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 Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

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
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize

Posted on 10 September 2011 by Bern

This post was drafted by SkS reader/contributor Bern and represents the entire team of SkS contributors

The Eureka Prizes, presented annually since 1990 by the Australian Museum, have been described as Australia’s “Oscars of Science”.  The prizes recognise and reward excellence in the fields of scientific research & innovation, science leadership, school science and science journalism & communication.

The prizes are sponsored by a wide range of government departments & research organisations, universities, foundations, media organisations and corporations.

John Cook

Skeptical Science’s founder John Cook tweeted on Tuesday that he was attending the gala presentation dinner:

Heading off to #EurekaPrize evening. Exciting & a little surreal

As long-time readers of and participants at Skeptical Science, we were delighted to see the follow-up message:

Am blown away, @skepticscience just won Eureka Prize 4 Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge

The official announcement gives a great rundown of why Skeptical Science was chosen as the winner, despite some stiff competition.

Bern would like to give a shout out and a great big “Congratulations!” to John and the supporting crew of contributors, discussion thread participants & moderators here at Skeptical Science.  It’s well deserved recognition for what is, in his opinion, one of the most useful sites in the world of Climate Science. 

The Skeptical Science team of contributors would also like to congratulate John on the well-deserved recognition of his success in creating and developing SkS, and providing continued excellent leadership in guiding the SkS team.  We will strive to continue providing content at the level which helped the site win the Eureka Prize.

Other coverage

1 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

1  2  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 53:

  1. Please add my hearty congratulations to John and all at SkS on a thoroughly well-deserved win!
    0 0
  2. Thumbs up, John Cook! Well deserved. You've put a heck of a lot of work into this, and this is good recognition of an impressive effort.
    0 0
  3. And also congrats to the team supporting John here. A true labor of love (since, after all, you're not getting paid for it), and very well done - contributors, moderators, and the regulars who spend time posting.
    0 0
  4. Aye, congrats John -- and a hearty ditto to KR @ 3.
    0 0
  5. Bravo from across the ocean.
    0 0
  6. Well done John, your service to cause of dispelling the lies about Global Warming have been absolutely amazing. Keep up the fantastic work.
    0 0
  7. Congratulations, Team - well deserved.
    0 0
  8. Well done all!
    0 0
  9. A superb contribution to the understanding of this important science deservedly recognised by this highest of accolades.

    You are entitled to boast a bit!
    0 0
  10. Good on ya John ! And the whole SKS Team ! You are very worthy recipients of this well deserved honour !
    0 0
  11. Well done - richly deserved!
    0 0
  12. Congrats to John and all moderators. This is a well deserved accomplishement and a meaningful award, not the internet poll type.
    0 0
  13. Congrats guys, well deserved. Kind of makes the WUWT best science blog voted by people who don't know what they are talking about look a bit silly now.
    0 0
  14. Congratulations, well deserved.
    0 0
  15. A heart warming endorsement for the hard work you and your team do. I have been referring confused friends and family to you excellent website for over a year now. Cheers to you.
    0 0
  16. Congrats. Well deserved.
    0 0
  17. This is what happens when you create and share a website of public interest. Congrats to John and his team !
    0 0
  18. Congratulations to John and all other contributors!
    0 0
  19. Congratulations on receiving a much deserved award!
    0 0
  20. Encore! Encore!
    0 0
  21. Well done! A small reward for a lot of hard work.
    0 0
  22. A big cheer for John and the whole SkS team!

    And I would add to that my sincere thanks for everything they've done to promote education about climate change and its ramifications. This site is a fantastic resource for anyone interested in the subject.
    0 0
  23. Congratulation to John Cook and the SkS team!
    0 0
  24. Congratulations John and team. You thoroughly deserve it for creating the best denialist squishing facility around. Keep up the good work.
    0 0
  25. An award richly deserved. SkS is the TalkOrigins of climate debates, an invaluable resource and teaching tool.
    0 0
  26. Congrats John and also to all your contributors and mods. Totally deserved.
    0 0
  27. Congratulations to John and all others working for this fantastic resource.
    0 0
  28. You are all so fabulous, and it is great that your contributions have been recognized in this way.
    0 0
  29. Nice! Good job!

