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

Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial

Posted on 15 May 2011 by John Cook

Tomorrow in Canberra, Haydn and I will be delivering a specially printed Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand to every Australian Federal MP. It has a Joint Statement in the front signed by Bob Carr, John Hewson, Dick Smith and 7 Aussie climate scientists. Here is a peek at the signed Joint Statement that is Page 1 of the book:

Here's the front cover of the specially printed Parliamentarian Edition. Many thanks to Robert Dolk and Dick Smith whose generosity made the printing of this special edition possible.

Afterwards, we'll be launching the book at Daltons Bookshop at 6pm.

Where:
Daltons Bookshop, 54 Marcus Clarke St, Civic, Canberra
When:
Monday 16th May, 6 pm
Launcher:
Dr John Hewson, former Leader of the Federal Opposition
Speakers: Dr Haydn Washington, Mr John Cook and Dr Andrew Glikson (ANU)
RSVP:
Daltons Bookshop             (02) 6249 1844     

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page | Repost this Article Repost This

Comments

Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 54 out of 54:

  1. Sorry if this is OT but, as a scientist myself (though not a climate scientist), I get *deeply* offended by implications that scientists in the public sector are part of some big "Gravy Train". Trust me, no-one working in the public sector is getting rich, & research grants-be it from the public or private sector-are incredibly hard to come by. Now, with my level of expertise, I could easily move into a big Bio-tech firm & earn a six figure salary-with about half of the headaches, but I *choose* to work in a *public* institution that has a reputation for *good* science. Now, if we want to look at Gravy Trains, we really need look no further than the bevy of most vocal critics of AGW-politicians from regions currently dependent on coal or oil extraction; politicians who get nice kick-backs from lobbyists in the fossil fuel industry; so-called "think-tanks" who also get a hefty amount of money from the fossil fuel industry & Mainstream Media Outlets who are also heavily dependent on advertising revenue from a number of big business entities-including the fossil fuel industry. Anyone want to place bets on which group I'd think are less likely to be influenced by motives of personal gain? As the sayings go-"Que Bono?" (Who Benefits?) and "Follow the Money".
    0 0
  2. Not a Bud comment. In response to scientific certainty you say

    That humans are very likely (>90%) responsible for most of the temperature rise post-1970 due to fossil-fuel GHG emissions (primarily CO2).

    I recognize the need for scientific accuracy, but shouldn't it really be >99%, or even >99.99%?

    Someone could easily take >90% to mean there is a 1 in 10 chance--not horrible odds--when the reality seems more like 1 in a million.

    Jerry
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] You speak to the issue of scientific reticence (the over-arching need to "be right") vs colloquially-used language in the real world.  In my response earlier, I phrased the expressions of certainty as used by both the National Academies of Sciences and the IPCC.

    In the terms you reference, in the common tongue, you may well be correct.  After all, unless the physics of human-produced GHGs differ entirely from those of GHG of natural origin (in worlds populated with Iris effects, cloud-causing ENSO and low-flying bacon), what other surmise can be drawn?

    In order to effectively communicate with the outside world, scientists must learn to speak comfortably in the common tongue.  As things now stand, scientists may as well be speaking in the high tongue of the Noldor.

    Namárië

  3. Response:
    [DB] You mean like this?



    To make one last very off-topic comment : Yes, a bit like that but more like this last line from a classic Carry On film - if you like that sort of thing (which I do).
    0 0
  4. [DB] response to #52: no, it's not like scientists are speaking in a different language, no matter how Tolkienesque. It's like the scientists write a journal article saying "It would appear that the sky is predominantly blue in colour, except at dawn & dusk when preferential scattering and refraction may produce a pinkish hue at times", whereupon the skeptics immediately start jumping up and down and screaming to their media contacts "Those scientists are saying the sky is pink! Everyone knows it's blue! It's never pink! They're corrupt liars, don't believe a word they say!"
    The press, of course, immediately write their headlines along the lines of "Breaking News: Scientists Say Sky is Pink!", followed by opinion columns by prominent skeptics about how the sky is blue, has always been blue, what are those scientists talking about, they obviously don't know anything about atmospheric physics, they must be either incompetent or conspiring to defraud the public, etc.

    The problem, of course, is deliberate miscontruing of scientific statements by deniers, aided by 'reporting' by the press that consists of little more than writing about or even just reprinting press releases from various thinktanks. If a little more effort went in to understanding what the scientists were saying, and reporting it accurately, then I think the message would get out quite easily.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

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