As someone not well educated on ancient history I have to take James and Thorpe's views with a certain level of authority. Besides, I was never one to believe the whole Atlantis nonsense. Likewise, much of the Bible comes off as myth to me. So much of what the authors present here is seemingly logical.
However, in the very first chapter on page 16 the authors write: "Two decades ago some scientists were predicting the impending arrival of a new Ice Age - despite global warming. (One British scientist, with astounding carelessness, predicted both effects in consecutive radio interviews within two days."
This is troubling because it so clearly disregards certain theories that do indeed have legitimacy in pointing towards _both_ global warming and a new Ice Age. For example, there are scientists who believe that the melting ice caps (caused by global warming) are lowering the temperature of ocean water around Europe which could cause a form of an Ice Age for the region. One can't be certain as to the scientist they're mocking, but the quick dismissal of this view is troubling because recent evidence suggests that both are distinctly possible without contradicting each other.
Have the authors, in their rush to judgement, made the same mistakes elsewhere in the book? I have no idea.
So much of this kind of history is theory so I can't be too hard on the authors. However, I do think one needs to have a little bit of skepticism in the portions of the book where the authors are too quick to dismiss a viewpoint without fully explaining why its wrong. And oddly enough, they seem to spend quite a bit of effort going after theories that most people, at least that I'm aware of, don't put much stock into in the first place.
The theory of Atlantis, for example, is given quite a bit of ink. This seems odd because it is rather a fanciful theory to begin with. The evidence put forth by the author's here is enjoyable to read and logical.
I leave the other gaps in the book to those with more knowledge. Suffice to say, I could do without some of the authors' tone in the book which was at times a little too arrogant. But still, it's a good read and a _start_. Given their views about weather patterns, I'd recommend doing further research before taking their views as the end of the debate.