On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:02:33 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 4/3/2007 9:04 PM:
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.


I don't know why you would say that. It seems to me that you have a
rather closed mind about my opinion. I don't know to what extent
Global Warming is caused by man, or to what extent we can slow it
down. We may well be in for a few surprises, and there will certainly
be some embarrassment.

I don't know why you would say that. I never made any claims about
GW, the reality of it, the cause of it if real, or any potential
solutions. Simply said its existence and cause is not a consensus
among those who are in the field, at least not in the way I (and
Websters) would define the word in its primary sense.

However, it is an undeniable truth that it is the consensus of
climatologists today that Global Warming is largely caused by man.
This need not be a 100% to be a "consensus." There are a few
skeptics, though curiously very few are climatologists. Also, there
are virtually no formal, peer reviewed papers that refute GW.

That's the sticking point, it is not undeniable. Semantics I believe.
However, those who misuse the term do themselves no good, only damages
their credibility with people like me who have worked extensivly in
areas requiring consensus; no how hard it is to obtain; and would look
with mistrust to anyone who would use that term instead of the equally
effective overwhelming or vast majority, if, of course that can be
proven.

You seem to be confusing the concept of "consensus" with "absolute
certainty." The consensus is real, it isn't 100% but it is real.
Whether or not the consensus is correct remains to be seen.

No. Those who are using the term are attempting to confuse. There is
no relation between "consensus" and "absolute certainty". If you are
telling me that each of those individuals who make up the "vast
majority" holding that opinion are also "absolutly certain" with no
probability, no matter how small, assigned to an alternative
possibility, then I'm even more concerned about the state of science.
I can be part of a majority, a minority, or consensus agreement
without being absolutly certain I'm right.