Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

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

Settings


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...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial

Posted on 5 August 2011 by dana1981, John Cook

Skeptical Science has collaborated with TreeHugger to produce a series of six videos on climate skepticism and denial.  The first of these videos, narrated by our own John Cook with his lovely Australian lilt, discusses the difference between climate skepticism and denial.  Enjoy.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 63 out of 63:

  1. EtR, Thanks. We agree on something at last. But Einstein was referring to experiments: No amount of experimentation can prove him correct, a single experiment can prove him wrong. Deeply philosophical; 'prove correct' is not well-defined in terms of scientific theory. We've all seen examples that a single scientist can be innocently wrong; or worse, can be bought, sold or otherwise persuaded to come up with questionable results. The existence of these 'outliers' proves little; it is their work that must stand scrutiny. Or as I frequently remind my students: If you really believe that your results are correct and everyone else is wrong, double check before you buy a ticket to Stockholm.
    0 0
  2. Pirate@44... I realize that is an EPA chart but it's not a very good one. For one, the CO2 scale is a bit funked out. It suggests CO2 levels have fluctuated between about 130-250ppm and I don't think that's accurate. 190-290 is more likely correct (IIRC). The second thing that is funky with that chart is the relative scales of temp and CO2. My suggestion would be to be more skeptical and see if you can find other sources that either support or disprove the accuracy of the chart. I find it ironical that you're using this chart to try to suggest that climate change is natural and CO2 is not having a strong effect. It's quite literally the relationship between temp and CO2 in the ice core records that help us understand the climate's sensitivity to CO2 forcing. But to understand that you're going to have to dig in and read a few actual research papers. The long and short here is, you're not being skeptical. You're looking for ways to deny what you don't want to believe.
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] Over the past 800,000 years, CO2 concentrations have never been above 298.7 PPM...until now:

    CO2

  3. "If you are really interested in two competing sites, read realclimate and Roger Pielke, they often present opposite sides to the same story" Yes, it's imperative that one support ones denialism by giving equal credibility to a site run by professional climate scientists, and one run by a *political scientist* whose grasp of climate science, to be polite, appears to fall so short of the mark that one might, if one were the suspicious type, suspect that he's not entirely honest.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] He may have meant Pielke snr (who is a professional climate scientist)
  4. Honeycutt and DB @ 52 I never made a comment about the current CO2 levels other than to say that they are historical highs. And, yes there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature, but since CO2 lags the temperature changes it is likely that another factor is influencing both. That is not to say that CO2 does not have an effect on temperature, but the lag must be considered.
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] "it is likely that another factor is influencing both"

    And what, prey tell, is this semi-mythical "another factor"?  Physics, after all, must explain it, just as physics explains the feedback/forcing effects of CO2.

    CO2 lags temps in the historical/paleo record for known, quantifiable reasons.  None of which explain the recent rise in CO2 nor the recent rise in temps in the notable absence of other forcings.

    The only thing you have going for you in your mission is wish-fulfillment.

  5. pirate#55: "the lag must be considered. " It was. Note the key comment: Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? A common misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is both. Note the other key comment: Also, gotta love this quote from Deltoid in answer to the CO2 lag argument: See also my forthcoming paper: "Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them".
    0 0
  6. @54 Moderator (DB) Tamino described the missing factor as the Atlanti Multidecadal Lebrechaun Oscillation (ALMO)
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] Do you mean like this one:

    Leprechauns

    Or this one:

    Leprechauns

  7. DB, I was refeering to the first one, the second is new to me, but it explains all.
    0 0
  8. apiratelooksat50 @54 (haha) Seriously, this is not Rocket Surgery. CO2 levels increase following temperature increases. By your previous comments you accept this as true. Physics tells us that increasing CO2 levels will cause more heat to be trapped creating a feed back loop. Currently CO2 is LEADING temperature which is, according to data presented by you, unprecedented in the records. Put these facts together and you have temperature increasing due to CO2 levels which will cause CO2 levels to rise even more as it is released from whatever sinks it was trapped in in the previous cycles. Not too complicated even for a simpleton like myself.
    0 0
  9. Pirate @ 54... I'm very curious, what makes you think that climate scientists have not considered the CO2 lag? Again, you have to understand that one of the best understood aspects of global warming is the radiative effects of CO2. It seems to me that you are not clear on why CO2 acts as a feedback relative to natural releases of CO2, but also acts as a forcing when we add CO2 to the atmosphere.
    0 0
  10. For old farts like me who have diminished hearing, the background music is way too loud. Also. if Hugh Laurie can master an American accent in oder to play the title role in the TV series House, why can't John Cook do the same?
    0 0
  11. @pirate #54: You simply cannot assume that the relationship between global temperature and CO2 concentrations that are observed over geologoical time (millions of years) must hold true in the extremely brief time-scale of hundreds of years. The time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is a mere blink of the eye with respect to geological time.
    0 0
  12. Badgersouth @ 60: perhaps John deliberately chose to not fake an American accent, in order to remind Americans that there's an entire world outside the borders of the US of A? ;-) (although I have to admit to great amusement when asked, in Ohio, whether I was Canadian... I may not have the broadest Aussie accent, but it's definitely *not* Canadian!) Actually, I think it's more likely he just didn't even think of it. Some of us are so used to hearing such a wide variety of accents (e.g. I work with people from Scotland, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Germany, Serbia, the US, and the UK, and I live in a suburb with a high Chinese population), that it doesn't occur to us to change our accent for different audiences. That kind of message-tailoring is more the realm of marketing folks...
    0 0
  13. Bern @62: I actually like hearing Aussies speak in their native tongue. The background music on all of the TH videos was way too loud though.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

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

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us