Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Recent Comments

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Comments 1 to 50:

  1. Climate models are even more accurate than you thought

    Unfortunatly a study by climate scientists that says their models are good will only be met with derision. Any talk of adjusting data, no matter how nessesary will be called "fudging the data"

  2. 10 Things We Learnt From Reddit About Understanding Climate Change

    great post - be sure to read the comments at the Reddit link.   One disturbing comment:

    "–]Klaus_OberauerProfessor of Cognitive Psychology | University of Zurich 

    Actually, I don't think of the internet as a catalysator of social progress. There is social progress on many fronts, in particular in the direction of increasing tolerance and inclusiveness of society, but that trend has begun long before the internet (think of the civil rights movement in the 1960es, the fight for women's rights to vote going back to the early 20th century). The internet has the potential to make other people's suffering available easily to everyone, but it also involves the potential of ignoring everything that's inconvenient to a person because there is such a huge amount of information to choose from that everyone can live in a tailor-made information environment consisting only of convenient, self-confirming information (e.g., reading only those news sites that match one's ideology). Hard to say how these potentials pan out on balance."

  3. 2015 Arctic melting season won't break records, but could wipe the 'recovery'

    CBDunkerson @9.

    As you say, the July figures will show all but the June figures are also quite telling. July usually gives the lowest PIOMAS anomaly (and July 2015 is but a few days wait away), but the big drops in the anomaly occur during May-June. This year that drop was a meaty 1,200 cu km but July 2015 remains 2,500 cu km behind July 2012 which just too much to catch up. So on that score, I cannot see 2015 Arctic SIV overtaking 2012. As of July 2015, PIOMAS SIV remains the 6th lowest on record but I would expect it to drop below 2014 into 5th spot by September.

  4. 2015 Arctic melting season won't break records, but could wipe the 'recovery'

    Tom, to clarify... I'm primarily looking at the ice volume record. Both extent and volume hit minimums in 2012, but in some years those have not been linked. Thus, while I agree that it is very unlikely the extent record will be broken this year, I am less certain about the volume record. If NRL is accurate then about half the multi-year ice has already been wiped out and the remaining half seems fairly exposed. That could lead to a steep drop in volume even while extent stays relatively 'high' due to widely spread chunks of thin broken up ice. It'll be easier to see how likely a volume minimum is once the PIOMAS results for July come out.

  5. michael sweet at 05:42 AM on 31 July 2015
    2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B

    Tamino has a review of a paper by Cowtan et al 2015.  Cowtan et al find that the comparison between modeled temperature and measured temeprature increase has been done incorrectly in the past.  When properly corrected, 38% of the differrence between modeled and measured temeprature increase is eliminated.  Joining Cowtan are a group of stellar researchers.  The basis of their update is common sense once they point out the problem, although they say actually doing the comparison correctly took a lot of work.  This paper will be interesting to discuss.  The deniers will freak out at this conclusion.

  6. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B

    Nice coverage, as always. Just to continue my past record of volunteering your voluntary staff to do yet more work for free '-): There has been quite a lot of discussion in the papers and on blogs about the recent Hansen et al. paper on slr and related issues. Any chance of a synopsis or a collection of related articles and sources? If you want, I could get you started with a few...

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Sorry, but i do not have the time to inventory articles about Hansen's draft paper. 

  7. 10 Things We Learnt From Reddit About Understanding Climate Change

    Great post. People always have more pressing concerns, and this diverts the needed attention from this huge, long term problem.

    The takeaway message for me here is keeping it simple and respectful. Inoculating the warning about denying propaganda sounds useful, too.

  8. 2015 Arctic melting season won't break records, but could wipe the 'recovery'

    CBDunkerson @7, here are the ARCUS sea ice extent predictions as of July:

    Only two lie below the 2012 record, while one matches that record.  Of those three, one (from Wadhams) is frankly absurd.  I suspect that the 5 million km^2 median prediction may be a bit conservative, but I would be surprised at values below 4 million km^2.  I think it would require near perfect melt conditions plus high winds for at least the next month to match the 2012 record, something I don't think at all probable.  If I were to make a prediction, I would split the difference between Gavin Cawley's statistical prediction and Wu and Grumbine's model based prediction, and call it at 4.65 km^2 

  9. 2015 Arctic melting season won't break records, but could wipe the 'recovery'

    I'm actually surprised by the "won't break records" call. Neven's probably right that we won't see a new record low this year, but that doesn't seem anything like a sure thing to me.

    Cryosphere Today is showing ice area only around 0.26 million sq km higher than for this point in 2012... and if anything, ice thickness maps seem to indicate that volume loss may have been even more pronounced. Indeed, the only remaining large mass of thick ice on the NRL map seems potentially vulnerable to getting wiped out.

