A few word definitions

Over the years I’ve introduced and/or started using a few words. So, here is a list of ones that as far as I know I was first to use – together with a few others.
The Pause
I coined the phrase “the Pause” around 2007 when I still edited Wikipedia. I did so in order to try to get a Wikipedia section about the slowdown in temperature. For obvious reasons, there was no way the climate academics who edit wikipedia would allow words like “stop”, “halted”, when referring to global temperature. So “pause” was the mildest possible way I could think to say “stopped” whilst still pandering to their view that it would continue.  But even this was denied by those academics.However, as my intention was to highlight the failure of the IPCC prediction, the definition always meant: A failure of surface temperature to warm as predicted by the IPCC. That’s why I’ve since said the definition should be based on a threshold of half the lowest predicted warming by the IPCC in 2001 of 0.14/decade. In other words, closer to no warming than the lowest predicted warming of the IPCC. However, for simplicity, perhaps 0.05C/decade would be an easier threshold. And by this definition we have:
Cooling/(Warming)
A decadal drop/(rise) in temperature of more than 0.05C.
Upjusting
Upjusting is the adjustment of data which always biases the data in one way to increase the apparent slope upwards to suggest warming. Upjusting is being done, both by cooling the past and by warming the present. The past is warmed by adding bogus “correction factors” or simply by removing warmer datasets from warmer stations. The present is upjusted by removing colder sites. (although the room for such upjustments has diminished with independent checks by satellite – so much of the “pause”)
Upcasting
Upcasting is a forecast which always has a warming bias. So, e.g. the UK Met Office had a decade of forecasting “warming” of the climate when in fact there was no net warming. This shows an inherent bias which caused their “upcasting”.
The Greenblob (not my word)
I take it this word refers to the huge green sector of NGOS, academics, wind lobbyists carbon capitalists, jump-on-the-band-wagon celebs who all feed off the public purse and stir up public fear to gain their pound of public funding.
Greenblobby (not mine)
A superb extension of the word I saw on Jo Nova. It better captures the whole essence of the greenblob who are mostly “snouts in the trough of public money” lobbyiest. In that sense it clearly includes the IPCC and all those academics who seem to spend much of their time lobbying and little doing actual science. It also includes the Met Offfice who make absurd claims about “unequivocal warming” which are simply not born out by their own failed upcasts.
Greenblobbyist (Greenblobbiest?)
So much of the non-science we read on the web is put out by what are clearly paid “greenblobbyests”. They are part of the greenblob and most get their funding in some way from the public purse (either academia or grants to NGOs, or indeed BBC, or wind lobby from public money). They are the lobbyiests of the greenblob. They are not scientists or impartial advisers but pure bred lobbyists.
Non-science
Nonscience is to science what nonsense is to sense. Nonsense are things that are illogical. Non-science are things that go against the evidence and facts.
Sceptic (Skeptic)
A sceptic is someone who is sceptical or “takes no one’s word for it”. Instead, they like to see the evidence and make up their own minds. In other words, they are not only scientists in matter of science, but they also like to apply the rigour of science to many other areas of their lives. So, a sceptic should also be sceptical in politics, medicine, art, entertainment.
Sceptic science (Skeptic science)
Is science based on the evidence and scientific method. It is science done in a manner where the number of people supporting a view, nor the status of those asserting their views, carries weight unless supported by the evidence. It is science done by the scientific method. So, where assertions are made such as “the big bang” which cannot be tested (not obviously), the sceptic scientist should be duly sceptical.
Consensus science
Consensus science is not really science but is instead the definition used by the media when they say “science says”. The meaning is not “science” but instead it refers to a group of (almost always) public-sector academics  who decide to call themselves “scientists” without actually using scientific rigour. It is in practice merely a club of “science” which choses its members by their submissions to panels which they call “peer review”. These are as much “membership committees” and “Promotion boards” within their club of “science” as anything else.
And because of the way it is run, this consensus science is a club of like-minded people of which the unifying feature is public sector academia (politically liberal)- and so this club is often overtly hostile to those outside particularly in private sector commerce and industry.
Global Warming (As I define it)
Global warming is a campaign to persuade the public that atmospheric plant food is a poison. There is no science behind it because there is no defined period over which this “warming is measured” and indeed the greenblobbiest will assert “global warming is happening” even when the instrumentational record of surface temperature shows it is not. It is no more a “scientific” concept than a “dash” is a scientific measurement. It is really a mind set, a form of group think or even a religion. So, to deny global warming is like denying angels or denying Christ. It is a religious denial which some people believe in them and others do not.
Denier
Is a measurement of yarn thickness. 15 denier and less is fine, more than 15 is coarse. More than 100 is getting quite absurd.
