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.
Actually, I believe that any poll on a science topic is meaningless, since most people are scientifically illiterate.
For example, should I ask a very basic question like "All scientists believe in the existence of invisible light. True or False?", I am pretty sure that many people would get the wrong answer.
Come on. Enough about science is taught in typical high schools in an advanced country like Canada that your example is child's play, and anyone who wishes to stay up to snuff can stay informed through media such as the internet, or various publications. Especially concerning the climate controversy.
That's not to say that people necessarily have to take only 'science' into account regarding the controversy. There's politics or religion too.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Wednesday, 11th March, 2015, 11:23 AM.
Reason: Adding last two sentences.
Some polls on chesstalk get a better response rate than others. Do you have anything positive to say for a change, Kerry?
Actually, I believe that any poll on a science topic is meaningless, since most people are scientifically illiterate.
For example, should I ask a very basic question like "All scientists believe in the existence of invisible light. True or False?", I am pretty sure that many people would get the wrong answer.
What turns me off about this debate is how most see this a black and white argument, from either side. I cannot accept that things are that simple and cut and dried. I think its pretty certain that there has been a significant increase in overall global temperature, and that human activities (carbon emissions) are a significant, MAYBE the major component of this change. But determining the actual impacts (and their timing) in different parts of the world is no simple matter. Accounting for other non-anthropogenic phenomena such as sunspot activity, El Nino, volcanic activity and so on isn't simple. I think that, on the political side, the debate is being driven by the now-popular 'Precautionary Principle' which basically says "Well, things MIGHT get really bad at SOME point in the future in SOME parts of the world, so we'd better assume the worst and take appropriate action" That's fine if said actions are fairly easy and not particularly inconvenient (e.g. using a blue box to recycle or using energy efficient light bulbs) but with major sacrifices (causing large economic impacts)- people are going to be a bit more hesitant until the proverbial wolf is at the door. Basic human nature.
Actually, now that I've thought about it more, IMHO this position (highlighted) is basically in support of the argument that we humans have caused (with our essential/significant help) global climate change, i.e. to arise, or at least to increase/accelerate (in spite of the parts not highlighted in my quote).
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Tuesday, 10th March, 2015, 08:01 PM.
Reason: Highlighting quote, editing reply
What turns me off about this debate is how most see this a black and white argument, from either side. I cannot accept that things are that simple and cut and dried. I think its pretty certain that there has been a significant increase in overall global temperature, and that human activities (carbon emissions) are a significant, MAYBE the major component of this change. But determining the actual impacts (and their timing) in different parts of the world is no simple matter. Accounting for other non-anthropogenic phenomena such as sunspot activity, El Nino, volcanic activity and so on isn't simple. I think that, on the political side, the debate is being driven by the now-popular 'Precautionary Principle' which basically says "Well, things MIGHT get really bad at SOME point in the future in SOME parts of the world, so we'd better assume the worst and take appropriate action" That's fine if said actions are fairly easy and not particularly inconvenient (e.g. using a blue box to recycle or using energy efficient light bulbs) but with major sacrifices (causing large economic impacts)- people are going to be a bit more hesitant until the proverbial wolf is at the door. Basic human nature.
I'm not sure it would satisfy everyone, but I think the last poll option I offered:
something I'm not at all sure is happening
might closest suit the position you gave, Ken.
[edit: on the other hand, I wish I had added a ninth option to the poll, "happening, but I'm not at all sure is manmade". :( Hopefully anyone who might have chose that option won't be shy about making a post to that effect in this thread instead. It may have suited you better, Ken, for example.]
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Tuesday, 10th March, 2015, 08:03 PM.
Reason: Spelling
What turns me off about this debate is how most see this a black and white argument, from either side. I cannot accept that things are that simple and cut and dried. I think its pretty certain that there has been a significant increase in overall global temperature, and that human activities (carbon emissions) are a significant, MAYBE the major component of this change. But determining the actual impacts (and their timing) in different parts of the world is no simple matter. Accounting for other non-anthropogenic phenomena such as sunspot activity, El Nino, volcanic activity and so on isn't simple. I think that, on the political side, the debate is being driven by the now-popular 'Precautionary Principle' which basically says "Well, things MIGHT get really bad at SOME point in the future in SOME parts of the world, so we'd better assume the worst and take appropriate action" That's fine if said actions are fairly easy and not particularly inconvenient (e.g. using a blue box to recycle or using energy efficient light bulbs) but with major sacrifices (causing large economic impacts)- people are going to be a bit more hesitant until the proverbial wolf is at the door. Basic human nature.
As of today there are over 500 views of this thread and only 22 votes and 12 replies (not counting this reply...)
I think we can now have a poll about the value of polls... wait, perhaps that would be just as meaningless.
Some polls on chesstalk get a better response rate than others. Do you have anything positive to say for a change, Kerry?
This is a poll designed to see how respondents feel about the notion of global climate change occuring at present.
As of today there are over 500 views of this thread and only 22 votes and 12 replies (not counting this reply...)
I think we can now have a poll about the value of polls... wait, perhaps that would be just as meaningless.
Many people don't understand that global warming can have many apparently counter intuitive effects, like having a colder Winter (we have this because the jet stream is weaker, and the arctic cold air can now go much furter to the south - of course it means that the north is also warmer).
That very well could be! I'd lean towards it not happening to the extent people think (of course it's going to happen somewhat!) and is all a hoax. Sadly many of these things are a hoax, especially if they involved war.
Caleb, not everything is a conspiracy or hoax. Sure, they do exist, but sometimes if it "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck!" More evidence of global warming / climate change: http://time.com/3656646/2014-hottest-year/
That very well could be! I'd lean towards it not happening to the extent people think (of course it's going to happen somewhat!) and is all a hoax. Sadly many of these things are a hoax, especially if they involved war.
Fwiw, below is a wikipedia entry (circa 2012) showing belief in climate change as a percentage, in various nations (the CBC, circa 2011, has a higher percantage of Canadians as believers [80%!], whereas they, like the wikipedia results a year later, have Americans at about 50%). Since we're on chesstalk, my poll here may take in a higher percantage of skeptical-by-nature Canadians, with many of us perhaps being such, as chessplayers.
Could we get a poll on gravity next please? I've felt a little heavier over the course of the past 6 months, and my scale is confirming it. Pretty sure 'Big Scale' is behind the gravity scam. After all, it's 'only a theory' right? ;)
Bumping up this poll at least one more time, to try to get more votes registered. Folks have had a long time to form an opinion on this topic, based on what they've read or heard, and I thought there might be more interest in giving some input without putting oneself at risk of any of the written flak involved by making a post in a climate thread.
If the jet stream is so easy to predict without taking into consideration El Nino and the upper air systems then the scientists could get rich with Orange Juice futures. So simple is predicting the weather.
Well, I could have told Simon that mere facts and science won't change any minds in here. Gary was told that climate and weather are two different things years ago, but has yet to grasp this simple concept.
Leave a comment: