Claim: A recent essay in Scientific American argued that scientists “tend to underestimate the severity of threats and the rapidity with which they might unfold” and said one of the reasons was “the perceived need for consensus.”

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: After the conference, they signed in the presence of Stephen Hawking, the 'Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness', which summarizes the most important findings of the survey: "We decided to reach a consensus and make a statement directed to the public that is not scientific.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: Further criticism stems from the fact that the phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus definition.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: But recently scientists and scholars have challenged the legitimacy of this journalistic core value with regard to matters of great importance on which the overwhelming majority of the scientific community has reached a well-substantiated consensus view.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: As Stephen Schneider put it: “a mainstream, well-established consensus may be ‘balanced’ against the opposing views of a few extremists, and to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible.” Science journalism concerns itself with gathering and evaluating various types of relevant evidence and rigorously checking sources and facts.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: Kuhn made several claims concerning the progress of scientific knowledge: that scientific fields undergo periodic "paradigm shifts" rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way, and that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before; and that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: By contrast, work on the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge (ASC) suggests that such consensus assessments are likely to understate climate disruptions [...] new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Giving equal voice to scientists on both sides makes it seem like there is a serious disagreement within the scientific community, when in fact there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming exists.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Consensus includes a distributed agreement that an actual threat is going to take place.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: A scientific consensus on climate change exists, as recognized by national academies of science and other authoritative bodies.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: In the late 1960s some members of the scientific community began to express pointed concerns.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: There are differences between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public.