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 Pinterest 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


3 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 13:

  1. That is a deeply disturbing video!

    3 0
  2. One recoils in horror at the monstrous evil of these powerful deniers speaking calumnies in soft emotionless tones.

    1 0
  3. The 7:23 mark in the video is just amazing; a congressman telling the NOAA Administrator that he doesn't need their weather satellites, he has the Weather Channel.

    1 0
  4. Deniers! you've got to love them!..but then I deny gods exist..their problem is that they don't and follow that line of thinking against scientists..I know Global warming is here and I'm just an old retired college Fine Arts teacher..,thing is I used to think you needed at least a 100point IQ to be a Senator..guess I was about 20 years more or less Texas will be a smaller state,wonder what they'll say caused that?!..the saying"you just can't fix stupid' applies here very much....btw PS;I have chronic asthma,take all kinds of meds even was on oxy.for awhile there..It's getting worse!,,and what's even worse..there are more people mostly adults becomming asthmatic..due to what?oh hell I don't know!...The Weather channel..hahahaha!,he doesn't need NOAA...

    0 0
  5. Recommended supplemental raeading:

    Interview: UN members fear U.S. 'sabotage' of Obama's climate commitments by Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, Apr 20, 2016

    0 0
  6. RickG @3, I think the whole section from 7:10 onwards, where Ted Cruz argues NASA shouldn't fund weather satellites because the core function of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration is to study space (and apparently space only).  Had NASA been only the NSA, perhaps he would have a point.  But as it happens, the NASA act states:

    "(c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall
    be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the
    following objectives:
    (1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the
    atmosphere and space"

    (My emphasis).

    As it happens, climate is a "phenomena in the atmosphere".

    Cruz's argument, therefore, depends on a fundamental misrepresentation of the purpose of NASA, based on an abysmal ignorance of (or pretended ignorance of) NASA's enabling legislation.  That Cruz's ignorance of legislation is as abyssmal as his ignorance of science should be no surprise.  It raises the question as to whether he has basic knowledge in any field relevant to his role as a legislator.

    2 0
  7. Tom Curtis @ 6,

    I do not extend the likes of Ted Cruz or George W. Bush any courtesy of doubt about their intelligence, awareness or understanding.

    They are highly educated individuals with full access to substantial amounts of information. I am almost certain that they deliberately do what they do with full awareness and understanding of the unacceptability of what they hope to get away with.

    The fact that they can rally popular support for understandably unacceptable attitudes and actions (like already fortunate people continuing to benefit from the burning of fossil fuels), is a serious problem, that creates serious problems that can be made bigger for as long as the likes of them can get away with.

    1 0

  8. One Planet@7,

    Tom's take on Ted Cruz is more damaging to Cruz' reputation than yours is. It is just beyond believe that a guy who so utterly ashamed himself can still be a presidential hopeful. Advertise this nonsense he's just said far and wide to the american public and his chances in this election  should drop to zero.

    Sadly, voters rarely consider candidate's intelligence and integrity as main criteria. Popularity, fuelled by lobbying and advertising by a party, is the main criterion. Less intelligent guy is even better, because he would more likely be a puppet president, complacent to the party caucus. That's why we have candidates such as Cruz & Trump on top of Rep endorsement.

    0 0
  9. chriskoz@8,

    I agree that exposing the absurdity of Cruz presented by Tom would be damaging in the mind of a person who values integrity and honesty and the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all. However, the portion of the population that the likes of Cruz succeed in appealing to clearly value impressions. And they are likely to like impressions that they think legitimately support the views they prefer to believe. That would lead them to accept anything that discredits or dismisses information that contradicts what they prefer to believe (probably claiming it is a deliberate deception created by someone trying to take wealth and opportunity away from them).

    I consider it very dangerous to presume that the likes of Cruz , Trump or G.W. Bush are unintelligent or gullible. In fact thta type of claim would be able to be used to justify dismissing a criticism of Cruz of Trump because there would be plenty of evidence that they are not unintelligent or uninformed. It is almost beyond a doubt that they are highly intelligent and well informed and fully understand the ability to drum up undeserved popular support for attitudes and actions that are impediments to the advancement of global humanity to a lasting better future for all by creating and disseminating deliberate misrepresentations of things what they are aware of.

    The potential popularity of the desire to personally benefit in ways that can clearly be understood to only temporarily boost the perceptions of prosperity of a portion of humanity (to the detriment of others, particularly to the detriment of future generations), leads many intelligent people to misuse their talents for personal gain (like trying to present an economic financial case justifying the imposition of costs on future generations by declaring that it is OK to create problems for others if you think you would lose opportunity for personal benefit if you did not continue to get away with creating problems others would have to deal with).

    1 0
  10. I seem to remember reading somewhere that a lot of Texas is pretty close to sea level.  What beautiful just irony.  Should be fun to watch them continue in this vein as the water lapps around their ankles.

    0 0
  11. @ william,

     Not fun at all. Not only will it cost astonomical amounts of damages, untold human suffering, massive ecosystem destruction, etc...; it fundamentally highlights the failure of scientists to form an effective coalition with conservatives to propose mitigation strategies acceptable to them.

    Too often I hear heavy criticism and disdane for the denialists. I do it myself, but I also offer alternatives acceptable to conservative thinking.

    But ultimately until you come up with an acceptable mitigation strategy that isn't anathema to everything conservatives hold dear, AND communicate that, then denialism will continue. It has to, because in conservatives eyes the only alternatives offered are suffer, or suffer. If that's all the choices they see, then many will prefer the only way out which is deny this unwritten future will happen. It's your failure to communicate. Always remember that.

    Comments like how "beautiful the irony" would be to watch the suffering just so you could gleefully proclaim "I told you so" while you waggle your tongue is not helping.

    0 0
  12. #11  RedBaron

    I was under the impression that people have been doing their damndest to communicate "acceptable mitigation strategies" to conservatives, but the conservatives are simply having none of it.  In the face of such intransigence it's natural to become cynical.  When the climate chickens come home to roost, one could derive satisfaction from watching the conservatives burn in the hell of their own devising.  The only problem is that the rest of us will burn too.  Damn!  I knew there was a catch somewhere!

    0 0
  13. @ Red Baron,

    It's not up to scientists to form a coalition! Where is the method in that? 

    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 2021 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us