Question:

Is the word 'consensus' really too weak?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

At the non-scientific Heartland Institute conference, apparently Marc Morano (the author of the infamous and fully debunked "prominent scientists" list and Sen. Inhofe’s press secretary), took an article by a respected scientist and misrepresented it by saying: “We’re making them afraid of using the term ‘consensus’!“

The actual article being referenced is here:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/

The articles actual view of the word 'consensus' is that it'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 & growing concern among real climate scientists?

 Tags:

   Report

10 ANSWERS


  1. I like what Dr. Michael Crichton said about consensus science-----

    "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're being had.

    Let'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.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

    In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of."

    So if you like to be a member of a mob that is more wrong than it is right, then go right ahead......

    So no, consensus isn't strong enough.  Dangerous isn't even strong enough.


  2. noob

  3. Yea, how about idiotic, moronic, stupid, dumb, etc. take your pick.

    News flash, science is not a "consensus" 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.

  4. I agree that there is a general concensus of left wing scientists as if this is supposed to mean anything.  When facts don'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't even realize it, but Salon is extremely biased which is obvious to non-left wingers.

  5. Good answer above, and I like the phrase "vast majority". If consensus is a word that people regularly misunderstand, then, in contrast, the meaning of "vast majority" should be fairly obvious to, well, a vast majority of people!

  6. The word isn't too weak, it just isn't being interpreted correctly by lay people.  However it wouldn't matter what word you used, the right-wing would corrupt its meaning until it would be taken to mean something it isn't.  These skeptics are people who are so clueless about how modern science operates they would equate articles published in the gray literature with articles appearing in journals with impact factors in the teens.  (It is like saying that somebody acting in the Rapid City Repertory Theater is the same thing as starring on Broadway or that pitching 6 shut-out innings of single A ball constitutes a major league career.)  So it wouldn't matter to these people what you called it or how you explained it or the evidence you presented, they would not believe it.  In fact, the more evidence you present, the greater they will resist believing, because none of them will admit they were wrong.  Consensus is a fine term, anyone who has ever been involved in formulating a scientific consensus opinion understands the usage and what it means.  

    For everyone else, there's this:

    http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/...

  7. Just goes to show the reliability of Inhofe's information.

    This is a great article written by one of my favorite authors, Joseph Romm (see 'h**l and High Water' and 'The Hype About Hydrogen').  'Consensus' is a tricky word because the deniers pretend it means 'unanimity' (which is one definition, but not the correct one in this context), and so they think trotting out a few 'skeptical' scientists disproves the consensus.

    In reality 'consensus' merely means 'majority' in this context.  Really it should mean 'vast majority', as in over 90% agreement.  As Romm points out, more important than the consensus is the scientific evidence which allows the consensus to exist.  Also as pointed out by Romm, in order to form the IPCC consensus (and appease the politicians), the conclusions and predictions are watered down to make them too conservative, not too alarmist.

    Thanks for the link, I always enjoy reading stuff written by Romm.  He's certainly correct that the word 'consensus' is too weak to explain the strength of the AGW theory.

  8. The word "consensus" means generally accepted opinion.  I know of no single word that expresses this concept more strongly.  Perhaps you could say "the overwhelming and growing consensus."

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

  9. What does "consensus" have to do with science?

    try again.

  10. 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't mean AGW can't be real.  It could be argued that if we're heading into another MWP, that's exactly WHY we have no room for error, can't take the risk of emitting increased CO2 levels.

    But you didn't argue that.

    You chose to rewrite history so you could say that the present climate was "unprecedented."

    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't mean the present warming wasn't us, and that natural warming PLUS man-made warming could be catastrophic.

    The IPCC's decision not to do that, to dump the Lamb graph in favor of the Mann graph, has given Sen. Inhofe a legitimate gripe.

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 10 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.