Michael Tobis wrote:
> The US National Institutes of Health apparently has a consensus
> process:
>
> http://consensus.nih.gov/PREVIOUSSTATEMENTS.htm
>
> I really don't see why this word should constitute an issue, nor would
> it, I think, had Crichton and co. not made a fuss about it.
I have no problem with the word itself, nor with scientists describing
the consensus that exists. But I cannot help but be aware of the risk
that people allow their thoughts to be constrained (or perhaps betrayed)
by an unfortunate choice of words, as in "_the_ pdf of climate sensitivity".
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
