There is no evidence either from ethnographic
accounts or archaeological excavations to suggest
that rates of accidental trauma or interpersonal
violence declined substantially with the adoption
of more civilized forms of political organization.
In fact, some evidence from archaeological sites
and from historical sources suggests the opposite.

I've been seeing more and more use of the word "consensus" on both sides if environmental/land-use issues. Personally, I don't think we should co-opt the word, but rather challenge its use.

The word was popularized in this matter by TV-scientist Carl Sagan when he was on a tour to hype the "catastrophic climate change" hooey. Most folks heard it for the first time on the "Tonight" show, ie: "consensus science."

The problem with "consensus science" is that it does not legitimately exist. "Consensus Science" resulted in the prosecution of Galileo -- in other words, there have been many, many cases where the majority of the science community turned out to be dead wrong on issues. Science is not democratic.

The papers submitted to the CAO committee by CAPR's scientist did a fabulous job of debunking the validity of "consensus science." It is not something that exists in the science world -- it is only an attempt to sway public opinion.

_,_.___