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

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...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Posted on 1 December 2024 by BaerbelW, Doug Bostrom, John Hartz

A listing of 26 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, November 24, 2024 thru Sat, November 30, 2024.

Story of the week

Before Skeptical Science and an entire fleet of other websites devoted to combating and correcting climate misinformation and disinformation, there was Real Climate ("RC" for short and familiar). For our part we've been slinging climate facts for 17 years, but Real Climate team members Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Rasmus Benestad, Stefan Rahmstorf and Eric Steig are still plugging away after a full 20 years on this often (chronically!) frustrating but entirely necessary beat.

Real Climate's archive begins in November of 2004 with a glossary entry covering Antarctic Oscillation. Within a month, RC's articles evolved to include critiques of inadequate terminology for communication of science to the public, detailed corrections of climate bunk promoted by high-profile journalists, and corrective guidance on common (and carefully fostered) misunderstandings about our role in warming Earth's climate. In the intervening period between way-back-then and now the RC team have devoted extraordinary energy, persistence and— above all— patience to helping us all better understand our climate predicament, and how to escape it. Today the archives span hundreds of entries, each an informative nugget.

Reader comments captured at Real Climate over the course of decades are a sort of zoological garden of climate-denying critters; every species of "I don't want to know" is represented. RC comments are a longitudinal record of chumpish parroting of denier talking points, exciting contrarian fads that have come and gone, a whole bag of bent "final nails in the coffin" of climate science avidly sought by the deluded, like phlogiston by alchemists. We read this record and are prompted to both cry and laugh— progress is impaled on and arrested by the ridiculous, after all. 

Many of us found our entry into the world of climate science and fake climate skepticism via Real Climate, including your author writing this article today. RC was in 2004 and remains now an excellent onramp to this fraught subject, managed by experts in the field.

Two decades is likely longer than anybody imagined would be necessary to agree on reversing our climate mess. But as Real Climate's commemorative post points out, the Keeling Curve is still droopy when by now it ought to be arched— and that droop means continued acceleration of CO2 being added to Earth's atmosphere by our culture. Clearly the struggle to create sensible and crisply effective public policy to abate our emissions is not over. Successful public policy is an outcome of political processes guided by evidence and not wishful thinking or narrow self-interest; so long as the machinery of politics is operating in a hallucinatory fog of climate fiction serving various needs we won't get this situation under control. 

Are we truly still stuck in climate murk? Here at Skeptical Science we maintain access statistics for our collection of climate myth debunkings. Overwhelimingly search-driven, use of our resources serves as a rough proxy of what sort of claptrap on climate is circulating in the public mind. Today's stats show the top five confusions to be Models are Unreliable (they're very reliable), CO2 Effect Is Saturated (it's not), It's the Sun (it isn't), 2nd law of thermodynamics Contradicts Greenhouse Theory (it doesn't), and There Is No Consensus (there most certainly is). These are all ancient myths predating the inception of Real Climate— 20 years ago. We are indeed still mired in climate garbage, and really no suprise as this rubbish is promoted at industrial scale

It's unfortunately the case that Real Climate needs to continue. We'd all like to hang up our hats but we're not there yet. We salute Real Climate and also hope for their and our end to come sooner than later. Perhaps never before has redundancy been such a fond wish for the potentially disemployed— especially when most of us (including the RC crew) are volunteers!

That's our sad Story of the Week

Stories we promoted this week, by publication date:

Before November 24

November 24

November 25

November 26

November 27

November 28

November 29

November 30

If you happen upon high quality climate-science and/or climate-myth busting articles from reliable sources while surfing the web, please feel free to submit them via this Google form so that we may share them widely. Thanks!

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 2:

  1. As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!

    Funny as the ''Climate Craze'' back in the 1970's was the New Ice Age..... Yes ''they'' said that Pollution (partials) were being thrown up into the upper atmosphere and causing the suns light to be reflected back into space., This was causing a New Ice Age to destroy the earth.
    Today those same people (Rainmakers) are selling yet another climate ''Crises''.

    Note; To STOP this New Ice Age, the USA went 'seriously' into protecting the 'Environment' way back in the 1970's with President Nixon signing the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) into law.
    Today the USA only produces as much steel as it did in 1950, this is as an example of those EPA efforts.
    High Gas Prices?.. EPA will Not allow a New Oil refinery to be built in America.
    And this is also a major reason for the loss of Millions of very good paying jobs, I might add. 'clean', comes with a very steep 'price'.
    Even IF the ‘Clean’ is ONLY here and all that pollution was just Moved to China, along with all the Jobs.
    Good thing we don’t use the same Air as the Chinese. Otherwise it would ALL have been a waste of time and Money.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] This is nothing more than a political rant, explicitly against the sites Comments Policy. Please review the policy before commenting again.

    • No politics. Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. Occasional blogposts on Skeptical Science touch on issues intimately related to politics.  For those posts this rule may be relaxed, but only if explicitly stated at the end of the blogpost.

     

  2. [Snip]You can NOT ‘Trust’ Government Controlled ‘Science’!
    The destruction of Science in America in the Name of Government Ordered, ‘Equality’!..Here is an Example.
    In 2007, Nobel Winning Scientist, Dr. James Watson, told the Times newspaper that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".
    “Equal?”.."people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".
    The remarks prompted the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, where Watson was a director from 1968 to 1994, to sever its ties with the Nobel Prize winner. The private lab removed Watson’s honorary titles, saying his views are “reprehensible, unsupported by science,”
    In 2014, Watson became the first Nobel winner to sell his prize because, he said, the race remarks made him an “unperson,” and he lost all but his academic income after being fired from the boards of companies he sat on.
    But he wasn’t forgiven.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] This is nothing more than a political rant, explicitly against the sites Comments Policy. Please review the policy before commenting again.

    • No politics. Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. Occasional blogposts on Skeptical Science touch on issues intimately related to politics.  For those posts this rule may be relaxed, but only if explicitly stated at the end of the blogpost.

     

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