- ...this brings me to a new book, “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”, by eight co-authors, contributors whose expertise ranges across climatology, meteorology, physics, and mathematics, along with an expert in the legal aspects of the hoax. All have been derided as “deniers” and “skeptics.”
- This book is not light reading. Indeed, if you don’t come equipped with an understanding of physics, for example, some chapters will remain beyond your grasp. And mine! Happily, most is easily comprehended. In sum, it is a damning condemnation of the great hoax of the modern era, perhaps the greatest hoax since the bogus economic theory of communism.
- I recommend you read “Slaying the Sky Dragon” as the definitive answer to more than twenty years of global warming lies.
The book contains a mathematical analysis which has been censored and "removed" by the Royal Institute of Technology KTH as "unacceptable", as described in KTH-gate. Despite this unprecedented action since the heydays of "entartete kunst", the book is still available for reading outside KTH.
"Skeptics" like Spencer and Monckton have dismissed the book, seemingly without following the suggestion of Caruba of actually reading the book, only deliberately misunderstanding some of its formulas, just like the censors at KTH. Or maybe they understood the book is scientifically basically correct, and then decided to burn the book because its message was not politically correct. Explanations are needed and will come, eventually.
Inlägg
I am unable to buy the book right now, but I have read the views and arguments of most of the authors of the book (Claes Johnson, Charles Anderson, Alan Siddons, Hans Schreuder, Martin Hertzberg all come easiest to my mind), and they are all among the surest voices for the complete, fundamental denial of the IPCC-promulgated consensus. As an independent research physicist, I came to my own conclusions about the falsity of the climate "consensus," through reading the wide array of arguments on the internet. The method I have found to work best is to look for obvious failures of the consensus ideas to conform to really basic physical law and the simplest real-world evidence (because those fundamental failures are indeed there to be seen, while the critics of the consensus always seemed to get bogged down in unclear theoretical details, and never seemed to be able to quash any portion of the consensus once and for all -- the consensus has been too evasive, and entrenched in current political belief). When I find an unarguable point, I don't let go of it to fight another vain skirmish elsewhere, I hammer at it, knowing that anyone who gets it will have slipped the bonds of delusion in which the consensus is snugly wrapped, and can at least think straight about those obvious points.
SvaraRaderaThe two unarguable points I came across, in order, were: 1) the "energy budget" of Trenberth and Kiehl, including the version apparently still used by the likes of NOAA and NASA, famously violates energy conservation, the premier, inviolable law of all physical science. (One can tell the strength of the delusion in a scientist by whether he/she immediately sees this point, or argues in defense of that indefensible "energy budget".) Without that budget, with its astonishingly clear violation of energy conservation, there is no "greenhouse effect" as put forth by the "consensus". So there is no such effect, period. 2) the comparison of atmospheric temperatures of Venus and Earth definitively proves that none of the atmospheric warming on either planet can be laid to increases in CO2 (or to differences in albedo, either from clouds or the surface), and even further, that scientists in general are mistaken in believing that the planetary atmosphere is basically warmed from below, by first warming of the surface. Both planetary atmospheres are warmed overall by direct atmospheric absorption of the same (infrared) portion of the incident solar radiation. (This is my own simple contribution to the fundamental understanding of the atmosphere. See my article, "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect".) This means that all of the "interesting" physics so many point to (upward thermal convection, surface IR emissions, surface evaporation followed by upward convection and cloud formation) are all far secondary to what really sets the heat-carrying structure of the atmospheres (as shown by the observation of an approximately constant lapse rate in temperature with height).
I hope those who can still think dispassionately about climate physics will be persuaded by the logical force of "Slaying the Sky Dragon", and by the rather obvious, fundamental corrections to consensus scientific thought I have pointed out above. The consensus is incompetent, and a revolution is needed in science.