Australian Politics Forum - Is this a consensus statement?

RecFisher

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 347

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #75 - Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 8:58pm

freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2007 at 6:37am:

Just because the people who agree with it, agree with it?

No, because I agree with it. But also has the same essential features of your favourite consensus statement on marine protected areas, namely, it's a statement of opinion signed by a reasonable number of people who all appear to agree with the statement.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47478
At my desk.

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #76 - Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 9:25pm

There are some big differences. The scientists who signed it claim it was a consensus statement and claim that it represents the views of the broader community and is based on the research and conclusions of their peers. The statement you provided is very different. It clearly implies that it is a minority view. If you asked any of the signatories, they would also tell you it is not a consensus statement. The 'essential features' you refer to omit the only truly essential feature - the consensus.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

RecFisher Senior Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 347	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #77 - Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 11:10pm I think you have too narrow a definition of a "consensus statement". I didn't ask if it was a "scientific consensus statement".
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47478
At my desk.

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #78 - Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 12:27pm

I'm not saying there has to be anything scientific about it. You could come up with a consensus among left handed baptist ministers and I would concede it is a consensus statement. The difference is that the group has to be defined by something else other than the fact that they agree with each other. It's the definition of consensus that is tripping you up.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

RecFisher Senior Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 347	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #79 - Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 2:35pm What's your definition of "consensus" then? According to dictionary.com, "consensus" = "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole". Can we agree to that?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47478
At my desk.

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #80 - Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 2:37pm

As I pointed out earlier, if you accept as a consensus any statement agreed upon by those who agree with it, you destroy any meaning of the term. By that definition, all statements that more than one person agrees with are consensus statements. Obviously, you need an unrelated way to define the group to get any meaning. The 'group as a whole' in your definition cannot be defined by the subset of a group that agrees with the statement.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

RecFisher

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 347

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #81 - Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 5:43pm

So how do you define the group then? How many peopole have to sign it? Out of how big a group? Is there a threshold percentage before it's good enough to be a "consensus"?

The warmaholics fall back on the "thousands of scientists agree" mantra but that's actually a lie! For the first time the IPCC released the reviewers reports of the IPCC Report and guess what? The crucial Chapter 9 was supported by a lowly 32 scientists! (30 other reviewing scientists views were disregarded). So there is it for all the world to read: the sum total of scientists supporting the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming is 32! Monty Python would be proud Cheesy

Now is that a consensus of 32?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47478
At my desk.

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #82 - Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 7:40pm

So how do you define the group then? How many peopole have to sign it? Out of how big a group?

The group definition can be totally arbitrary - like left handed baptist ministers. Just so long as it is not defined by those who agree with the statement. I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding what the term consensus really means.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

RecFisher Senior Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 347	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #83 - Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 9:21pm I know what I understand it to mean. I'm trying to understand what you believe it means, but you keep going around in circles dodging the issue, not really answering the questions. I'm not sure why. I give up .
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 11:42pm by RecFisher » IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47478 At my desk.	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #84 - Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 9:30pm So you still think it's a consensus statement? Do you think that any statement representing the views of those who agree with it is a consensus statement?
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #85 - Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 9:31pm

deepthought wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 7:38pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 7:49pm:

deepthought wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 9:20am:

deepthought wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 9:53am:

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2007 at 8:28am:

There were lots of causes operating over different time scales, including Milankovic cycles, variations in the sun's output, natural integrators and positive feedback loops within the earth etc. They were still the drivers up until very recently, when their effects were swamped by anthropogenic influences. The difference now is that CO2 concentrations are unprecedented, as is the rate of warming.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170222422/72#72

So the cause of global warming before humans got involved were lots of things - but they no longer cause global warming? Only humans do now? Why? What happened to the other stuff which used to cause it?

Bump

Bump Bump

Bumpity Bump Bump, Bump Bump.

Bump Bump Bumpity craptacular nutsmackingly Bump.

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #86 - Jan 5^th, 2008 at 7:18am

deepthought wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 9:31pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 7:38pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 7:49pm:

deepthought wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 9:20am:

deepthought wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 9:53am:

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2007 at 8:28am:

There were lots of causes operating over different time scales, including Milankovic cycles, variations in the sun's output, natural integrators and positive feedback loops within the earth etc. They were still the drivers up until very recently, when their effects were swamped by anthropogenic influences. The difference now is that CO2 concentrations are unprecedented, as is the rate of warming.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170222422/72#72

So the cause of global warming before humans got involved were lots of things - but they no longer cause global warming? Only humans do now? Why? What happened to the other stuff which used to cause it?

Bump

Bump Bump

Bumpity Bump Bump, Bump Bump.

Bump Bump Bumpity craptacular nutsmackingly Bump.

Bumpity Bumtpity Bpumtitty Pumbitty Pump Bum.

Back to top

IP Logged

oceanz

Gold Member

Offline

Auzgurl..

Posts: 3531
Gender: female

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #87 - Jan 5^th, 2008 at 8:27am

deepthought wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 7:18am:

deepthought wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 9:31pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 7:38pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 7:49pm:

deepthought wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 9:20am:

deepthought wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 9:53am:

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2007 at 8:28am:

There were lots of causes operating over different time scales, including Milankovic cycles, variations in the sun's output, natural integrators and positive feedback loops within the earth etc. They were still the drivers up until very recently, when their effects were swamped by anthropogenic influences. The difference now is that CO2 concentrations are unprecedented, as is the rate of warming.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170222422/72#72

So the cause of global warming before humans got involved were lots of things - but they no longer cause global warming? Only humans do now? Why? What happened to the other stuff which used to cause it?

Bump

Bump Bump

Bumpity Bump Bump, Bump Bump.

Bump Bump Bumpity craptacular nutsmackingly Bump.

Bumpity Bumtpity Bpumtitty Pumbitty Pump Bum.

Maybe YOU could answer FDs question DT?

Back to top

&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins"

IP Logged

deepthought Gold Member Offline In Defence Of Liberty Posts: 2869	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #88 - Jan 5^th, 2008 at 10:14am Quote: Maybe YOU could answer FDs question DT? The moment he asks one I will be sure to oceans.
Back to top	IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #89 - Jan 5^th, 2008 at 5:13pm

deepthought wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 7:18am:

deepthought wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 9:31pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 7:38pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 7:49pm:

deepthought wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 9:20am:

deepthought wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 9:53am:

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2007 at 8:28am:

There were lots of causes operating over different time scales, including Milankovic cycles, variations in the sun's output, natural integrators and positive feedback loops within the earth etc. They were still the drivers up until very recently, when their effects were swamped by anthropogenic influences. The difference now is that CO2 concentrations are unprecedented, as is the rate of warming.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170222422/72#72

So the cause of global warming before humans got involved were lots of things - but they no longer cause global warming? Only humans do now? Why? What happened to the other stuff which used to cause it?

Bump

Bump Bump

Bumpity Bump Bump, Bump Bump.

Bump Bump Bumpity craptacular nutsmackingly Bump.

Bumpity Bumtpity Bpumtitty Pumbitty Pump Bum.

Bump Mump Thumpity smacktaculating crapples Bummpy.

Back to top

IP Logged