On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:34:01 -0400, Jeff wrote:
* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 4/4/2007 4:23 PM:
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.
Say what? If you talking about my opinion, then you definitely have a
closed mind, because I've said almost nothing about my opinion on GW.
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.
Then you really have to get the real "Websters," which, in my version
(Random house computer version 1999; or from Dictionary.com, Random
House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006) has:
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they
should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
I admit that you could find references that prefer the second definition.
As for how many climatologists believe in GW, that seems to be almost
all; as to how many believe that man is a major contributor, that is a
vast majority.
Perhaps you didn't bother to read the reference I gave before. It was
a study of ten years worth of papers by climatologists about Global
Climate Change. There were roughly 1000 papers in peer reviewed
journals on the topic. Absolutely ZERO of them attempted to refute
that man is a significant cause of GW. About 75% implicitly or
explicitly agreed, the rest were agnostic and discussed other issues.
As I mentioned, even the skeptic who originally tried to discredit
the study admitted that it was substantially correct and that
anthropogenic climate change is the "consensus view."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
Even the recent claim that Cosmic Rays may be a significant cause of
climate change doesn't discount anthropogenic sources. (And this is
from an astrophysicist, not a climatologist.)
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.
The cause, or even the existence of GW may not be undeniable. What is
undeniable is that there is a consensus. When even the skeptics refer
to the "consensus view" you have to admit there is a consensus.
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.
I think the meaning of consensus in political areas is a bit different
from its meaning is scientific circles. Scientists don't have a great
need to "obtain" a consensus, they only want the truth. A consensus
does not mean "truth," it only means a large majority. There are many
areas of science where there is a strong consensus, but in almost
every case there are some skeptics.
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'm saying just the opposite. I'm beginning to think you have some
difficulty in comprehension. I'm sure that many of the "consensus"
are still a bit skeptical. I'm sure that most are open to the
possibility that the consensus view is wrong. My point simply is that
there is a consensus view. There is a large majority of
climatologists that believe it very likely true that there is Global
Climate Change, and that man is a substantial cause of it.
Then explain your use of the comparison between absolute certainty and
consensus. You're the one who used it and claimed that I might be
confusing the terms. How might that be? You, as ususal, are very quick
to negate others ability to think clearly (confusing the terms...,
lack comprehension..., You have a rather closed mind...,). I notice
you drop a minor insult or two in every response. Not sure why, I
haven't questioned anything except the appropriate use of the term
consensus. And said that you seem to be comfortable with it as
completely appropriate. It seems to bother you that I and others
might think that the term is inconsistent with what we have in this
case. But so be it.
I think you're right, I do have a difficulty in comprehension because
I don't agree with you. That must be it.
I can be part of a majority, a minority, or consensus agreement
without being absolutly certain I'm right.
Of course. I've never said any different. However, you can be part
of a political consensus even knowing you're wrong on that topic if it
furthers some other goal. However, in scientific circles, that's know
as "playing politics."