Home Arguments iPhone App Recent Comments Translations Links Support SkS

Twitter RSS Posts RSS Posts RSS Posts RSS Posts

to support
Skeptical Science
iPhone app

Android app

Nokia app


It's the sun
Climate's changed before
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Ice age predicted in the 70s
We're heading into an ice age
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

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

Latest Posts


Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.

So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

Sunday, 5 September, 2010

Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument

The 2009 State of the Climate report of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released in mid-2010, brings together many different series of data “from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean”. The conclusion? All of these independent lines of evidence tell us unequivocally that the Earth is warming.


Posted by James Wight at 12:55 PM   |   0 comments

Saturday, 4 September, 2010

Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?

Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.


Posted by James Wight at 11:14 PM   |   12 comments

Saturday, 4 September, 2010

Empirically observed fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming

Fundamental physics and global climate models both make testable predictions as to how the global climate should change in response to anthropogenic warming. Almost universally, empirical observations confirm that these 'fingerprints' of anthropogenic global warming are present.


Posted by dana1981 at 6:30 AM   |   9 comments

Friday, 3 September, 2010

Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!

The current research into the effects of climate change on tropical storms demonstrates not only the virtues and transparency of the scientific method at work, but rebuts the frequent suggestion that scientists fit their findings to a pre-determined agenda in support of climate change. In the case of storm frequency, there is no consensus and reputable scientists have two diametrically opposed theories about increasing frequencies of such events.


Posted by gpwayne at 5:22 PM   |   42 comments

Friday, 3 September, 2010

New presentation debunking Monckton's critique of IPCC predictions

Alden Griffith at Fool Me Once has released a new presentation, this one debunking Christopher Monckton's critique of the IPCC predictions of global warming. It's an in-depth critique where Alden directly compares the IPCC projections to observations and Monckton's graphs. He's also included  detailed notes and graphs beneath the video presentation (yes, I've already asked if I could use his notes as an Advanced Rebuttal so stay tuned for that). In the meantime, check out his fantastic presentation.


Posted by John Cook at 12:09 PM   |   8 comments

Friday, 3 September, 2010

Quantifying the human contribution to global warming

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations. 


Posted by dana1981 at 9:01 AM   |   21 comments

Thursday, 2 September, 2010

Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument

When skeptics use the argument 'Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas', they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.


Posted by James Frank at 9:40 AM   |   49 comments

Wednesday, 1 September, 2010

Carbon dioxide equivalents

Guest contribution by Dr Chris McGrath

There is considerable confusion surrounding climate stabilization targets based only on atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and targets that group together all greenhouse gases and other factors using the term carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e or CO2-eq).


Posted by Chris McGrath at 5:22 PM   |   21 comments

Wednesday, 1 September, 2010

How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner

According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also known as ice ages, that last about 100,000 years. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid claim?


Posted by Anne-Marie Blackburn at 9:59 AM   |   51 comments

Tuesday, 31 August, 2010

Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?

The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) is a phenomenon whereby the concentration of structures and waste heat from human activity (most notably air conditioners and internal combustion engines) results in a slightly warmer envelope of air over urbanised areas when compared to surrounding rural areas. It has been suggested that UHI has significantly influenced temperature records over the 20th century with rapid growth of urban environments.


Posted by mothincarnate at 11:04 PM   |   45 comments

© Copyright 2010 John Cook Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us