Are there some pre-requisites to eligibility for the description “climate scientist”? eg:

1. Must they be on the public payroll, with their income dependent on the approval of politicians?

2. Do they have to attend at least one annual junket (at taxpayer expense) so as to join in the group-think?

3. Are they excluded if their papers are rejected by “Nature”, or fail to appear in IPCC reports?

And, what constitutes a “consensus”? eg:

1. If scientist A projects sea levels will rise 1 foot, while “B” projects a rise of 6 feet – are they in consensus?

2. If both A and B believe sea levels will change (either up or down) – are they in consensus?

3 If Lindzen and Hansen both believe “the release of greenhouse gases by human civilization” causes global temps to rise – as they do – are they blood brothers?

Is there any discernible point in all this semantic waste of time? [Obnoxious verb removed. The target of your abuse here is unclear, Clarence, but the point of the post is to find a sensible means to destroy the false impression of consensus. Thanks for your perspicacity, as always, this time in extending the pitfalls in defining a consensus. - Richard T]