The actual article being referenced is here:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0...
The articles actual view of the word %26#039;consensus%26#039; is that it%26#039;s far too weak to describe the collective scientific understanding of the dangers of human-caused global warming. So, is there a better word that should be used to describe the well established level of knowledge in this field and the grave %26amp; growing concern among real climate scientists?
Additional Details
6 months ago
Jim Z - you are quite prolific at posting your opinion without any facts to back it up. Perhaps you could identify some of those unnamed climate scientists and demonstrate how their opinion better fits the data/evidence?5 months ago
crazycon - too bad you don%26#039;t bother to read the links to articles by real scientists.charbat - too bad you don%26#039;t bother to read much of anything before posting
jello - I think talk of lawsuits is actually the last refuge of scoundrels (does Weather Channel founder ring a bell?)
Other Answers (9)
-
I agree that there is a general concensus of left wing scientists as if this is supposed to mean anything. When facts don%26#039;t favor your argument, I guess all there is left is to say everybody agrees with me. The problem is the concensus is mythical and contrived. Science is not about consensus. Politics is which is why it is appropriate that left wingers always seek and argue concensus for GW since it is a political cause. You probably don%26#039;t even realize it, but Salon is extremely biased which is obvious to non-left wingers.
-
What does %26quot;consensus%26quot; have to do with science?
try again. -
The word %26quot;consensus%26quot; means generally accepted opinion. I know of no single word that expresses this concept more strongly. Perhaps you could say %26quot;the overwhelming and growing consensus.%26quot;
Harleigh Kyson Jr. -
Yea, how about idiotic, moronic, stupid, dumb, etc. take your pick.
News flash, science is not a %26quot;consensus%26quot; sport. And if you want, I will post a list of scientist who DO NOT believe in Man Made Global Warming. It is extensive, and includes people who have been authors of all 4 IPCC reports, heads of weather bureaus, prize winning scientist, etc. There is no consensus. Just debate. But I forgot, the AGW loonies are afraid of debate. They do not like facts getting in the way of their agenda. -
noob
-
Good answer above, and I like the phrase %26quot;vast majority%26quot;. If consensus is a word that people regularly misunderstand, then, in contrast, the meaning of %26quot;vast majority%26quot; should be fairly obvious to, well, a vast majority of people!
-
By sticking with the defunct Hockey Stick you people gave Inhofe all the ammunition he needed.
The MWP happened and was warmer than today.
That doesn%26#039;t mean AGW can%26#039;t be real. It could be argued that if we%26#039;re heading into another MWP, that%26#039;s exactly WHY we have no room for error, can%26#039;t take the risk of emitting increased CO2 levels.
But you didn%26#039;t argue that.
You chose to rewrite history so you could say that the present climate was %26quot;unprecedented.%26quot;
You need to understand that that created most of the skeptics.
All you had to do was continue to acknowledge the MWP - which, forget consensus, was the universally-accepted climate history from the time it happened until 1998, when the climate had become a political issue - and just explain to people that that didn%26#039;t mean the present warming wasn%26#039;t us, and that natural warming PLUS man-made warming could be catastrophic.
The IPCC%26#039;s decision not to do that, to dump the Lamb graph in favor of the Mann graph, has given Sen. Inhofe a legitimate gripe. -
I like what Dr. Michael Crichton said about consensus science-----
%26quot;Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you%26#039;re being had.
Let%26#039;s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.