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

Twitter Facebook YouTube Mastodon MeWe

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


We have every reason to fear Trump’s pick to head NASA

Posted on 6 November 2017 by dana1981

Unlike past Nasa administrators, Trump nominee Jim Bridenstine doesn’t have a scientific background. He’s a Republican Congressman from Oklahoma and former Navy pilot. He also has a history of denying basic climate science. That’s concerning because Nasa does some of the world’s best climate science research, and Bridenstine previously introduced legislation that would eliminate Earth science from Nasa’s mission statement.

At his Senate hearing last week, Bridenstine tried to remake his image. He said that his previous science-denying, politically polarizing comments came with the job of being a Republican congressman, and that as Nasa administrator he would be apolitical. A kinder, gentler Bridenstine. But while he softened his climate science denial, his proclaimed new views remain in line with the rest of the harshly anti-science Trump administration. That’s very troubling.

A gentler form of climate science denial

The standard Trump administration position on climate change, held by administration officials like EPA Administrator Scott Priutt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, is that humans are contributing to global warming, but we don’t know how much. Bridenstine repeated that position in a tense exchange with Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI).

To be clear, the Trump administration stance is unequivocally wrong. The last IPCC report concluded with 95% confidence that humans are the primary cause of global warming since 1950, and its best estimate was that humans are responsible for all of the global warming during that time. That’s also the conclusion of the just-released US National Climate Assessment Report, which states:

Many lines of evidence demonstrate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence. Solar output changes and internal natural variability can only contribute marginally to the observed changes in climate over the last century, and we find no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate. (Very high confidence)

As many scientists pointed out, this is not new information.


But it nevertheless directly contradicts Bridenstine’s comments. In response to Sen. Schatz’s question about the expert consensus that humans are the primary cause of global warming, Bridenstine said:

It’s going to depend on a lot of factors and we’re still learning more about that every day. In some years you could say absolutely, in other years, during sun cycles and other things, there are other contributing factors that would have maybe more of an impact.

Aside from being wrong about the sun’s influence on recent climate change (which if anything is in the direction of cooling), Bridenstine also displayed a lack of understanding of what climate change is. Climate changes are defined on timescales of several decades, not year-to-year variations.

As Senator Schatz noted, we shouldn’t fault Bridenstine for his lack of understanding of basic climate science. But we should fault him for failing to defer to the expert consensus on a subject about which he lacks basic understanding. Bridenstine claimed to believe that the expert consensus is merely that humans are causing some global warming. That’s incorrect, and in fact Nasa climate scientists published a paper in 2010 entitled Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature. And Nasa itself is quite clear about the expert consensus.

The Trump playbook: why Bridenstine triggers alarm bells

Bridenstine’s testimony was that of a completely different person than Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK). He said that he would be an apolitical administrator; he accepted at least some very basic climate science; said he would support Nasa’s climate science research; would no longer support discrimination of LBGT Americans; etc.

However, in their congressional hearings, Scott Pruitt and Rick Perry also accepted the century-old science telling us that humans contribute to global warming. In the time since the Senate confirmed their appointments, the Trump administration has begun the processes to withdraw the US from the international Paris climate agreement and repeal the Clean Power Plan. Climate change has been deleted from government websites, the EPA is barring many scientists from serving on its science advisory boardsEPA climate scientists have been censored, and the Department of Energy is perversely trying to bail out the failing coal industry with taxpayer subsidies. Oh, and one of Pruitt’s new EPA science advisors thinks America’s air is too clean.

This has been the most anti-science administration in American history, and it began with Trump’s nominees taking the same watered-down climate science denial position that Bridenstine took in his hearing. The Trump administration’s actions, combined with Bridenstine’s own history of climate science denial and opposition to Nasa’s climate science research, should trigger alarm bells for the senators voting on his confirmation.

Climate science denial is the GOP norm

However, the congressional hearing showed why we can expect most Republican senators to vote to confirm Bridenstine. The hearing was held by the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee, whose members one would hope are relatively scientifically literate. Sadly, much like its sister House (Anti-)Science Committee, that’s not the case.

Click here to read the rest

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 4:

  1. Recommended supplemental reading:

    Study Says Public's Politics Are Correlated With Climate Change Opinion. They Shouldn't Be. by Marshall Shepard, Forbes, Nov 1, 2017

    1 0
  2. Does he take up an office in NASA.  Presumably so and he will be in contact with some of the most intelligent, most articulate scientists and engineers of our generation.  Sort of like putting a snow ball in a blast furnace.  Let's see if he can continue to hold his opinions in the face of a constant bombardment of facts.  I bet Trump replaces him when he has his epifany. 

    0 0
  3. Yes Bridinstine may change his mind when he talks to the real experts. We can only hope. Trump might then fire him but may find whomever he appoints ultimately has the same reaction! Think the Russian investigation.

    A lot of climate sceptical  people probably get their information mostly from radio talkback and denialist websites and third hand distorted information from friends and associates etc, or the maintream media (cnn etc) or Al Gores book which was ok, but over simplified a few issues. And some people are so intensely partisan they would dismiss his book on that basis, sadly to say. The end result is they often get very poor quality information.

    What convinced me we were altering the climate was graphs and data on solar trends, cosmic ray trends, etc that sort of thing. Bridinstine will hopefully get exposed to this sort of material and some expert commentary.

    I would love the mainstream media do more to show relationship of temperatures to solar trends etc because the first thing ppeople ask is could it be natural causes? It has to be answered convincingly. The general media are probably are afarid of over complicating things with data and graphs, but over simplification can be a bad idea. 

    0 0
  4. I think you need to look at how some of the other deniers he has placed into office have been behaving.  Scott Pruitt, for example, continues to take actions that seem to contradict any possible claim that the scientists at EPA are informing him.

    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 2023 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us