  10. 2015 Arctic melting season won't break records, but could wipe the 'recovery'

    Bozza, here are the 100% values by year for MA Rodger's graph @5:

    So, 100% in 1983 equals 16.11 million km^2 (15.5 * 1.0395), while in 2015, 100% equals 14.37 million km^2   (15.5 * 0.927) 

  11. 2015 Arctic melting season won't break records, but could wipe the 'recovery'

    bozzza @4.

    Do bear in mind that the 100% of Winter SIE being divvied up in this graphic has been shrinking through the decades. 2015 was 10% below the average at the start of the time period in this graphic.

    Winter Arctic Ice Age

  12. 2015 Arctic melting season won't break records, but could wipe the 'recovery'

    ..are there any time-series graphs on multi-year ice? 

  13. 2015 Arctic melting season won't break records, but could wipe the 'recovery'

    I don't like the idea of sine waves forming around the lower 2 standard deviations from the norm... but if multi-year ice is coming back I have to accept the fact.

  14. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #30B

    That peabody stock seems to have fallen in half at faster than regular intervals: i.e. faster than exponential!

  15. 2015 Arctic melting season won't break records, but could wipe the 'recovery'

    One does have to also consider the amount of wood being turned into soot up there though.    Might see a strong second half.  

  16. 2015 Arctic melting season won't break records, but could wipe the 'recovery'

    The SkS magnifying glass on the University of Bremen concentration map suggests that there will be an "ice free" passage along the Northern Sea Route by now. Here's a video derived from the higher resolution AMSR2 imagery from the University of Hamburg that suggests that is indeed now the case:

  17. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    This comment by Yvette Cooper, one of the four candidates for leader of the UK Labour Party published in today's Independent is, I think, appropriate for this thread.  On the subject of climate change she said  “It is a serious threat to our world and to social progress and the Tories are taking us backwards. They don't believe in global leadership on climate change and their new minister [Amber Rudd, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary] has bought into conspiracy theories that action to stop climate change can be ‘cover for anti-growth, anti-capitalist, proto-socialism’. This sort of nonsense will be the norm if Labour keeps losing elections and condemns future generations to a Tory future. David Cameron’s hug-a-husky but scrap a wind farm’ hypocrisy is setting us back years.”

    Moderator Response:

    Sarah changed to Yvette as per request.

  18. The Daily Mail and Telegraph get it wrong on Arctic sea ice, again

    Thanks for linking to our article that highlighted some the Daily Mail's errors in their appallingly inaccurate editorial last week. We've returned the favour in our official response to their equally ludicrous "correction" of the grossest of those errors:

    "Mail Makes 1000% Arctic Mistake"

    We hereby call on the Daily Mail to provide us with a fair opportunity to reply to this egregious inaccuracy and a number of others in the same article.

  19. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #30D

    Was it quite necessary to include two links to Revkin ?

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Yes, it was.

  20. The Daily Mail and Telegraph get it wrong on Arctic sea ice, again

    Two of my favorite SkS climate graphics nicely illustrate the absurdity of cherry picking short-term time periods to obscure obvious long-term trends, and they deserve to be highlighted here.  I think both were created by Dana.

    First, the Arctic Sea Ice Escalator animated gif combines humor, sarcasm, and cold hard data to illustrate the accelerating decline of Arctic sea ice:

    And of course there's the wildly popular original Escalator showing the surface temperature record:

    The Escalator

  21. Rob Painting at 05:56 AM on 29 July 2015
    Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    No! I am SpartaCook!

  22. CRU tampered with temperature data

    "Independent Climate Change Email Review".  That title in itself is laughable. The UEA funded the review themselves, how is that independent?  Basically they paid someone to review themselves and found nothing wrong, sounds totally legit.  


    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

    Unsubstantiated accusations deleted.

  23. Rob Honeycutt at 03:12 AM on 29 July 2015
    Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    No! I am Sparti... er, John Cook! :-)

  24. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #30B

    Correction to #1 above. Coal is not just dying. Coal is on it's death bed and life support is failing.

    Heard of Peabody Energy? Largest coal company in the world? 2011 share price: $73. Today's low share price: $0.99. It's literally a penny stock.

    The collapse of investor support for coal is nearly complete. The, directly linked, collapse of political support for coal is already well underway. We've passed the tipping point... all the political benefits which have been propping up coal for decades will now shortly be withdrawn and replaced by impediments. That will transition coal cost competitiveness from 'barely hanging on' to 'completely hopeless'. The US is ahead of the curve on this, but the rest of the world will follow much sooner than most projections of future coal use have suggested. I'll be surprised if coal use isn't falling world wide by 2020.

