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


2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10

Posted on 10 March 2024 by BaerbelW, Doug Bostrom

A listing of 35 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, March 3, 2024 thru Sat, March 9, 2024.

Story(s) of the week

Two stories on one topic inexorably lead to a third story.

Fury after Exxon chief says public to blame for climate failures in The Guardian provides straight journalistic coverage of Exxon CEO Darren Woods' remarkable implication that consumers are too stupid to understand or want sustainable energy supplies, and that anyway permanent, modernized energy is not profitable enough for Exxon or its shareholders. Backlash ensued. Bill McKibben's The most epic (and literal) gaslighting of all time is exemplary of critical analysis catalyzed by the Exxon top dog's clumsy speecha surgical dissection of Woods' anachronistic and strikingly antisocial thinking and expression. 

Where's this fracas going to end? Ultimately the whole travesty of industry procrastination, deceit and naked unheeding self-interest is headed to courts of law, of course— as always happens in cases of reckless endangerment. A tidal wave of accountability for fossil fuel industry intransigence is beginning to pile up in the shoaling waters of our and the fossil fuel industry's immediate future, as described in Grist and Big Oil faces a flood of climate lawsuits - and they`re moving closer to trial. Meanwhile, Darren Woods seems to be helping set the mood in the room when it comes to judgment of a track record of industry alienation from broader human society and its interests. It's a puzzling posture. 

Stories we promoted this week, by publication date:

Before March 3

March 3

March 4

March 5

March 6

March 7

March 8

March 9

If you happen upon high quality climate-science and/or climate-myth busting articles from reliable sources while surfing the web, please feel free to submit them via this Google form so that we may share them widely. Thanks!

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 2:

  1. Sorry, but actually Exxon CEO Darren Woods may be right that consumers are too stupid to understand or want sustainable energy supplies, or at least too uninterested or too unself-aware.

    If you want evidence you just need to get out more.

    I wish I had a dollar for every small p**** in a big black tricked-out pickup truck that I've seen floor it to get around my hybrid EV just to beat me to the red light, and then floor it again when the light turns green, or push that 3 1/2 ton behemoth along at 80 on the highway.

    You want consumers to understand or want sustainable energy supplies?

    Double or even triple gasoline prices and maybe, just maybe it will get their attention.

    Not that this absolves Exxon's Woods and his ilk one iota, mind you.

    0 0
  2. Jim Eager.

    I agree, with a slightly different perspective.

    A better question is: How much of the harmful public misunderstanding and lack of care about the future is due to the deliberate development and dissemination of disinformation by the likes of Exxon anti-leadership and the political misleaders who chose to join the anti-leadership team effort?

    I use the term anti-leadership because, from an ethical perspective, leadership obviously needs to responsibly pursue and promote improved awareness and understanding of what is harmful and unsustainable, learning and teaching how to be less harmful and more helpful. As justification for that perspective I would suggest that any organization that does not have that type of leadership may temporarily appear to be successful. But it will ultimately be unsustainable.

    I learned that understanding in the marketing course of my MBA education in the 1980s. That course began with the professor stating we would learn about the science of marketing . We would learn about the powerful ability to fool many people some of the time by being misleading. But we would also learn that abusing that 'marketing science knowledge' should not be done because it would ultimately be unsustainable. (Also, the Ethics course started with the professor stating that there would be a lack of case study examples of 'ethical business behaviours'. Admittedly some case study examples of ethical leadership have developed since the 1980s).

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Slight edit to fix an unfortunate typo.

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