• Home
  • Current News
  • Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science

Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science

Written by J.A. Cook


Book Review:Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science

This isn’t the first book I have reviewed on climate science (see here and here). I had never heard of Geraint Hughes before but upon opening this book for the first time, I know he understands the lies we are being fed and seeks to debunk them one by one.

The first myth Hughes debunks is the nonsense about how a greenhouse actually works. For most young people, like myself, we were taught in school that back radiation heats the greenhouse, that the glass of the greenhouse returns the sun’s heat to the ground thus increasing the temperature however. But this is an unscientific falsehood.

A greenhouse actually works due to convection.

A strong convection current within the greenhouse creates a cycle of warming and cooling. The sun heats the earth which causes the air close to the ground to heat up and rise, it is trapped by the glass where it cools and falls back to the earth where the cycle repeats. Knowing this is the lynchpin of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.

The ‘greenhouse’ analogy completely falls apart already just knowing this, but Hughes continues to pick apart every lie the Alarmists use. The mission of the book is achieved step by step exposing the shocking truth that mainstream science claims about the Greenhouse Gas Theory are pure junk science garbage.

Most books I’ve encountered that focus on climate science are daunting to read. They require an understanding of physics and thermodynamics in order to carefully follow  what we are being told.

Within the first 25 pages of ‘Black Dragon‘ I gleaned more insight into these issues than I found in my five years of senior school studying GCSE Physics.

Hughes makes the task easier by completely breaking down the science and equations he is using so that anyone can understand them. He then explains the physical application of this science and how it in no way relates to the Greenhouse gas Theory – which he repeatedly disproves.

Since I am a college undergraduate currently studying Bioscience – Chemistry, Biology and Psychology, one thing Hughes debunks really fascinated me; Hughes beautifully exposes the ubiquitous Climate Change in a Bottle experiment.

Below is the ridiculous Bill Nye ‘the non-science guy’ video of this:

My old science teacher actually used this experiment to ‘educate’ us about Climate Change, but it completely misses out some glaringly obvious things that would affect the results.

For example, the experiment completely neglects the fact that the density of both Air and Carbon Dioxide are different and the specific heat capacity of both these gases is different, which would affect the rate at which these gases absorb IR.

Now, is this deliberate deception or simply the product of incompetence and misunderstanding among ‘experts’?

For me, the whole Climate Change narrative seems to be a case of the more you look, the less you see. What I mean by this is the more you focus on what you are being told, it reveals itself as completely wrong. Cautious (skeptic) minds need to take a step back and view it objectively – then everything becomes a lot clearer.

The whole section on Venus was interesting to read. Those spouting alarmist nonsense would have us believe Venus’ high temperatures are caused by a runaway greenhouse effect. But Venus’ temperature is due to its natural structure and formation, however, the interesting thing about this section isn’t the debunking myth about Venus but what we learn about Venus itself.

Throughout the book Hughes makes insightful and interesting points with strong evidence to prove why the various (sometimes competing) theories on Greenhouse Gas are incorrect.

One of the key things that will stick with me is that difference between Oxy and CO2 gas planets, Oxy or oxygen gas planets and Carbon Dioxide gas planets have very different temperatures for one simple reason – how emissive the abundant gas is.

Oxygen is far less emissive than CO2, therefore Oxy planets have higher temperatures, because of this it is impossible for CO2 to be the cause of global warming and Climate Change. While this isn’t the most comprehensive book I have read on the subject (it is quite short, just 152 pages), it is one of the most informative.

I highly recommend reading Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science if you have an interest in the subject, or even if you are just curious about the climate ‘hype’ –  it is aimed at non-experts, so anyone should ‘get it.’

Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science

Price: $15.95

Format: Trade Paperback

Publisher: Stairway Press

Language: English

Pages: 152

ISBN: 978-1-949267-00-6

Read more book reviews by J.A. Cook here 

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (6)

  • Avatar



    Water into your living room made me chuckle.

    The Chinese have been pouring money into the Maldives and been accused of taking over 7 Islands by the back door.

    The Chinese are a clever lot and I don’t believe they would invest billion in low level Islands if they thought they were going to disappear under the oceans.


  • Avatar

    T L Winslow


    Speaking of false physics.

    [[Greenhouse gases can do nothing but reduce the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient by radiating back and forth to similar molecules at different altitudes.]]

    Back and forth? Duh, do they all come with microscopic radar sets from NASA? 🙂 When sunlight hits the Earth’s surface, it deposits radiation energy mainly in the visual wavelengths, which is absorbed by the surface molecules, heating them up (physically making them whiz faster), after which they begin radiating IR based on the internal temperature they reached, slowly cooling down (dewhizzing) and changing their radiation profile. So why would CO2 molecules up in the sky that happened to absorb some surface IR not heat up a minute amount and begin radiating, not at the original IR wavelengths, but at a way longer wavelength based on its low low temperature up there, which it was already doing?

    That radiation would not have much time before neighboring mainly non-CO2 molecules bumped into it and stole the extra energy to equalize temperatures. The combined molecules would radiate Planck radiation, which would be very weak and very long wavelength, especially because the lapse rate makes air in the sky frigid fast. There would then be no “radiating back and forth to similar molecules”. Sorry, that’s the IPCC CO2 back radiation hoax twisting your mind.

