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

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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

	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...

Latest Posts

Two-part webinar about the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming

Posted on 2 April 2025 by BaerbelW, John Cook

In February 2025, John Cook gave two webinars for republicEN explaining the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.

20 February 2025: republicEN webinar part 1 - BUST or TRUST? The scientific consensus on climate change

In the first webinar, Cook explained the history of the 20-year scientific consensus on climate change. How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? How did we get there, and what exactly does it all mean?

The webinar "Bust or Trust? The scientific consensus on climate change," focused on establishing that there is a scientific consensus on climate change and how to communicate that effectively.

The existence of a scientific consensus is supported by multiple studies conducted over the past 15 years. These studies consistently show that over 90% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming, with many studies finding agreement around 97-98%. This consensus has been demonstrated through various research methods, including surveys of scientists and analyses of published climate papers.

Despite this overwhelming scientific agreement, public perception of the consensus remains low. Only 30-50% of people believe that scientists agree on global warming. This gap between scientific consensus and public perception is due to several factors, including cultural and political biases, misinformation, and a lack of awareness. The webinar emphasized the importance of effectively communicating the scientific consensus to bridge this gap and promote informed action on climate change.

The first presentation can be downloaded as a PDF (5MB).

27 February 2025: republicEN webinar part 2 - BUST or TRUST? The scientific consensus on climate change

In the second webinar, Cook explained the misinformation being used to cast doubt on the scientific consensus and what we can do in response.

The webinar, "Bust or Trust? The scientific consensus on climate change," delves into the history of misinformation surrounding climate change and strategies to counter it. Initially, the argument was that scientists disagreed and there was no consensus on climate change. However, studies conducted for example by Naomi Oreskes in 2004 and John Cook in 2013 effectively quantified the consensus, showing overwhelming agreement among climate experts. This led to a shift in the narrative, with opponents then questioning the focus on consensus and claiming that science isn't decided by consensus.

The webinar also highlighted examples of misinformation, such as a Wall Street Journal op-ed that mischaracterized the researchers of the 2013 consensus study, and the Global Warming Petition Project, which falsely claimed that there was no scientific consensus on climate change because 31,000 science graduates signed a dissenting petition. The impact of such misinformation is significant, influencing public beliefs and policy support. It also polarizes opinions and widens the gap between different groups.

To counter misinformation, the webinar discussed inoculation theory, which involves exposing people to a weakened version of misinformation to build cognitive immunity. Explaining misinformation techniques and using strategies like the "truth sandwich" can neutralize the effects of misinformation. Additionally, AI and large language models are being used to generate debunkings of climate misinformation. The webinar emphasized the importance of communicating climate messages that don't alienate people's values and highlighting the co-benefits of climate action.

The second presentation can be downloaded as a PDF (5MB).