    Can't help but notice that Certain Names aren't adding to the congrats. They certainly jump on the other threads fast enough.
    0 0
  30. WOW! congratulations all! And having contributed an article during 2011, I now have a very inflated addition to my resume ... ;-)
    0 0
  31. Great news and hats far off! Keep up the good work.
    0 0
  32. Congratulations John and the team of SkS! Well deserved indeed.
    0 0
  33. Well done John!
    0 0
  34. My post is a proof how well deserved this prize is: I've been neutral towards the climate change debate and really I was taking the "balanced" view fostered by tabloid press.
    That was until about a month ago when I fisrt looked at SkS. This website really "opened my eyes" at how logical and clear/unrefuttable are the findings of climate science about AGW. The debate should not be called "balanced" when most "skeptics" are simply denialist.
    Congrats John and the rest of the team!
    0 0
  35. This is way off topic, but do you have any aboriginal ancestry?
    0 0
    Response: [JC] No, I'm half French, half Malaysian (and all Aussie).
  36. John and the rest of the SkS team, congratulations! 'Well deserved' is an inadequate way to describe it, but it'll have to do. Probably the best climate science communication website on the Net.
    0 0
  37. I want to say congratulations as well.

    But I tend to think they are 'just desserts', not 'just deserts'.

    Cheers
    0 0
  38. Re #29, I just read through the prize description and a few of the other winners. I think this site, patient mods and John Cook deserve this recognition and prize. Personally while I don't agree with every thread here, it has greatly added to my own knowledge.
    0 0
  39. Mandas @37 - I'd originally assumed it was a pun, as that's what AGW implies for those of us here in Australia (though it's a bit more complicated for John's state of Queensland!)

    However, a quick google reveals that since the concept is derived from 'deserve' that's the spelling; it's just pronounced as though one was likely to receive a parfait!
    0 0
  40. He's an Australian. Of course they are just deserts (except when they are just flood plains.

    Congratulations John.
    0 0
  41. chriskoz: yep, I was pretty surprised at just how one-sided the scientific evidence was, when I started reading SkS.

    mandas: I didn't come up with the headline, and I too thought it was a typo, until I looked it up. Just goes to show, you learn something new everyday!
    0 0
  42. Bern: science one sided? I'd like to nuance that a little.

    If you just look at climate sensitivity, various evidence ranges from 1.5 to 8 degrees. Sealevel rise equally: from 30 cm to 4 meters by 2100. Etc, Etc. No, science is clearly not one-sided.

    However, I agree if you look at it from a distant septic vs science perspective. Afterall, science is pretty one-sided in accepting that CO2 a greenhouse gas and that more of it contributes to warming. ;-)
    0 0
  43. Congrats to JC and the SkS team.
    0 0
  44. Well I've learnt something even with this post, regarding 'just deserts'!
    0 0
  45. Ditto, Paul D.

    Congrats everyone - great achievement, and I'm glad John and SkS are finally getting the attention they deserve.
    0 0
  46. A belated congratulations to John and the rest of the Skeptical Science team. I know it really opened my eyes to what was going on.
    0 0
  47. Congratulations to everyone here at SkS but particularly John. In the beginning it was John, popping in at other sites and spreading the word (and links).

    Nice vision John and great follow through.
    0 0
  48. Congratulations! There was never doubt in my mind that John and SkS are in the class of their own. It is about time that someone noticed and more awards will certainly follow.
    0 0
  49. cynicus: yes, that's the sense I meant 'one-sided' - the vast majority (almost all) of the evidence points to global warming being real, driven by human GHG emissions, and a serious problem. Talking about the range of possibilities that you mentioned is just hand-waving - particularly when all of those possibilities are bad, and only the degree is different. Even the low end will have nasty repercussions, the most likely values will be disastrous, and I really, really hope the actual values don't lie in the upper part of the range...
    0 0
  50. Bill @39

    Well how about that. I stand corrected. You learn something new every day.
    0 0

1  2  Next

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

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us