shattered.

This volume is a scientific tour de force and the gamechanger for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.

And from the Publisher’s web page …

With concise and detailed equations and helpful diagrams to guide the non-scientist, Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, does more than simply expose shocking faux climate science. It is a step-by-step guide to how the United Nations, western governments and leading corporations manipulated the infant science of climatology in pursuit of such disparate goals as global green government, an international carbon trading Ponzi scheme and the self-aggrandizement of well-placed UN officials and political leaders. <Source>

Pretty bold claims, so I looked forward with great anticipation to reading the book …

Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory is definitely an engaging and intriguing title. The back cover blurb raised my expectations to a very high level.

Red flag one: a curious disclaimer …

Only to be moderated by the “Disclaimer” on Page 3: “The authors of this book received no funding from government agencies or private corporations and the opinions expressed are entirely their own.”

Since I normally regard myself as a cynic and climate skeptic, I wondered – what is that about. Most credible and working climatologists do not fund their own work and almost always have some association with the government or private enterprise. A glaring red flag in my mind which demanded further investigation.

Red flag two: the missing author …

Turning to the author’s biographical information contained within the book, I found that with the exception of Dr. Tim Ball, a retired Canadian Professor of Climatology from the University of Winnipeg, most of the other authors were science writers; or should I say writers with a scientific background. While seemingly well-credentialed in their respective areas of expertise, the author’s are not what one would normally expect when reviewing a book touted as a “scientific tour de force.” Another glaring red flag in my mind.

When I looked for Dr. Ball’s biography, I found that he was not a climatologist per se, but a professor of geography with an emphasis on historical climate at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 to 1996.

But what surprised me was that other copies must exist. Some with a different cover and an additional author, Dr. Oliver K. Manuel.

clipsky

This was acknowledged in another blurb.

Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world's first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming. Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology.

And on the publisher’s web site in a “Meet the Authors” section.

“Oliver Manuel (United States) Emeritus Professor Oliver K. Manuel is a renowned nuclear and space scientist with over 100 refereed publications in leading research journals [Science, Nature, Physical Review, Proceedings of Lunar Science Conferences, Journal of Geophysical Research, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, etc.] and papers presented at science conferences world-wide, including the United States, old USSR, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Russia, Portugal, Switzerland, and Wales.”

Another red flag, curious -- because I just received the review copy of this 8-author version of the book directly from the publisher.

Red flag three: squirrely statements about science …

Again, as I have said before: “I rarely read non-fiction books, cover-to-cover, preferring instead to start out with the most interesting section.”

So I tackled Chapter 18 “Climate Thermodynamics,” written by Claes Johnson, primarily because I am interested in climate modeling.

From the curious opening quote:

Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don’t understand it at all. The second time you go through it,
you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don’t understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn’t bother you any more. (Physicist Arnold Sommerfeld (1868-1951))”

to the opening paragraph:

Global climate results from a thermodynamic interaction between the atmosphere and the ocean with radiative forcing from the Sun, gravitational forcing from the Earth (and the Moon) and dynamic Coriolis forcing from the rotation of the Earth. The thermodynamics is described by the Navier-Stokes equations (NSE) of fluid dynamics, for a variable density
incompressible ocean and compressible atmosphere, expressing conservation
of mass, momentum and energy.”

I was confused.

Why would you use a quote “pooh-poohing” the very scientific basis of your assertion?

The Navier-Stokes equations describe the motion of fluid substances. The equations themselves are among the least understood and most used in certain research. The statement that “the thermodynamics is described by the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics” is, again, either inartfully worded or suspect as being woefully inadequate to the explanation.

For those wishing a little more on the complexity of applying Navier-Stokes equations to global climate modeling, you may wish to glance at GCMs [Global Circulation Models] and the Navier-Stokes Equations.

“In short, A GCM ‘control run,’ is essentially one numerical run from a hugely complicated Navier-Stokes equation, the deep mathematical properties of which mathematicians say they know very little. Climatologists on the other hand appear to know the results to high degrees of certainty – remarkable.”

However, there is value to be found here. This is a prime example of why respected scientific journals use the “peer review” process to prepare their materials for publication. Where incomplete thoughts, ambiguous assertions and other incongruities are answered without forcing the reader to do mental gymnastics to arrive at what the author truly meant.

Pressing on …

Within the chapters there appear to be additional questions of science and mathematics – some of which may rise from inartful wording and poor editing – and others are conceptually flawed when taken in the context presented. And some statements are woefully inadequate because they raise even more questions about the author’s assumptions and reasons for usage.

A little background about my point of view …

As I have said before: “It is of great concern to me that those whom I label as global warming alarmists continue to demand that governments enact self-serving laws, rules and regulations which manipulate public policy for the promotion of progressive politics and special interests profits. All the while a complacent population sits back and is spoon-fed biased information by a media that has been thoroughly corrupted by the progressive political debate.”

The book …

I cannot express an opinion on this book other than it certainly does not live up to its publicity.

slayingnarrowcover

ISBN: 978-0-982773-40-6

Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory

Authors: Tim Ball, Claes Johnson, Martin Hertzberg, Joseph A. Olson, Hans Schreuder, and John O’Sullivan

Publisher: Stairway Press

$34.95, paper, 364 pages

($22.23@ Amazon.com)

My position …

To provide context for this review, it is my belief that the subject of global warming is a political scheme based on speculative science, inadequate computer models, highly-manipulated and suspect data, and promoted by a number of self-serving politicians, institutions, researchers and special interests.

I also believe that carbon dioxide was chosen as the demon gas because it provided a rationale for public policies that could be used to control the production, distribution and use of the energy which is required to sustain and expand our economic growth.

That the scientific findings, relative to global climate change, to this very day, show that the global mean temperature is well within the tolerance and noise levels of nature’s own variability. And that the correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and an increase in the global mean temperature is not causal and can be easily explained by other more significant factors such as the Sun’s energy output, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s planetary dynamics, volcanic activity, ocean currents and the greatest greenhouse gas of all, water vapor. All part of a chaotic system featuring self-regulating feedback loops. And all to be anticipated by the warming of our world as we emerge from the little ice age.

Bottom line …

I have many reservations in recommending this book to my readers, friends and others interested in the subject. Mostly because it does not live up to its own hype and because it is not a clear and easily understandable exposition on the subject matter. The book is a curious mishmash of politics and science. Some of which refers to a “companion volume” that is only referenced in passing. Too many red flags for a recommendation.

For those wondering if it was an enjoyable or enlightening read, the answer is a resounding “No.” I would much rather read, hear or study work by Christopher Lord Monckton who makes similar claims, but with much more specificity and coherence.

I agree that there is a “Sky Dragon” to be slain. But the only way that this book will help kill the out-of-control monster is if you beat him to death using the book as a brute-force weapon.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Some of my previous blog entries for context are listed here in no particular order.

Global Warming: A Climate Coup?

GLOBAL WARMING: A DAY OF RECKONING APPROACHES ...
GLOBAL WARMING/COOLING/CHANGE: NUMBERS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE
Global Warming: The real question is highlighted in a new report ...
Global Warming: The Pretense of Knowledge
Global warming: new research annoys alarmists.
Global Warming: How is it that we are making public policy decisions when we still have much to learn?
Global Warming: Going Beyond The Science ...
A COOLER YEAR: GLOBAL WARMING WEATHER ANOMALY OR THE BEGINNING OF A "REGRESSION TO THE UNKNOWN TEMPERATURE MEAN?"

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


Comments