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


Climate Hustle

Debunking climate myths with Leonardo DiCaprio's Before The Flood

Posted on 29 October 2016 by John Cook

On Sunday October 30, 9 PM EST, Leonardo DiCaprio's film Before The Flood will screen free online as well as on National Geographic. The film explores the causes and impacts of climate change, arguing for urgent action and a rapid transition off fossil fuels.

It will be streamed all week on Facebook, Youtube, Hulu, Playstation, and can be viewed on demand on Apple iTunes, Amazon, and GooglePlay. Here's more details on how to see the film and here's the trailer:

I was invited to contribute to, debunking some of the most common myths about climate change. Here are my pages on Leonardo DiCaprio's site:

We also embedded some key Denial101x videos in the debunkings, such as Consensus of Scientists and Daily & Yearly Cycle. is a rich website definitely worth exploring, with great info such as Brendan DeMelle's The Climate Denial Industry. I'm looking forward to watching the film on Monday...

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 10:

  1. Hi John, your contributions are appreciated. Could you possibly attribute the concluding figure of your last "We have all the technology..." bullet? It appears to be  Figure 2 from The Solutions Project's: 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) AllSector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World Jacobsen, Deluchi, et al. 24 October 2016.


    0 0
  2. There is no global warming phenomenon caused by humans.

    Proof? Not one environmental impact study can predict the weather. Not one person studying weather patterns can get it right at all.

    If you show me someone, anyone that can get the weather prediction right, 100% of the time, all the time, then they are credible. Otherwise its a crap shoot. The differences between today and a thousand years ago is 1 degree fluctuation. Plus or minus 5 degrees. Global warming is a myth. This site is oil sponsored propaganda. How much did they pay you to publish this site? DiCaprio is a spokesman for US oil special interest. Canada's oil is dirty? All oil is dirty! Lol! It doesn't matter though. The truth will be revealed one day.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Blatant sloganeering. 

    [PS] This is a site to discuss the science of climate change. Demonstrating that you have very little knowledge of the science and only strawman arguments are not of any interest. Should you wish to change this, then the "arguments" and search box on top left is a great way find out about myths that you obviously believe. Try "Scientists cant predict the weather" and "Climates changed before". If you are only interested in bandying unsubstantiated conspiracy theories around then WUWT is the site for you not here.

    Final Warning

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

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    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, as no further warnings shall be given.

  3. Saw the movie. Unfortunately they got a lot of the science wrong. I am fearful the backlash will cause more harm than good.

    1 0
  4. RedBaron... Would you care to expand on what science you think the movie got wrong?

    0 0
  5. Starting at 51:00 all that is misleading regarding agriculture. I did find some other flaws, but I'll let others discuss the parts that were misleading in their fields of expertise. My field of expertise is agriculture. Yes agriculture is a big problem, but it certainly isn't the cow to blame, it's the feedlots and the vast acreage of corn and soy grown to supply feedlots and biofuel industries.  Feedlots and all factory farming is a emissions source for both CO2 and CH4, properly managed grasslands are a net sink for both. So why would they blame the cows unless rather than actually stick to the science, it was rather spun to fit a certain dogma?

    Some people might be swayed by spin, but when science is spun, it generally has a backlash later when people realise they were played for the fool. I would be much happier if they actually addressed the root of the problem than give ridiculous advise like just eat more chicken. LOLZ like a silly Chick-fil-A advertisement. :D

    1 0
  6. I was actually concerned they were going to overplay the beef thing much more. At least they didn't make the bogus claim that 51% of greenhouse emissions come from meat, like some do. They made the more rational and supportable claim that agriculture accounts for 18% of man-made CO2e (if I remember correctly).

    Overall, yeah, you can help reduce your carbon footprint by limiting how much beef you consume. 

    (I was thinking the same thing about the Chik-fil-A connection when watching. :-)

    I get my hackles up a bit when lifestyle changes get overplayed when the big nuts to crack are primarily systemic issues related to the sources of energy. It's terrible framing to say, essentially, "If you were to just behave as I'm saying you should behave then all will be well." It's a perfect way to get people to reject everything flat out.

    In all that could have gone wrong, I think they did a really good job of sticking close to the science and projecting the incredible sense of urgency we face.

    1 0
  7. Rob,

    Yes overall you can help by reducing the beef you eat, but you can help even more by simply chosing grass finished rather than corn finished. And we can help even more by not subsidizing the over production of commodity grains and converting that acreage back to grassland/savanna/forest depending on what the top successional biome is local to that region. And that strategy is the very best because grassland/savanna/forest all can support food and fiber production at the same time as supporting wildlife biodiversity. In most cases even more food and fiber per acre than commodity grains. Grasslands still support grazers and grain. Savannas still support both grazers and nuts, fruit, timber and omnivore species too. And forests can be managed as both timber and food forests. All it takes is good careful management and all 3 can become carbon sinks without disrupting the food supply or economies, actually improving both.

    1 0
  8. I think the difference is related to producer vs consumer, though.

    Few consumers are going to make the effort to specifically demand sustainable foods in the volumes that would make a difference. People have to eat and they essentially eat what is available to purchase.

    Careful and creative regulation could do a lot to shift the practices of producers in a manner that could have a significant effect much more quickly.

    0 0
  9. As it is system that corrupts man of course regulated markets are responsible: what is representative democracy if not just another system waiting to game those who participate in it?

    0 0
  10. says the film will be available for free on Natl Geog channels until 7 Nov.

    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 2019 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us