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


SkS Weekly Digest #12

Posted on 22 August 2011 by John Hartz

SkS Highlights

John Cook created and unveiled a new resource for SkS users -- an easy way to identify and access the claims of the world's most prominent climate skeptics, and compare those claims to what the scientific literature says.  The resource of Climate Skeptics shows quotes and articles from the skeptic, a list of their climate myths (along with the SkS rebuttals, of course) and all relevant SkS blog posts.

 Toon of the Week

The Week in Review

  • GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right? (scaddenp)
  • Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss (Grypo)
  • OA not OK part 18: Been this way before (Doug Mackie)
  • Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels (Dana & Mark R)
  • OA not OK part 17: Pumping currents (Doug Mackie)
  • Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold (Dana)
  • A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths (John Cook)
  • Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 2 of 2) (Alan Marshall)
  • Another two reviews of Climate Change Denial (John Cook)
  • Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2 (Chris Colose)
  • Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect (Chris Colese)
  • One Confusedi Bastardi (Dana)
  • Coming Soon...

    • Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change (Dana)
    • OA not OK part 19: SUMMARY 1/2 (Doug Mackie)
    • OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2 (Doug Mackie)
    • Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us? (grypo)
    • Treehugger video (John Cook)
    • Lessons from Past Predictions: IPCC FAR (Dana)
    • Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty (muoncounter)
    • A climate sensitivity primer (James)
    • Slovenian translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism (John Cook)
    • Greenhouse Gas: It's not just about CO2 (Mythago)

    0 0

    Printable Version  |  Link to this page


    Comments 1 to 5:

    1. Great cartoon.
      0 0
    2. I find the cartoon highly inaccurate. I am a skeptic and politically conservative (though I don't vote the party line). It is the old standby ploy of implying that because a skeptic and/or conservative does not believe in taking drastic actions to combat AGW, then they don't care about these other bullet points. I care about all of them. However, it is not that simple. Maybe creating green jobs will balance out the jobs lost in current energy sectors. Hopefully, we can continue improving our air and water quality (I do a lot of work in those areas.) Of course I care about my children and the children of others. And, it would be an unimaginable tragedy should we lose any of Earth's precious ecosystems. The term energy independence is misused. If you are posting to this site, or just reading it, chances are you are dependent on energy. And, you expect that energy to be reliable. Every form of energy known to man has environmental impacts whether direct or indirect.
      0 0

      [DB] Actually, I am scientifically skeptical and politically conservative (though I don't vote the party line), too.  And I find the cartoon hilarious.

      Don't read so much into it; it's a cartoon.

    3. pirate#2 "the cartoon highly inaccurate." You should look at the Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute and American Enterprise Inst websites; they are against quite a few of the things in the cartoon. Hence it is accurate. Example -- Heartland: Probably two-thirds of the warming in the 1990s was due to natural causes; the warming trend already has stopped and forecasts of future warming are unreliable; and the benefits of a moderate warming are likely to outweigh the costs. Global warming, in other words, is not a crisis. These are inaccurate. And what kind of 'science' makes an assessment that starts with 'probably'?
      0 0
    4. pirate - so are you going to take the challenge here?
      0 0
    5. DB - good point!
      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