David Craig, on March 6th, 2023Monday/Tuesday blog
Here’s a recent review of my book THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS from a reader on Amazon. The readers titles his/her review ‘Dangerous misinformation’ and gives me the lowest possible rating – one star.
This is what the reader wrote:
The cover of this book depicts a ‘doomsdayer’ and his sandwich board full of failed doomsday dates. But guess what? Climate scientists have never stood on street corners claiming the end is nigh – this is typically the behaviour of Christian evangelists in North America. And the rapture cometh not. Interesting how such an image has been wildly misappropriated to sell the entirely false idea that climate change isn’t happening, or that the scientists studying these changes are ‘doomsdayers.’
Anthropogenic climate change is available for all to see and its existence and progress has been verified by the world’s leading scientists and research bodies. It’s also verifiable by anyone with eyes. Amazon’s willingness to sell amateurish tomes packed with conjecture and misinformation is something of a stark contrast with Jeff Bezos’ insistence that the company cares about the climate.
In short: this is a tome of misinformation, authored by an individual with no accreditation or qualification to comment. Save your time.
I’d like to just spend a few moments examining this person’s criticisms.
Issue 1: ‘Climate scientists have never stood on street corners claiming the end is nigh’
Well here are a few quotes from leading climate catastrophists:
‘A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000,’ Mercury News 30 June 1989
‘Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will spread across the world …. deaths from war and famine run into the millions, until the planet’s population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope,’ Observer 11 November 2004
‘Climate change study predicts refugees fleeing into Antarctica,’ Daily Telegraph 13 October 2008
‘Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of NASA scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen,’ Guardian 18 January 2009
‘The best scientific projections indicate that we have very little time left – indeed less than 100 months – in which to alter our behaviour drastically,’ The UK Prince of Wales 26 May 2009
‘Four years to save the Earth: 2020 is the deadline to avert climate catastrophe, experts claim,’ Daily Mail 29 June 2017
‘The planet is getting warmer in catastrophic ways. And fear may be the only thing that saves us,’ New York Times February 2019
‘Climate change is the number one issue facing humanity. And it’s the number one issue for me. Unchecked it’s actually going to bake this planet,’ President Joe Biden 21 March 2021
Issue 2: ‘Anthropogenic climate change has been verified by the world’s leading scientists’
In Chapter 9 of my book, I explain why the “97% of scientists” agree man-made climate change is happening claim is completely fraudulent and that the real figure may be somewhere around 8%.
Issue 3: ‘This is a tome of misinformation’
The whole point of my book is that it’s not a ‘he said – she said’ diatribe giving my opinions. What my book does is use historical documentation – newspaper articles, official statistics and real-life data – to show that every claim made by the climate catastrophists is nonsense. Here’s just one of many examples:
In the most recent US National Climate Assessment, the experts claim that the area burnt by wildfires is increasing due to supposed Global Warming:
And, of course, the mainstream media enthusiastically pushes the Global Warming narrative:
This National Climate Assessment chart conveniently starts in the 1980s. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Earth cooled so much that leading climatologists thought a new ice age was coming:
So the National Climate Assessment writers deliberately started their chart at a point where the Earth was the coolest it had been and thus wildfires would have been at their lowest level.
If we look back at burnt acreage before the official National Climate Assessment chart, we see that burnt acreage was much higher in the scorching 1920s and 1930s when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than they are today:
What the supposed scientists writing the National Climate Assessment report have done is hidden the data which debunks their man-made Global Warming cult in order to fool us into believing catastrophic man-made Global Warming is happening:
But even more laughably, if the New York Times ‘journalists’ who wrote the 2016 article had even read back copies of their own newspaper, they’d know that burnt acreage was much higher in the past than it is now:
After all, the 2016 New York Times article claims that the 10.3 million acres burnt were ‘the most on record’. Yet this 1937 article from the same newspaper tells us that 21,980,500 acres burnt. So how can 2016’s 10.3 million acres be the ‘most on record’?
This is just one example of how I have written my book – I have used facts and official figures to show how the climate catastrophists are continually lying to us to push their quasi-religious, end-of-days cult.
What I have done in my book is provide accurate information to debunk the alarmist and dangerous misinformation being peddled by the climate catastrophists who are trying to use the supposed ‘Climate Crisis’ as an excuse to impoverish us and control every aspect of our lives.
Issue 4: Amazon should not be selling ‘amateurish tomes packed with conjecture and misinformation’
This is perhaps the most interesting comment made by the reader. Apparently this reader feels that the only books which should be allowed to be published are those which reflect this readers’ own views. That tells us all we need to know about the mentality of the woke, supposedly ‘liberal’ progressives who constantly preach at us from their positions of self-anointed moral superiority but who cannot tolerate any form of dissent to their one-sided, often unscientific opinions.
