A new study, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine,
establishes expert consensus about treatment approaches that should be implemented when these behaviors arise.
Not exact matches
1) Copenhagen demonstrated that global governance has overreached itself; 2) The crisis provokes a shift away from idealistic globalism, back to pragmatic concerns; 3) «Global
consensus»
established by «
experts» is not and has never been genuine; 4) The institutions of global governance prove unable to resolve their identity crisis and to reform themselves; they are fragmented; 5) Global governance pays the bill for not taking into account non-western cultures and civilisations; 6) Displaying an incapacity to provide real leadership, produce a vision for the world, new ideas / ideologies, global governance opts for a survival approach.
By 2001 this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) managed to
establish a
consensus, phrased so cautiously that scarcely any
expert or government representative dissented.
Russia openly opposed the creation of a Group of Governmental
Experts, but did not block multilateral
consensus for
establishing one.
A panel of
experts used a
consensus process to analyse and discuss the data, and to grade the level of evidence and strength of recommendations according to
established methods of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.