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 Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube 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...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Posted on 26 November 2016 by John Hartz

A chronological listing of the news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook page during the past week.

Sun Nov 20, 2016

Mon Nov 21, 2016

Tue Nov 22, 2016

Wed Nov 23, 2016

Thu Nov 24, 2016

Fri Nov 25, 2016

Sat Nov 26, 2016

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 3:

  1. Worth reading the latest series about the deswtruction of GBR:


    Especially the pro-Adani arguments by QLD govs that have fast-tracked this project:

    - Emissions are measured in the country where they are released so those from the Carmichael mine belong to India, not Australia.
    - About 300 million Indians don’t have access to electricity. India will build new coal power stations, and it will get the coal from somewhere. Why shouldn’t the Australian economy and Queensland communities benefit?

    (my emphasis)

    My response: it's like giving your younger brother matches to start afire and then saying "my brother burnt my house not me. And BTW, if I did not give him matches someone else would". How could anyone listen to and agree with such logic? Unless they deny AGW & what's happening with GBR of course.

    0 0
  2. chriskoz@1, I agree that already more fortunate humans should not benefit from any steps toward sustained improvement of life for less fortunate humans that may be achieved from a known to be damaging activity that needs to be rapidly curtailed.

    If Australian coal was to be properly employed it would be used in a way that only benefited the least fortunate and sped up their transition to a lasting better way of living (which means rapid advancement to ways of living that do not need coal burning).

    However, India has plenty of its own coal. So a better way to help would be for Austarlian mining expertise to be donated to help the Indian nation most safely and effectively extract their resource for the benefit of their least fortunate (no wealthy or already more fortunate citizens of India getting any benefit from the activity).

    The same goes for the extraction of Tar Sands in Alberta and its export for burning. It should only be done in a awy that only benefits the sustainable improvement of ways of living of the least fortunate.

    That would be what should happen if advancing humanity to a constantly improved future as part of a robust diverstity of all life on this amazing planet was the objective of "Winners and Leaders".

    Clearly, the problem is that unjustifiable understandably damaging pursuits of profit and Trumping-up support for them can succeed 'Famously Tragically' contrary to that objective.

    The threat of unLeaders and unWinners who try to excuse 'unacceptable exploitation of their potential freedom to get away with things' or 'dismiss or discredit better understanding of what is required to advance humanity' needs to become the common sense understanding globally if humanity is to have a future on this or any other amazing planet.

    The following recent Opinion article on the CBC News website highlights how the twisted attacks of groups like "Unite the Right" have pushed reasoned 'common sense' (consensus of understanding by people who think about things from a collective perspective) to become senseless passion (individual's encouraged to base their 'understanding' on their gut emotion about an issue).

    "How 'common sense' came to mean its opposite under Donald Trump"

    0 0
  3. This New York Times article describes loss of value in beach front property from sea level rise.  If more articles like this one are published, it will start to draw attention from developers and their potential buyers.  Perhaps if scientists emphasize damage to beach front properties it will become an important point faster.

    Hit them in the wallet to get the most attention.  Trump and his ilk do not care about poor people starving due to climate change.  He will care a lot when the insurance on his Mar A Largo property goes up 200%.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us