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


Cartoon about global warming alarmism

Posted on 13 April 2008 by John Cook

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 7:

  1. Ha! Spot on!
    0 0
  2. LOL: It now has a place on my office door right beside Freedom from Reality. In fact it complements it rather well. Thanks, John
    0 0
  3. While I seen the writing in blogs of such people as despicted in the cartoon, what makes it funny is that it is the exact opposite of what I see most often, and because of the post times I can even tell what part of the world these things come from. From a psychological and cultural viewpoint such humor and attitude are very interesting.
    0 0
  4. Hah. I just wrote a blog post about how the Adam Smith Institute's `argument' against green jobs. Summary: creating jobs is bad. No, I didn't make that up.
    0 0
  5. frankbi You are right on, that "economist" is definately looney. We could use a few of those jobs here in PA.
    0 0
  6. frankbi/Quietman I'd suggest reading Walter Williams, Henry Hazlitt or others on this idea before you write it off as completely "looney." I find it hard to disagree with anything "green" these days, but his logic is sound. Trashing a conservationist idea because it violates sound economic principle might well be missing the bigger issue, but attacking the logical economic theory doesn't make sense either. We need to find the common ground that everyone can buy into. Good article by Williams here: and for Hazlitt I'd point you to this book:
    0 0
  7. LAI: My dear Sir, Worstall's logic and Hazlitt's logic certainly can't both be "sound" at the same time, because they happen to contradict each other. Worstall thinks more jobs is bad, Hazlitt thinks more jobs is good. I think you may need to revise your idea of what constitutes "sound" "logic".
    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