And we all know where the banning of books leads.
Category: 
Do you know whether it is possible for someone to write an Amazon review without buying the book? It is possible to fill out the review form but I don’t know whether it would be accepted. I can’t understand why somebody with those views would buy your book but I am impressed with what he can see with his eyes. I downloaded a sample of a newly published book about the influence of climate on human history. When I was told that humans started to change the climate from the time of the industrial revolution I stopped reading and decided not to spend £20.
Humans will always have different views and it seem that today, when our knowledge is more extensive than ever, that views are becoming more polarised and rational discussion, let alone agreement, is impossible. Science does win in the end for the basic reason that if it is wrong it does not work. However, it did take the church about 360 years to accept the heliocentric view of the solar system. If your critic relied only on his eyes I’m sure he must believe that the earth is at the centre of the solar system, especially when today, every opinion must be true.
The issue is how do we bring groups of people together with opposing views to resolve differences and decide what is true. In some cases agreement doesn’t matter unless views and required actions are being imposed on people and it is only politicians that can do that as we are experiencing with net zero and health policies. The main reason they can do this is because they have legalised theft of our money and called it taxation on the false claim that they can use it to do better good than we can ourselves.
The MSM no longer investigates but seems to be a propaganda arm of governments, and they seem to have handed over policy to the NGOs which in turn are controlled by the rich elites. Has it ever been any different? From Pharaohs, Emperors and Kings to the likes of Bill Gates. We have never mattered to any of them. The biggest con they developed was democracy which convinced most people that they can change government policy. As Ayn Rand sort of said we were held as slaves by force but now we vote for our own slavery through the ballot box.
I felt that GB News was offering something different but it is no different to the rest. A few days ago I watched a doctor interviewed specifically about lockdowns which he supported and the interviewer taking the opposite view. They just argued and neither offered any evidence to support their view. It was pointless and this is happening everywhere, summed up perfectly by politicians who cannot define a woman. How did we get here?
You don’t have to have purchased the book to write a review on amazon. it says “verified purchaser” if the reviewer has bought the book through Amazon. This reviewer is not a “verified purchaser”.
Sadly this little zealot has his opinions and there will be no changing his mind …. It will be changed when none of the dire predictions come to pass but we may all be dead by then. In the scheme of things you have far more positive reviews than negative ones so I wouldn’t lose sleep over it. As for responding to him (which, of course, you can’t) your arguments would fall on deaf ears. What happens with these zealots is they metaphorically put their hands over their ears and start singing “Tra la la” loudly. Primary school behaviour as is the name calling – Climate change denier. Yep and proud to be so!
Melanie Phillips has just published a piece about Sunak and his net zero objective and she referenced a recent publication by the CO2 Coalition called “Challenging Net Zero with Science” by Richard Lindzen and William Happer. I had a copy and have just looked through it. It mainly covers empirical evidence much like your book and heavily references a book by Prof Koonin – “Unsettled”.
But they make a fundamental error about thermodynamics when they talk about the atmosphere preventing us from freezing, suggesting that the earth’s surface temperature is higher than it would be because of the atmosphere. This is wrong. The highest temperature of any system is determined by the temperature of the heat source. Insulation on a house does not increase the temperature, it reduces the heat loss, which is entirely different. The atmosphere cannot increase the surface temperature above that which the sun creates. The atmosphere may reduce the rate of heat loss but this cannot increase the temperatures, all it can do is keep the temperature higher for longer. This is why using an average temperature gives misleading information, especially since an average temperature has no physical meaning, it is just a calculated number. Without an atmosphere the earth’s surface would be much higher and the moon shows that the sun would burn us to a crisp in the day and freeze us at night. The important effect of the atmosphere and the oceans is the thermal capacity – their ability to retain heat and so the atmosphere effectively cools us in the day and warms us at night.
Quote: “That tells us all we need to know about the mentality of the woke, supposedly ‘liberal’ progressives who constantly preach at us from their positions of self-anointed moral superiority but who cannot tolerate any form of dissent to their one-sided, often unscientific opinions.”
These people have exactly the same demented narcissistic mental illness as Harried and Megain, who stir all the xxxx with lies and then demand an apology from the King and company.
Their moral superiority is an act, just as everything else about them is. Designed as a cover for their lowness (a euphemism). They project their own lowness on to their detractors and the people who expose them, of whom they desire nothing more than their destruction. But it is really themselves that they want to destroy. That is exactly what is taking place between H&M and the Royal Family.