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

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube 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


What climate denial has learnt from tobacco denial

Posted on 30 November 2013 by Anne-Marie Blackburn

In a recent Skeptical Science post, John Cook responded to an article by Anthony Cox published in the Newcastle Herald. In his article, Cox attempts to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on man-made climate change by focusing on Cook et al.'s 2013 peer-reviewed paper. Cox effectively rejects the paper's findings by using a well-known technique developed in the 1970s by the tobacco industry: “unrealistic expectations”. More precisely, according to Cox a paper no longer supports the consensus if it does not explicitly specify the percentage of global warming caused by humans. As Cook points out, this allows Cox to ignore many papers that clearly state that human activities are behind ongoing climate change. For instance, a paper which includes

"Accumulating evidence points to an anthropogenic 'fingerprint' on the global climate change that has occurred in the last century"

does not endorse the scientific consensus when rated according to Cox's selective criterion. It is clear that Cox is demanding an unreasonable level of scientific proof which simply cannot be met. No matter how much evidence supports anthropogenic climate change, it will be conveniently ignored since the bar has been set arbitrarily high without justification.

That those who reject the science of climate change use the same tactics as the tobacco industry is well documented. Yet some, including Cox, argue that the situations cannot be compared since the science supporting the link between tobacco and cancer/addiction is settled, unlike the science of man-made climate change. This ignores two things. First, the consensus on tobacco and its adverse effects on health was already strong when the tobacco lobby was trying to spread doubt about the science. There simply came a point when the evidence could no longer be ignored by the majority of people. We are currently seeing the same process at play in relation to climate change: there is a deliberate effort to spread doubt in order to maintain the status quo. Secondly, the consensus on man-made climate change emerged as a result of decades of research that have produced a large body of converging evidence. In other words, there is virtually no doubt that our climate is changing and that human activities are responsible for this change. In this respect, the science is also settled.

The tactics used by the tobacco industry were successful in delaying government regulation for years. Therefore it is not surprising to see these same techniques used by those who oppose action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Peter Sinclair has produced an excellent video that leaves no doubt about the similarities between what happened then and what is happening now. Some of the main parts are even being played by the same people.

NOTE: this report by the Union of Concerned Scientists or Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. Haydn Washington and John Cook have also written Climate Change Denial in which they cover the five techniques, including unrealistic expectations, in more depth.  

1 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 8:

  1. I had trouble with the video at the above-mentioned Merchants of Doubt website.  An alternative is Oreskes' talk at the U of Kansas, which is a 6-part video that is one of the most informative hours you'll ever spend:

    0 0
  2. Does anyone out there have the energy and sheer bottom to compile a list of climate deniers and their previous denier history such as where they stood on the tobacco question.  An added bit of information would be who funds them including who funds the funders.  This would include MP's and where their campaign funding came from.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [TD] Starting points are the graphic buttons at the left of this page: Climate Myths From Politicians and Climate Misinformers.

  3. william #3 - Yes they do. Try  sourcewatch

    0 0
  4. william # 3 - There's also the invaluable DeSmogBlog database with a veritable Who-is-Who of climate-misinformers.

    0 0
  5. Discussion of the latest methane revelations Shakhova et al (2013) on realclimate by the relevant expert: David Archer.

    Interesting read including comments.

    In a nutshell:

    1. uncertainties too large to have an opinion if CH4 degassing increrased signifficantly in last decade

    2. current best state of knowledge indicates any release of large (measured in Gt) amount will be over 1000s y

    3. no evidence of 50Gt+ "bomb" ready to release within decades has been found, so the "methane scare" is unfounded

    0 0
  6. Ooops, my  post @5 was intended for Weekly Digest #48 thread. I appologise for misplacing it.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Could you please repost it on the appropriate thread?  Thanks!

  7. You've got to love it when Mr. Boehner goes after the wrong strawman about co2 being a carcinogen. Clearly he forgot for a moment that it was doubt about co2 and climate change, not tobacco and lung cancer, that he was supposed to be spreading.

    0 0
  8. ALL: Vincentrj found it impossible to comply with many provisions of the SkS Comments Policy. Therefore all of his comments, and responses to them, are being deleted.

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