The decisions are made as usual -
by consensus i.e. simple majority vote.
Not exact matches
Madrid can confound elite
consensus and move aggressively to restructure Spain's external debt while redefining its participation in the euro, for example
by leaving the euro while committing credibly (
i.e. with German support) to rejoin the currency union at some specified future date.
Much less can be claimed
by way of
consensus in this area, since not all contemporary theologians are convinced that it is necessary to reconceive the idea of God along process lines (
i.e., as suggested
by the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead as well as
by thinkers such as Teilhard de Chardin).
It is surprising to me that it is often the activists who speak up in support of the scientific
consensus around climate change (
i.e. that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is induced
by humans and is happening), who are the same activists who don't accept the scientific
consensus and evidence that shows that GM crops can be safe.
To the extent that demographers talk about the assumptions underlying the UN medium variant, which now shows world population reaching 9 billion,
by 2042, there's a growing
consensus that the assumptions may prove too optimistic (
i.e. population may grow more rapidly than projected).
If the argument were about facts about the material world —
i.e. objects — the scientific
consensus invoked
by Mann, would have an object.
The Myths are quite entertaining, because the info there does neatly deflate all the rubbish / nonsense talked
by the small number of shills & mavericks who oppose the mainstream science (
i.e. the mainstream science which results in virtually all the climate scientists being in accord with the
consensus of 97 %... or nowadays more likely 99 %)
The researchers acknowledge that skeptics may be slightly over-represented, «it is likely that viewpoints that run counter to the prevailing
consensus are somewhat (
i.e. by a few percentage points) magnified in our results.»
As hypothesized, the effect of the treatment (
i.e. increased belief in the scientific
consensus) on the expressed need for public action is fully mediated
by the intervening variables (
i.e., key beliefs about climate change).
The «prohibition against asking questions», currently being practiced
by proponents of «
consensus» Climate Science, is a polemical device of modern gnostics —
i.e. of those who preach Salvation through the acquisition of Hidden Knowledge, in the form of Systems constructed
by the Enlightened Elite — as part of intellectual swindles in a variety of venues, all focused on obtaining political power.
In other words,
consensus cues are a form of «social proof» easily comprehended
by lay people and experts alike —
i.e., the proportion of relevant experts who are convinced
by the evidence (e.g., 76 out of 77, or 99 %).
The lopsided
consensus of working (
i.e. publishing in peer - reviewed specialist venues) climate scientists for AGW is justified
by the established methods of the Earth Sciences, on a firm foundation of basic Physics.
Since philosophical cohesion is a prerequisite to effectuating a structure
by which partners will agree to be bound, great care must be taken to: (1) determine what the partners want lawyer management to be / not to be,
i.e., strong leadership,
consensus builders, visionaries, functional managers, etc.; and (2) engage in extensive discussion about the partners» respective expectations for individual involvement in decision - making in defined areas, paying particular attention to those areas likely to challenge the natural independence of lawyers who have already successfully achieved partnership.
Many solutions have been proposed, ranging from trusted intermediaries (totally centralized,
i.e. Bloomberg delivering financial data) and distributed
consensus protocols (totally decentralized,
i.e. the settlement protocols proposed
by Gnosis and Augur).