On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:00:17 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 3/31/2007 4:49 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:55:41 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* 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.

I did, it's not. General agreement, Unanimity (means unanimous).
Not sure what "modern" has to do with it.

The reason for "modern" is that the primary definition has shifted
from unanimity to majority. See the Webster's dictionary.


My only point with the post was to point out that a more accurate term
would be majority or vast majority if you can support the claim,
however, it ain't a consensus.

But in fact, there is a vast majority, and therefor a consensus,
however you define it.

In your case it would simply mean that there are supporters of
evolution and supporters of creationism and one or the other might be
a majority. I don't recall there being a compromise reached consensus
in the population of those with an educated opinion on the matter.
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:

It might mean that a majority of climatologist support the the thesis,
if there are climatologists who do not agree, then there is no
consensus, only a majority opinion. Are you saying that 100% of
climatologists agree with the thesis, there are no climatologists that
disagree?

There are not 100% of "experts" that agree on any topic. By your
definition, there can never be a "consensus" on any topic, and thus
the concept would be worthless. There is a large majority opinion on
this topic. In fact, it is so large that the person who originally
argued that the study showing that it was an overwhelming opinion
changed his position and now refers to it as the "consensus position"
as I quoted below. Doesn't that sort of shoot down your claim?

Why? IF that individual misuses a term and you repeat it does it make
it so? Think not, but I'm through. I've been down this road with you
before. This might never end if I don't ignore it. And quite frankly
it is semantics.

I'm a lay person who is certainly skeptical of anyone who claims a
consensus given the history and facts of climate change over the
years. I have an open mind on the issue. Sounds like you've made
yours up. good for you, there must be some comfort in that.





"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