The International Panel on Climate Change made some effort to define terminology. This is how the Panel defined terms to describe the degree of agreement:
Everything should be just fine then – or what? Can you see what is missing?
What about disagreement?
It seems like it didn´t even occur to them that they could need terms to describe disagreement. Maybe they didn´t need the term. Let us check. It turns out that the term disagreement were used at 24 pages. The working group used the following terms: Disagreement, substantial disagreement, considerable disagreement, more disagreement, large disagreements, apparent disagreement.
Of course – this does not prove anything. It only indicates a mindset skewed towards an expected outcome. It is also a clear indication that the mindset is not in accordance with modern scientific principles where a critical attitude and scrutiny are important and necessary for reliable and useful results.
In my view a reliable scientific body would both define terms related to agreement and disagreement – if they spent effort on defining these qualitative terms at all. A reliable scientific organization would not define terms related to agreement and then forget to define terms related to disagreement.