* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 4/5/2007 8:42 AM:

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.

I would have thought these were fairly well understood terms.
"Absolute certainty" means that 100% of the observers are 100% sure.
This is, of course, never remotely achievable in the "soft" sciences,
but is also rare in the physical sciences.

As I've said, the modern definition of "consensus" lists majority
first. This is (sort of) a switch from previous definitions, which
list the second definition first - refer to the 9th Collegiate and the
newer 10th. Unfortunately, though, even Merriam-Websters has two
different definitions online now.

Be that as it may, in scientific matters consensus does not mean
unanimity. There can be a number of skeptics, and a number of
concerns on various points, and that does not mean there is no
consensus. Since this occurs on virtually every topic, insisting that
a consensus does not exist if there is one skeptic renders the term
meaningless.

You're the one who used it and claimed that I might be
confusing the terms. How might that be?

Sorry, its not my place to explain the inner workings of your mind.

But lets look at the sequence:
Trepani wrote "There is no clear consensus," to which I responded that
there is a vast majority, which is enough to call it a consensus, even
if there are skeptics. You then claimed that "consensus" means
general agreement and that it is only a "consensus" if the skeptics
agree not to present an opposing opinion. I said that might work in
politics, but clearly does not apply to science; therefore we must use
other definitions offered in the dictionary.

At this point I even gave a reference to a study that shows that the
vast majority of papers support the position which even the skeptics
refer to as the "majority consensus."

You countered that this is not true, that if there is one dissenter,
it is not a consensus. I repeated that this is not necessarily the
dictionary definition, nor is it meaningful in scientific matters.

You, as ususal, are very quick
to negate others ability to think clearly (confusing the terms...,
lack comprehension..., You have a rather closed mind...,).

At this point, you (not me!) turned to insult. First, you used the
"if one person misuses the term ..." argument, ignoring the fact that
there are several definitions, and implying that I'm misusing term.

And then you said, "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." In fact, at no time have I stated my opinion on global
warming, only that there is a large enough majority to be considered a
consensus.

Since you, not me, insisted on taking it this level, I responded in
kind, that you seem to "have a rather closed mind about my opinion."

As to the question of you being confused, I still think that might is
true. You were quite insistent and explicit that for there to be a
consensus, even the skeptics must agree to remain quiet. This is
simply not the the only definition, and it is not appropriate in
scientific matters. Are you seriously saying that on scientific
matters skeptics should agree to silence their objections for the sake
of a consensus? You have to be kidding!

I notice
you drop a minor insult or two in every response.

Oh really, I didn't notice any until you started do it. Or do you
consider it insulting that I disagree with you?

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.

There is a reason why this is an important topic. By claiming there
is "no consensus" you make it sound like there are a large number of
scientists who disagree completely with the concept of Global Warming.
If fact, it is just the opposite: virtually all climatologists agree
that there is Global Warming, and the vast majority believe man is a
significant contributor. If you look at the skeptics closely, many
are objecting on specific issues, such as attributing severe weather
to GW, or they think that the worst case scenarios are overstated, or
they think that there are other causes that are more important than
man. There are some that object just on the general principles, that
if so many people agree there must be something wrong.

I'll repeat a third time, in a study of all of the papers published
from 1993 to 2003 that refer to "global climate change" not a single
one tries to refute the anthropogenic cause of climate change. I
really don't see how you can claim there is no consensus.