* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 3/30/2007 1:22 PM:
Oh really? A "consensus" is only a majority. It would appear that
the "vast majority" of trained observers are in agreement. While its
true that there are skeptics, as there should be, there is, none the
less, a consensus.

Consensus is general agreement of all members of a particular
population.

That is only one definition, if you check a modern dictionary you'll
probably find "majority" listed as the first definition.

Usually obtained by compromise.

That might be the way of politics, not science. That would be like
saying that if half people believe in evolution, and half believe in
creationism, then the consensus is intelligent design.

Some members may not
fully agree but as part of the consensus agreement will support the
consensus opinion by not presenting an opposing opinion.

That is not what we have here on either side of the argument.


No. That is exactly what we have in the scientific community. While
there a a few high profile skeptics, as there should be, they are
often not experts in climate. Further, they have published very
little "denials" in the academic world. Here's what one survey had to
say:

"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in
refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the
ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement
of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation
proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the
consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three
categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus
view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on
current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

There is one reviewer, Benny Peiser, was skeptical and tried to
reproduce this study. At first, it appeared that he had found major
flaws, but after going around for a few years, he conceded:

"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of
global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of
climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due
to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."

and, to be fair, he concludes with

"Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long
as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public
is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these
scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the
health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and
scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons."

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...ep38peiser.pdf