Thank you, LH, for the clarification. Nevertheless, I raised the point because, in these discussions, pete always raises the question of concensus in science - and there is always the implication, in his posts, that scientific conclusions (or 'opinions' as he mistakenly believes them to be) involving concensus are somehow inferior ... to conclusions/'opinions' not involving concensus (!)

Let's be clear:

- The opinions of 'Joe Bloggs', from down the pub, may well say more about whatever it is goes on in his head than they say about the real world. Having said that, though, some people's opinions are more worth listening to, and considering, than others.

- There may be concensus among the members of a particular group (a group of religious fundamentalists, for example), on some topic that interests them, but unless that concensus opinion is based on evidence, it's not really worth the proverbial 'hill-of-beans'.

- Concensus among scientists, though, is invariably based on evidence. And that evidence may have been gathered, considered and evaluated over many years, decades or even centuries. To be taken seriously, by the scientific community, the evidence has to be consistent and reproducible. Conclusions, models and scientific theories, based on such high quality evidence, is infinitely superior to mere opinion!