    Not to mention that you and they are seemingly trying to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) Law to atmospheric gases, when it only applies to surfaces, with the dimensions of watts per square meter proving it. It’s not watts per cubic meters. Since the only surfaces in the Earth climate picture are the Sun’s and the Earth’s, that law can’t be used in the sky unless there’s a glass roof or other solid surface up there, which is the root reason that “back radiation” is a hoax, and Planck radiation and convection rule the surface cooling process until the top of the atmosphere is reached, when what’s left of the heat is radiated slowly as Planck radiation to space. By then most of the Sun’s original heat was dissipated via adiabatic expansion as the heated air rose and encountered decreasing pressures, and by conversion to work to generate wind.

    [[From there thermal energy is transferred downwards during the day because the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient is indeed the state of maximum entropy which we physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium. Because it is a state of equilibrium, then new energy absorbed from solar radiation at higher altitudes must spread out downwards and raise the whole thermal profile to a higher but parallel position, thus warming the surface. This is how the required extra thermal energy gets into the surface of planets like Earth and Venus. It has little to do with direct solar radiation to the surface, Joseph Postma, and even less to do with subterrestrial heat John O’Sullivan.]]

    Duh, the “gravitationally-induced temperature gradient” AKA the lapse rate is built from the surface up, not from the sky downwards. The sky can’t tell the surface what to do. Conduction, convection, and Planck radiation are local processes. There must first be heat on the surface that is being conducted and convected up by air molecules, and as they rise they will be forced into the lapse rate profile by gravity g and their specific gravity c by the formula g/c so that they won’t fall back to the surface So you have it upside down and backwards. I bet if you were laying on your back naked in the Mohave Desert on July 4 at noon and a solar eclipse occurred, you’d feel a decrease in heat immediately, and not have to wait for super-slow thermal equilibrium.

    Back to our common enemy. The IPCC’s so-called greenhouse effect is a hoax, and it’s actually the chimney effect, the entire atmosphere with its great mass acting as a thermal buffer between the Earth’s surface and space, taking time to heat up like an iron poker in a fire whose handle stays cool while keeping the surface temperatures within livable limits. CO2 does crickets, and definitely doesn’t play ping-pong with itself, what moose hockey.

    If CO2 had that power, then one could set up a lab experiment with a tube of CO2 and an IR source illuminating it, and watch it heat a nearby tube of water or dirt. with its back radiation. Or in your case, watch it ping-pong IR with a nearby tube of CO2, allowing you to stick a hot dog on a long fork in the middle and cook it for free Instead, the CO2 tube just heats and begins radiating Planck radiation based on its rising internal temperature like the other components of air. Its only unique power is during phase changes, which makes it a preferred gas for commercial refrigeration.

    Learn real physics from my free online essay tearing the CO2 greenhouse warming theory apart.


  • Avatar

    David Wieland


    Yes, there are numerous ways to debunk the GHE theory, but none of them reach the general public through reporters with little scientific understanding. For me, the most elegant and generally understandable debunking of the theory and AGW is in the data acquired in the past few decades. While CO2 has risen continually, temperatures have continued to rise and fall without any sign of correlation.
    The promoters of the “fight against climate change” can’t allow empirical data to challenge their lies, so we get alarming model projections instead, supplemented with a bit of truth (the approximately 1 degree C warming in the past century or so) presented as looming doom. Here in Canada, people would enjoy another degree or two of warming, although much of the populace is being turned anxious by misinformed (and perhaps unscrupulous) leaders and activists. It’s truly shameful.

  • Avatar



    The funniest thing is accused fraudster, Michael Mann has turned on NOAA for their measured 2019 report in hurricanes.

    A new statement from NOAA.
    NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dyamics Laboratory (GFDL): “Leaders in Climate Model Development and Research.” See their website.

    For about a decade (or even longer), GFDL has annually updated their statement on hurricanes and climate change. This excerpt from their 15 August 2019 update (bold emphasis in the original) lists some of their negative findings about current hurricane activity.

    “We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero. In addition, Landsea et al. (2010) note that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration (<2 day) storms alone. Such short-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic. …

    “The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s. …

    “While major hurricanes show more evidence of a rising trend from the late 1800s, the major hurricane data are considered even less reliable than the other two records in the early parts of the record. …

    “In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.“

    The guy is crazy-


  • Avatar

    David Wieland


    I’m rather surprised by the statement that a greenhouse works due to convection. A (mostly) closed greenhouse does have convecting air currents, but the principal feature is limiting the loss of warmed air, whether it was warmed by solar radiation or other energy source. Blocking advection matters more than convection. We need a greenhouse operator or some other gardeners involved in these discussions. I’m astonished at the apparent sophistry in physics texts regarding the real greenhouse “effect”.

  • Avatar

    T L Winslow


    You’re making a category mistake.

    “Advection is sometimes confused with the more encompassing process of convection which is the combination of advective transport and diffusive transport.”


Comments are closed