If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Since the Naomie scandal came out, many well known scientists came out and admitted that there was no consensus based on the peer review that led to this huge scandal.
3 - Then someone did a peer review of her work. He used the same databases, and the same words to find the articles she said she was referring to. Instead of 1247 articles, he found 12,000 articles. She then recognised that she did not use the words "climate change", but instead the words "global climate change". Then started the scandal since she falsely claimed previously that scientist that talked about climate changes were convinced of "GLOBAL WARMING ON EARTH". This was no more true. It appears that if she had used the expression "climate change" there would have been no consensus at all like a study has shown afterward.
On the same site Ed cited, we have a specific page about this claim :
An examination of the papers that critics claim refute the consensus are found to actually endorse the consensus or are review papers (eg - they don't offer any new research but merely review other papers). This led the original critic Benny Peis(n)er to retract his criticism of Oreskes' study.
Peiser's retraction in an email to Media Watch:
Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.
When she published her study in the very serious prestigious magazine "SCIENCE", did you see any eco-extremists say "She is not a scientist, do not listen to her"? No they took her story everywhere they could and I saw a reference to it on the cereals box of my kids last year. On the cereal box it never said: "Their is a scientific consensus on global warming base on the stuy of Noemie but kids be careful she is not a scientist herself".
Being an historian of science, Oreskes is entitled to study the history of sciences. History does not stop in 1934. Recent events can be considered from an historical point of view.
Reading science abstracts is a part of an historian of science's research. Oreskes also studied geology, in case one doubts her scientific background.
The claim that Oreskes is a climate scientist is simply false.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Saturday, 26th December, 2009, 03:13 PM.
Their models entitle them not to predict, but to forecast:
I forecast the future will be like the past. Eventually another ice age will come. Then it will go. My model uses a longer time period than the ones which are being posted here.
Were you satisfied with the outcome at Copenhagen? What immediate actions are being taken? If disaster is imminent why was more not done?
If the Americans stop all buying of oil from Canada because they don't like how it's obtained from the Tar sands, what do you suppose would happen? Maybe they would have to import more from nations which don't like them and as a result the price they pay would rise to well over $100. a barrel. Their economy would again falter.
So they will continue to complain and we will continue to ignore them. It's all part of the game.
I forecast the future will be like the past. Eventually another ice age will come. Then it will go. My model uses a longer time period than the ones which are being posted here.
Finally, there is someone who understands the situation.
I think it's better to bask in the sun than freeze in the snow.
My roses were beautiful this summer. Do you know what that means? It means they got more water than other years. Probably the scientists would call it acid rain. :)
Who is not a climate scientist at all. Another fib from Carl.
Ed,
Remove the word scientist if you want, "my description" here changes nothing to the scandal. She has been published in the top scientific magasines. In magasines where they refuse those who denied the global warming (is this a scientific approach for you?).
You have used very bad words to describe those who denied the false consensus. Now the proof of the consensus you bring is the one that has been shown to be completly false. She took about 1,200 studys out of 12,000. She falsely described her experiment to the scientific community.
What do you answer to such a manipulation of data and on purpose selection of articles to show a consensus?
Since her study has shown to be falsification, do you agree to have some critics on this reference you gave or do we have to take her conclusions as is everytime you will refer to it?
Do you realize that 90% of the "scientific consensus" comes from and started with this study she did?
But listen to me, I do not say you are in fault. It is a normal habit for all of us to believe in articles that have been published in the top scientific magazines. Mass manipulation of data and facts never occurs in any science subject. Climate is an exception since it is highly emotional about the faith of humankind. When someone study in climate science, most of the time they have deep personnal conviction in the beginning. The same does not occurs in mathematic or physics at so high levels.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Saturday, 26th December, 2009, 05:51 PM.
There has been peer review and they chalenge SOME of his conclusions. But Benoit, the main conclusions about the manipulation of data, the wrong use of words, the elimination of 10000 articles, the false association of a consensus are still true and have not been contredicted by the peer review.
This is the normal scientific way of doing things: Peer review and critics. In the end the Noemie's study main conclusions about a "consensus in the scientific community" does not work and are false. There has been three petitions signed since her reports that show the scientific community has no consensus on global warming.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Saturday, 26th December, 2009, 05:52 PM.
If we could find an impartial intelligent jury that would be great but I don't think that we can.
I think that it will soon be painfully obvious that it was a hoax as we keep getting reports of data fudging everywhere that the original data can be checked (Russia, New Zealand and Antarctica spring to mind.).
My brother phoned today from Dallas and they had snow there on Christmas for the first time in most peoples' living memory. This is going to keep happening notwithstanding Ed Seedhouse's ludicrous pronouncements on the subject.
I will always be skeptical where it seems that the scientists demanding drastic measures refuse to release the original unadjusted data. Climategate was only a confirmation of what I already knew to be true from reading the accounts of the climate skeptics who had been trying to get the original data to do their own analysis.
We have a mystery here where everyone seems intent on framing the suspect CO2 for everything from global warming to ocean acidification and nonexistent rising sea levels (where Ed's religious devotion and belief seems incongruous since the sea level scientists don't agree with Ed's climate science high priests). The evidence just doesn't fit, so we must acquit.
Vlad Drkulec
I totally agree with you here. I myself became suspicious about the eco-extremists a few years ago. Then I started to seek for the data myself and I found that the whole thing is a game. They are the good ones and anything is good for their truth to go throught even if the weather does not agree.
The same apply to any religion, at one point, the facts and the science is no more important so they write a bible and we have to believe it or die. If you deny, it means you don't care about humanity and you are a capitalist that will consume the earth and the end of world will come soon.
....
Even if, as seems likely, there is then still a consensus on human activities heating the planet,
....
If we get rid of the false study and manipulated data, from what is left do we really know if we are heating or freezing the planet?
Most likely it is a neutral effect in my opinion since there is so much variables in the equation. Heat produce more evaporation of the water, the evaporation produce more cold. The sun variations in the black spots seems to have much more impact than any human activity.
Remerber life florish.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Saturday, 26th December, 2009, 05:53 PM.
The main conclusions about the manipulation of data, the wrong use of words, the elimination of 10000 articles, the false association of a consensus are still true and have not been contredicted by the peer review.
From this text I see that she is an emotional preacher about global warming. In the text she still claims there is consensus, she refers to the scientists of the climategate emails, and to their false studys.
She talks to the american public in the text and want them to believe in global warming and gives them many reason to do so. She show the statistics about the believers in USA and want it to change. This is preaching.
Benoit, when I read scientific articles I never see that kind of emotional preaching. No doubt climate is a religion for her and nothing in the world will change her mind, not even a drastic cooling. Don't expect her to write this year about the recent recovery of ice and the effect this had on many scientists.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Saturday, 26th December, 2009, 06:10 PM.
In the end the Noemie's study main conclusions about a "consensus in the scientific community" does not work and are false.
The hypothesis was about the drafting of the reports downplaying legitimate dissenting opinions. The test was an analysis of 928 abstracts between 1993 and 2003, listed in the ISI database with the keywords "Global Climate Change". The conclusion was that 75% of them endorsed implicitely or explicitely the consensus view, and that the 25% remaining articles did not disagreed with the consensus position.
The claim that Oreskes conclusions prove are that there is a consensus is bad.
The claim that Oreskes' conclusions have been disproved by Peiser is false.
The claim that Oreskes' study is a scandal is wrong.
Tweet
Comment