    Too soon to call when petroleum will follow suit. Probably all down to when electric car batteries become cost competitive.

  25. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    Let's assume that Wadhams really did say everything claimed without any qualifiers or exceptions. We would then be talking about a single person, with a single conspiracy, having nothing to do with the actual science. The 'skeptic' rush to highlight this as a counter to their many conspiracy theories, in and of itself, is a perfect demonstration of just how absurdly pathetic their position is.

  26. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    And BTW your comment "Does it affect the substance of the science on climate change? No, of course not." is expressing very similar sentiments to those in the comment I made "But even if he did make the remarks does it really make that much difference to the debate on Climate Change?"  Perhaps that had escaped your attention as indeed it did mine until I re-read the comments.

  27. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    KR Yes I did read the text

    I don't recall I said I believed anything.  What I stated was that Professor Wadhams may have made the claims he now denies or the Times is being extremely foolhardy in publishing the piece. I cannot see where this is expressing a belief one way or another,.  And would you point out where I showed any willingness to believe conspiratorial thinking as I said "and even if he did"  which is a long way from saying "he did". 

  28. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    ryland - As an addendum, I find your willingness to believe conspiratorial thinking on the part of a single climate researcher quite interesting in contrast with your comments on the "Recurrent Fury" thread - where you spent quite some time arguing about (non-existent) ethical issues in an apparent attempt to denigrate a paper on climate denialist conspiratorial thinking. Most curious. 

  29. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    ryland - Did you actually read the linked text? Because Wadham bracketed what he characterizes a brief suspicion (one prompted by the reporter) with statements that the climate researchers deaths were clearly coincidence, context that the Times did not include. And he stated he "...did not make any of the statements enclosed in quotation marks by the reporter." Out of context characterizations, with manufactured quotes???

    I view the Times article, and the denial blogosphere fuss about it, simply as a Tu quoque fallacy - an attempt to distract from the well recognized and currently well publicized conspiracy ideation of climate denialists. Does it affect the substance of the science on climate change? No, of course not. Does it reflect poorly on the journalistic integrity of the Times? Yes, yes it does, and if Wadhams statement holds up the Times may be liable. 

  30. 2015 SkS Weekly Digest #30

    The fossil fuel industry has profits in the billions and reserves worth trillions, so they have great incentive to push denial and doubt about climate science.

    Scientists are smart people. If they were driven by greed, they would probably be bankers or lawyers or some other more lucrative occupation. They are scientists because they quest for knkowledge, not riches.

    The idea that fossil fuel industry funded people are telling us the truth and scientists are lying conspiritorists is beyond crazy.

  31. Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain

    bozza @19, there is a coriolis effect in the NH just as in the SH, and vice versa.  What causes that effect to have different consequences in the SH than in the NH is the different distributions of land and water; which also has other consequences on climate independent of the coriolis effect.  So if you want to reduce it to a simple formula; the NH polar regions are warmer than the SH polar regions because the Arctic is water surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by water.  Differences in distribution of land and water also explains the more southerly location of the tropical zone, and the slower loss of temperature with latitude in the SH temperate zone relative to the NH temperate zone.

    That said, it is a mistake to reduce things to that level of simplicity.  When you do, deniers swoop in and pick out a minor factor claiming it was "ignored by climate scientists" and that "it is the real cause".  And although those claims are rubbish, depending for their rhetorical effectiveness on people not having had those other factors discussed before hand, by oversimplifying the scientific story we are just setting people up for those pseudoscientists.

  32. The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

    What Tom said - I'm doing 60+ hours most weeks counting crystallography + climate stuff, plus domestic duties.

    Also I can't update the applet page here - only the data. Updating the applet needs an intervention from the (also over-stretched) technical people. The version of the applet on my York page is more up to date - it has some tooltips and auto-updating. I don't think I've updated the links though - sorry.

    Karl krig is the gridded data from the Karl 2015 paper fed through the C&W version 1 kriging calculation from our paper - i.e. infllling the blended data. I let the calculation work out the kriging range for itself - given that the Karl maps are smoothed, this is slightly overestimated (IIRC 850km - 750 is more realistic). However infilling the blended data rather than infilling separately will also underestimate the trend because part of the Arctic will be filled in from SSTs. I don't know which effect will be bigger, so for now it's just a best guess on what the global Karl data will look like.

