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


A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths

Posted on 18 August 2011 by John Cook

Lately, I've been receiving more emails than usual asking about recent climate myths (or depressingly, confusion about very old climate myths). Often the responses to these myths are already available at Skeptical Science but it seems people are having trouble finding it. So I'm planning to add a number of features making our information more accessible. The first step is a resource of Climate Skeptics. It features a number of prominent climate skeptics - click on any photo and it will show 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.

The short URL is

Over time, we'll be adding more skeptics. If you'd like to help us build the resource, please contact me.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Prev  1  2  3  

Comments 101 to 106 out of 106:

  1. 100, les, Wow. I knew Motl was wrong on the science, but I didn't know he lived in such an angry bizarro opposite-world. He says (I still can't believe it... my fingers feel dirty just having done the copy/paste):
    So I started to maintain a list with names of the most notorious alarmists and the number of years they should spend in prison (not to speak about the separate "electric chair" list). You're encouraged to do the same thing.
    Anyone who can't see the difference between the post here at SkS and that sort of behavior needs a major perspective adjustment.
    0 0
  2. Wow indeed. John Cook runs this site from his own pocket + donations + volunteer support. Then announces publicly he's been give a [well deserved IMHO] fellowship... and the bizarrosphere goes "Busted! SkS is a funded propaganda machine". The reality distorting force is strong a bit wishy-washy with these ones...
    0 0
  3. I do not think it as at all inappropriate to refer to those who oppose mainstream climatology on AGW as 'deniers' or even 'denialists' as long as it can be shown that they are: - in the first case, engaged in denying a phenomenon which has ample evidentiary support without bringing sufficient evidentiary support to their positions. - in the second case, extending this denial into a systematic misrepresentation of the evidence. The attempt to take offence at this terminology by drawing attention to Holocaust denial is a red herring.
    0 0
  4. Yet another reason why Patrick Michaels has to be included in the top tier of climate deniers… "Get Real: Hurricane Irene Should Be Renamed "Hurricane Hype'” by Patrick Michaels, Forbes, Climate of Fear Blog, Forbes, Aug 26, 2011 To access this inane article, click here. How many pounds of crow does Michaels eat during the course of a year?
    0 0
  5. I think this is an unfortunate addition to the cool science for which skepticalscience has become known. Preaching to the converted is easy enough. But when one manages to get the dubious to consider these pages for their science, it is disheartening to see that they are immediately turned off by what they see, and interpret, as a politican-partisan stance. Let the science speak, please, and think about how this page must seem to those who are personally loyal to the individuals shown here.
    0 0
  6. Diane, I think the database is important if people want to trace statements made by specific people to posts on SkS. But it is also important to avoid alienating anyone who is honestly skeptical. How would you avoid the appearance "political-partisan stance." What is the trigger for your impression.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  3  

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