For example, if you accept the post-New
Deal consensus view of the «Lochner era» in American constitutional history, you think that overenforcement is likely to happen when courts review laws dealing with economic regulation and social policy.
Not exact matches
With a
view to possible hung - parliament
deals, Mr Brown has returned to his refrain about a «progressive
consensus».
Oreskes concluded that of those articles (about 75 % of them) that
deal with the question at all, 100 % (all of them) support the
consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities.
She found that 75 percent of papers accepted the
consensus view «either explicitly or implicitly,» while «25 percent
dealt with methods or paleoclimate,» and took no position on AGW.
However, there is a great
deal of this kind of activity going on and - in my
view - any suggestion that science communication is dominated by
consensus messaging is clearly wrong (although I'm not sure that this is what is being suggested).
Of all the papers, 75 % fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the
consensus view; 25 %
dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.