  33. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    KR @6 In the link you gave regarding Professor Wadhams this comment is made:

    "A spokesperson for The Times said: “We have a recording of Professor Wadhams making these statements. Another newspaper [the Telegraph] subsequently reported that he had made similar comments to their journalist. We stand by the story.”

    In view of the wiilingness to sue news outlets at what seems to be the drop of a hat, it would seem Professot Wadhams may have made the claims he now denies or that the Times is being extremely foolhardy in publishing the piece. But even if he did make the remarks does it really make that much difference to the debate on Climate Change?

  34. Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain

    So, arriving at a simple answer, coriolis effect explains why the nothern hemisphere is warmer than the southern!!?

  35. The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

    s_gordon_b @86, I agree that it would be nice if it were spelled out explicitly.  Having said that, everything produced on SkS is done by volunteers who are not paid for their contribution, and certainly not paid for their time producing material for SkS.  (This may or may not apply to pieces published for the Guardian, although if Dana is paid for those pieces, I suspect it is a pittance.)  Further, many of the contributors are very busy, having a lot of other demands on their time.  Given the volunteer nature of the excercise, we are not entitled to any further expectation on their time.  If Kevin C (who I know to be very busy), does not have time to update the post - then that is just how it is.  We should just continue to appreciate that he has made so much time available free for out benefit as it is.

    So, if he hasn't the time for the update, you can always indicate that you "think this is what the data refers to", but that the volunteers have not had the time to clarrify as yet - linking to this post if need be.

  36. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    I have just been emailed by Scott Gates (who I do not remember, and certainly have had no correspondence with under that name) making scurrilous accusations relating to Lubos Motl's accusations.  I consider his accusations libelous, and will not repost them, but I will post my response:

    "I don't know you from a bar of soap, and do not appreciate being mail bombed with your scurrilous and false accusations.

    The facts are:

    1) John Cook used the pseudonym "Lubos Motl" only on a private forum, where all other members were aware that it was a pseudonym. Ergo it was no more identity theft than using somebodies name to perform a parody, or manufacturing fake quotes in somebodies name in a cartoon (as is regularly done by Josh in cartoons published on WUWT). If any pseudoskeptic has a problem with the practice, they should first take it up with Anthony Watts and Josh.

    2) The use of the pseudonym was not in anyway related to the 97% consensus paper, nor in Recursive Fury or Recurrent Fury (the follow on papers to the Moonlanding paper by Lewandowsky). Nor has it been used as data for any published scientific paper by John Cook. This point is made in an update to the link you provide on the story.

    3) The non-accidental uses of the pseudonym was intended for research that was not published. For that research, the posts were used under a different pseudonym not associated with any person known (and certainly not with any well known scientists, a category that does not include Motl). It is less than ideal to use manufactured samples in research of that category because of the possibility of unconscious biases being introduced to the writing style. It does not, however, constitute scientific fraud unless the fact that the examples of "pseudoskeptic arguments" were written by non-pseudoskeptics is concealed in the published work. It is an arguable point as to whether failure to explicitly acknowledge the manufactured samples in the published work constitutes fraud, but there is no doubt that explicitly mentioning it is best practice. These same points apply also to manufactured examples of "consensus" arguments by people who accept the consensus, even if writing in their own name; because again, the contrived situation may lead to subtle biases in the samples (perhaps making the arguments more cogent than is typical of pro-consensus comments). (I should note that the use of non-manufactured samples also raises ethical issues relating to consent, so despite the issues discussed in this paragraph, the use of manufactured samples, properly acknowledged as such, may in fact be the best scientific practice for this type of research once all considerations are taken into account.)

    4) Regardless of the considerations in (4), to my certain knowledge, John Cook has not intentionally practiced scientific fraud in any of his research, published or unpublished. Suggesting otherwise constitutes libel, and is considerably more unethical than anything John Cook has done."

    The link provided, and mentioned in point (2) above, was to WUWT.

  37. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    Suggested supplementary reading...

    Why Do Some People Believe in Conspiracy Theories? by Christopher French*, Scientific American, June 11, 2015

    *Professor of psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London

  38. The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

    Tom @85, I agree with your speculations, but continue to wish SkS would spell these things out so there's no room for ambiguity. If I want to post a chart from their calculator to my blog, for example, describing it as "I think this is what the data refers to..." doesn't inspire confidence in me or SkS.

  39. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    Suprised that Pielke was so eager to promote the Lubos nonsense. He must of had an inkling there was an explanation. He still can't admit it and instead is talking about Nazis. *sigh*

  40. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    "I consider myself a value driven conservative: ...."