Scientific fraud (not mine)
A scientific fraud is statement or other assertion that is made in such a way that it suggests it has the credibility & rigour of the scientific method, but it does not.
So, e.g. even if the statement turns out to be technically correct, if the statement is suggested to be scientific but it was made without sufficient evidence at the time to e.g. give the stated range and confidence, then it is scientific fraud. In other words it is a fraud against scientific rigour. That rigour requires the assertions to be almost certainty of being correct. It is not legal fraud, because legal fraud has lower standards of “balance of evidence” or even “beyond reasonable doubt”. Science doesn’t tolerate any doubt, that is why almost all science is couched in phrases such as “it is very likely” not “it will”.
So, someone may easily be guilty of “scientific fraud” even though they are not guilty of legal fraud.
To use a well known example. The IPCC are guilty of scientific fraud, when at a time that we have a pause (often asserted as 18 years without warming) which they clearly did not predict, and therefore it is increasingly likely that their models are wrong, they falsely state increasing confidence in their models indicating large-scale Man-made warming.
In contrast, when all that is known about the climate is encapsulated in these models and they fail so spectacularly, then confidence in this subject must certainly be downgraded. Only a fool would increase confidence when their predictions fail.
Mann-made warming (not mine)
The phrase “Mann-made warming” has now come into common use and so need defining so that long after everyone has forgotten Michael Mann the derivation is understood.
Michael Mann produced an iconic “hockey stick” graph which was plastered over the IPCC report. It combined tree-ring data and instrumentational data and “hid the decline” in tree ring temperatures. It also descaled and smoothed the tree ring data so as to remove known events such as the medieval warm period and little ice-age. In this way it fabricated an apparent unprecedented rise in temperatures in the modern period. This hockeystick is  bogus as shown by the Central England Temperature record is our best proxy for global temperature since the 17th century. CET clearly shows periods of warming and cooling greater than the 20th century e.g. 1690 – 1730. Also, Mann also used a methodology that selected “hockeystick” type data which Steve McIntyre showed would have created a hockeystick even when given red-noise data.
But Mann is notorious not only for his high-profile fabrication but because even when the “problems” with the methodology or intentional hiding of data were revealed, he refused to admit he was wrong and even sued Steyn. His failure to accept his mistakes prevented everyone, including himself, to move on.
So “Mann-made warming” is a very apt word which suggests warming that is significantly fake in that it is either fabricated by false methodology, hiding of data or, whilst no such accusation has been proven against Mann himself, by making up “upjustments” to data.  It also implies those producing the “warming” are obstinate, unscientific, error prone and refuse to admit their mistakes.
Warmist
I invented this word based on the word “metal detectorist”. From memory is started as “global warmist” but I eventually shorted it. It was intended to be a factually based non pejorative group description for those who believed in global warming doomsdayism.
Alarmist (not mine)
I spotted this after “warmist”. It is clearly intended to be a pejorative word implying those who are believe in global warming are trying to spread alarm. At the time I don’t believe many of those who believed in global warming were intentionally spreading alarm. However now after so much evidence against global warming, those who still spout this non-science must either be stupid, in some way be motivated be money or have a hatred for society.
Climate academic
Given that the academics working on climate clearly do not agree with the sceptics on the need to use the scientific method I cannot call them “scientists”. So I used to write climate “scientists”. However, to avoid this terminology I now refer to “Climate academics”. Almost all Engineers are scientists (and sceptics) – because the scientific method is really just a fancy restatement of the basic engineering practice of “trying out ideas in practice”. But not all academics are scientists who would want their pet academic/political theories subject to the rigour of being tested in practice.
Buddy Review
Buddy review is the process by which climate academics ensure they all keep getting lots and lots of publications showing how necessary it is to keep pumping the public funds to them. Papers are judged on a number of criteria “agreement with the consensus”, “that they do not dispute the consensus”, “whether the academic agrees with the consensus” and “that they know how to smell concenshus and can speak proper”.

Others

• Post-modern science: “Decide on the answer that feels right, then adapt the data and methodology to produce that answer.”
• Chemophobia: a fear of anything chemical such as Dihydrogen Monoxide
• Dihydrogen Monoxide, a potent greenhouse gas causing for 1000s of deaths each year. Also known as water.
• Greenspin: a generic name for green groups who spin the supposed benefits for bird mincers
• Bird Mincer: a form of folly created as a result of the millennium scare about climate.
• Bat Mincer: a bird mincer at night.
• Gaia: the embodiment of planet earth. A farting belching sweating old man with things living all over him.
• Eco-fascist: Green activists who can’t stand people having the democratic right to reject their greenspin.

See also: Climate change dictionary