Sentences with phrase «all about consensus»

That's a very important change of narrative from being about a person to it being about a consensus among a much broader community.

Learn more about consensus betting data, versus the betting trends data found on Sportsinsights.com.

Ad Hoc Committees are formed at the discretion of the IHSA Board of Directors, generally with the direction to review or attempt to bring about a consensus recommendation on a specific subject or subjects.

@bytebuster - The fact that this - indeed good and neutral - question immediately got a ton of downvotes tells you everything you want to know about consensus.

Politics is about consensus; interest - servicing and contact - greasing.

Mr. de Blasio asked a reporter who wondered whether the two recent rifts had taught him anything about consensus - building.

I don't care about consensus, but for what it's worth: 10 out of 17 means a 59 % consensus that climate sensitivity is likely to be 2C or lower and as such global warming is not dangerous according to UN politically agreed criteria.

They haven't always agreed — especially on which levels of government should do what, how many forms of school choice warrant public funding, how best to evaluate teachers, and so on — but I'm not talking about consensus on the details of policy and implementation.

While we appreciate the state superintendent's desire to involve the community in the decision - making, we would caution him against being overly optimistic about a consensus being reached.

I wrote about that consensus last year in covering the reports released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but also wrote about scientists» frustrations over trying to convey the importance of a slow - motion disaster.

I ask this question since I'm more than fed up with hearing about a consensus.

Second, under pressure from denialists we in the scientific community have spent too much time talking about consensus.

Much has been made this week of the gap between what the public thinks about the consensus among climate scientists over the human factor in global warming and the actual level of consensus.

For years, skeptics have filled comments with dismissive views of climate science to sow doubts about the consensus that fossil fuels are responsible for global warming — dominating that space, according to the group.

I think this observation is rather mundane, and recalling it suffices to see that the claim that «physics is not about consensus» is irrelevant, as is the contrarian battle cry that «science ain't about consensus.»

A few points that have caught my interest so far: • dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas • the idea of reconciliation in scientific debates is to try different approaches in an experimental meeting for attempting nonviolent communication in impassioned debates where there is disagreement • reconciliation is not about consensus, but rather creating an arena where we can have honest disagreement • violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility.

It is also an irrelevant question if we accept, like Nullius does, that science ain't about consensus anyway.

None of this business about consensus, and settled science, and being quiet about results that are not politically correct.

It tells us something about consensuses and debates.

«People who say science is not about consensus, they do not understand science.»

I'm not talking about a consensus of votes by university professors, am I?

Not that I care about a consensus in a too young science with no predictions worth mentioning.

I am talking about a consensus of multiple lines of evidence (empirical evidence in addition to modeling, logic etc.) When there is a large degree of uncertainty, as there is in climate science, a consensus of evidence is most definitely very important.

You get to post things about everyone else's mistakes and about the consensus police.

How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about the consensus?

If the physical evidence supported the dangerous - AGW narrative, nobody would ever have stooped to talking about the consensus.

The fact that they drone on and on and on about consensus, which is not a form of evidence, is good evidence that they HAVE no evidence.

Of course, if the NYTimes or WAPO or CNN or CBS or the AP were ever to report the actual cooling trend over the last 15 years (despite the massive amounts of human CO2 emissions) this would establish that they have been grossly misleading the public for years about consensus «global warming.»

Here it is: «In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated [sic] pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position.

I don't like the skeptic argument of «science isn't about consensus», meaning that we can just ignore any and all consensuses, that they don't give better than chance outcomes.

But potent public statements issued in support of a socially enforced consensus, are typically about consensus prosperity and not about what the seem to say.

To answer your other question from the other comment, no I never think about consensus in my field.

We never talk about consensus.

Of course, this is one example, but in the end I think we all have to realize that science is not about consensus and written publications but about correctness.

Thus making any argument about their consensus unconvincing.

Remember, I don't really care about consensus, I care about something being right, or the likelihood of something being true.

But, while we bicker about consensus, the real world has moved on.

(So what about the consensus among the majority of scientists??)

And it proves my point that the argument about the substance of climate science is obscured by second hand arguments about the consensus.

What interests me about the consensus problem is what are the sociologists of science saying about it?

EDIT 2: Someone else linked this paper about consensus among climate change scientists in regards to AGW.

While I am certain that the consensus is very high among experts this article talks about consensus amongst peer reviewed papers mentioning causes for global warming.

Is it beyond your imagination the Pruitt and Perry have genuine concerns about consensus science and would like to use this exercise to give them certainty in the direction they steer their departments?

and I can honestly say I didn't know about the consensus of the scientific community — just what the media said about the science.

I tend to lean towards skepticism about the consensus on climate change, but I find the amount of misinformation and fanaticism in comments at WUWT these days positively frightening.

Not that the Oreskes paper will end the debate about a consensus.

Even if I ignored everything about his consensus paper (and his follow - up publications which misrepresent it), this is a guy who has fabricated quotes on multiple occasions.

I think the following quote from Steve Connor's email exchange with Freeman Dyson is relevant to your comment above about consensus:

Eli, Without disagreeing with anything you said, particularly about consensus and coherence, let me suggest there is a better analogy than chess.

The have constructed their talmudic lie about consensus, which is about the best they are going to do, and they are pushing this in an attempt to score a home run.