    I'm old enough to remember a time when you didn't have to add a qualifier before Conservative to explain you were different from the rest. That's why I called Republicans Fictional Conservatives to point out how far off track they've gone since Reagan and the NeoCons

    "I feel very definitely that the administration is absolutely correct in cracking down on companies and corporations and municipalities that continue to pollute the nation's air and water. While I am a great believer in the free competitive enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.

    To this end, it is my belief that when pollution is found, it should be halted at the source, even if this requires stringent government action against important segments of our national economy."

     - Barry Goldwater, 1969 

  41. The importance of good climate communication: a recent Arctic example

    This story has taken a couple of intriguing turns already today. Over the weekend the Mail, Telegraph & Times accused Prof. Peter Wadhams of wearing a tinfoil hat.

    Then Prof. Wadhams complained to the UK's Independent Press Standards Organisation about recent articles that “ha[ve] substantially damaged my reputation for scientific integrity, and I believe that this was the deliberate intention”:

    Now the Guardian says the Times says it has a recording of the interview that started the whole Wadhams bashing juggernaut rolling.

  42. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    jgnfld: But I have a PhD in cog sci with heavy emphasis on stat, and I have been commenting on that CNN thread!  This consipiracy goes really deep! Apparently I've been posting as you without knowing it, so I guess I'm really John Cook but I've been masquerading so long that I've lost track of who I really am. Did I eat lunch yet today?

  43. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    @Rob Honeycutt

    I know I'm 5 months after the fact, but Jim (in CA) commonly posts to climate stories in the Yahoo! News blogs.  He and another character who goes by JDAM, love to quote all sorts of Boltzman calculations as "proving" that CO2 can't possibly be a GH gas.  Problem is they would never be convinced that their black box calculation of 1°C per double CO2 misses about half the reality, feedbacks, associated with increasing GHG concentrations as some other later folk pointed out.

  44. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    Langham - Note that Dr. Wadhams has complained to the Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO) regarding that article, saying that "I did not make any of the statements enclosed in quotation marks by the reporter."

    Seems like the Times (not to mention the Telegraph, and Mail) continues with the (ahem) fine non-journalistic tradition of junk stories. Wrapping garbage with that paper would insult the garbage. 

  45. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    It seems there are conspiracy theorists on both sides of the debate:

  46. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    It may be a good idea to use web archives such as the WayBack machine or for such links. 

  47. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    The "...surmise he may just be a front for the IPCC or Globe International..." link is dead, climatechangedispatch apparently doesn't have the page up anymore.

    The archived link for it works, though, and you might want to use that instead. 

  48. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    John C...

    You will note that one of the more active deniers on the CNN article decided that I (jgnfld there too) am a John Cook sock puppet.  :-o

    I guess that was a pretty nice compliment!

    Oddly, I have a PhD in cognitive psych with a large stats emphasis. From the late 70's, however.

  49. Conspiracy theories about Skeptical Science

    I donate to SkS. But I did not know I was a billionaire. If I find that money on my accounts, I will donate much more than the 100$ per year, thanks for the hint! These denial people seem not to know charitable engagement in their neighborhood: billions of people worldwide work many billions of unpaid hours, daily. In fact, large parts of global work in families and for the elderly are unpaid. SkS is work for the families and the future elderly alike, simply on a more basic level than direct caring.

    I consider myself a value driven conservative: the difference is: I care about preserving nature/the climate and not about preserving the profits of fossil oil/gas/coal millionaires and billionaires and I like to think about about this (religiously and non religiously grounded) value of solidarity, globally and intergenerationally. Freedom is not the right to destroy the world or harm other people, but to thrive in the boundaries given by our world (and god, if you like) and all other humans and beings.

  50. Adrian Vance at 11:33 AM on 27 July 2015
    Global warming deniers are an endangered species

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.8% of all "global warming." CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?

    There is no "greenhouse effect" in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover that traps heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses. Molecules must be in contact, as in liquids and solids to form surfaces.

    The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his "hockey stick" was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything "global warmers" fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, the longest in history.

    Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Thus temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

    Methane is called "a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2," by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified "transparent" to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. "Green vegans" blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against eating meat.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as "saving the planet."

    Google "Two Minute Conservative" for clarity.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Welcome to Skeptical Science. Thank you for taking the time to share with us.  Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself.  Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.

    Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

    In particular, please note all comments must be on topic andno sloganeering. "Gish Gallops" of talking points will be deleted. Use the search function to find an appropriate topic but read the topic first. All of your points were long debunked myths. If you wish to challenge this, you need to provide data and references to back your viewpoint. I strongly urge you to get your information from informed and reliable sources.

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

The Consensus Project Website



(free to republish)



The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps


© Copyright 2015 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us