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.
Can it please accelerate faster? Its still damn cold in Edmonton! :)
It's mild here in the Greater Toronto Area. Here we haven't had any snow in November, which is the first time since they started keeping records. I'm not sure what the degree days are for this area but it seems they are lower this year. In other words, we are using less natural gas for heating.
The forecast I've seen for the next couple of weeks is for warmer than normal weather.
I guess we're using less natural gas.
Now I must run. I have to go out and get a sun tan. :)
Man made climate change is a hoax based on bad science. There is no consensus except among those with a vested interest who will discard conflicting observations and only use data that agrees with their preformed biases. This is not the way that science is done.
Apparently much of the original data has been lost or destroyed and we are asked to trust the adjusted data and ignore the embarassing emails that show the scientists who claim consensus were cooking the data.
Ignore the man behind the curtain and trust the great and powerful Oz.
Certain people should go to jail over this but they won't.
*******************************************************
"The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. "
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
Looking at Toronto's "official" weather records (which only go back to 1937), there have been several years with a "trace" of snow during November (i.e. less than 0.1 cm of snow).
Excluding today (there may have been as much as 0.5 to 1 cm of snow today, Nov. 30) in Montreal so far this November there has only been a "trace" or snow on one day. Likewise - Montreal has had just a "trace" a couple of times in Novembers since the start of its "official" records in 1941.
Conversely - both Toronto and Montreal have experienced Novembers with over 60 cm. of snow.
Well, one side is presenting the results obtained by actual climate scientists with actual doctorates who publish in actual peer reviewed journals and a few of whom have earned Nobel prizes.
The other is proclaiming beliefs from people who stand to make a big profit if no action is taken, and often take money from those same people.
I know which side I think is more likely to be correct
Groupthink. Peer reviews are done by a small group of scientists who agree with each other and exhibit religious zealotry in the face of legitimate skepticism from other more thoughtful scientists. They are supported by a media machine which refuses to report any contrary opinion or evidence. In the days before the internet they could have got away with it.
The hacked emails story doesn't seem to come up in the mainstream media for some strange reason aside from denials that they are taken out of context. If they ignore it, maybe it will go away.
Looking at Toronto's "official" weather records (which only go back to 1937), there have been several years with a "trace" of snow during November (i.e. less than 0.1 cm of snow).
Excluding today (there may have been as much as 0.5 to 1 cm of snow today, Nov. 30) in Montreal so far this November there has only been a "trace" or snow on one day. Likewise - Montreal has had just a "trace" a couple of times in Novembers since the start of its "official" records in 1941.
Conversely - both Toronto and Montreal have experienced Novembers with over 60 cm. of snow.
This has been an unusual November. We've had rain but that doesn't have to be shovelled. I seem to recall Octobers when we have had snow but it melted.
For depletion of the natural gas storage in Alberta, they need real cold weather in the high population areas. It's not only houses which use it for heat but the big apartment buildings.
All the talk about conservation is bad news for an industry which has an excess of supply. As older homes replace their furnaces it's with the high or medium efficiency furnaces which burn less gas. I don't think you can buy the low efficiency furnaces which are being replaced these days.
All this should add up to lower gas heating bills for those who aren't locked into fixed rate contracts with private firms which sell door to door.
Groupthink. Peer reviews are done by a small group of scientists who agree with each other and exhibit religious zealotry in the face of legitimate skepticism from other more thoughtful scientists. They are supported by a media machine which refuses to report any contrary opinion or evidence. In the days before the internet they could have got away with it.
I see you have nothing left but name calling.
Well, you can make evidence free claims such as the above a thousand times if you like, and it won't be any more true than it is now, which is, of course, more or less completely untrue. What are your scientific qualifications as a climate scientist, Vlad?
The hacked emails story doesn't seem to come up in the mainstream media for some strange reason aside from denials that they are taken out of context. If they ignore it, maybe it will go away.
It has been all over the media, why I don't know, because it is utterly unimportant and changes nothing. It "reveals" that scientists are human beings with human failings and human emotions, which is only a surprise to people who have been asleep all their lives.
The purpose of the scientific method, including the peer review you scorn, is to make advancements possible in spite of our all too many human failings.
Now if you want to reject science I suggest you should stop using computers and the other things science has developed (along with engineering of course).
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Tuesday, 1st December, 2009, 04:40 PM.
Ah, so Einstein was wrong and those atomic bombs never happened, eh?
Of course, I didn't ask you to have any faith in those who win Nobel Prizes, so you are simply waiving a red herring.
Ed,
That's funny, I like how you point out Brad's logical fallacy by introducing one on your own.
How exactly did you interpret Brad Thompson's statement "Barack Obama is about to receive his Nobel Prize, for Peace... In other words, I have no faith in the recipients of Nobel Prizes." to mean "Einstein was wrong and those atomic bombs never happened"?
I don't recall reading anything Brad said that included Einstein, nor did he mention that all Nobel winners were wrong, nor did I see anything about bombs. So I eagerly await your explanation of how Brad's statement lead to yours...
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
How exactly did you interpret Brad Thompson's statement "Barack Obama is about to receive his Nobel Prize, for Peace... In other words, I have no faith in the recipients of Nobel Prizes." to mean "Einstein was wrong and those atomic bombs never happened"?
I think it's pretty obvious, myself. He can generalize from example of an (in his mind) untrustworthy or unworthy Nobel prize winner to all of them. He didn't say which ones he did and didn't trust, he said he doesn't trust any of them. So he must distrust Einstein in particular then. Or does he just trust those parts of Science that agree with his personal viewpoints?
I don't recall reading anything Brad said that included Einstein, nor did he mention that all Nobel winners were wrong
"I have no faith in the recipients of Nobel Prizes" includes all of them, and doesn't exclude any of them. So, if he was telling the truth and is consistent (a big assumption I will admit) then he must distrust, among all the others, Einstein in particular.
I see you have nothing left but an active imagination.
Well, you can make evidence free claims such as the above a thousand times if you like, and it won't be any more true than it is now, which is, of course, more or less completely untrue. What are your scientific qualifications as a climate scientist, Vlad?
"The leaked material comprised more than 1,000 e-mails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented Fortran source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[39] Some of the emails purportedly included discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change sceptics, unflattering comments about sceptics, queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers,[13] keeping scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature,[7] and talk of destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.[40] "
"Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, confirmed that all of the leaked emails that had provoked heated debate appeared to be genuine." [Hickman, Leo, "and agencies", "Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims", November 24, 2009, The Guardian. Retrieved November 25, 2009.]
Ed, why would they want to send emails about destroying the original data to avoid revealing that data to Freedom of Information Act requests? Might it be that a careful examination of the original data might show that they played a bit fast and loose with what the data actually showed like they did with their model that showed a hockey stick graph from random noise fed into it? Even more shocking is that they actually did destroy the data so that no one could examine it.
What are your scientific qualifications as a climate scientist, Ed?
It has been all over the media, why I don't know, because it is utterly unimportant and changes nothing.
Isn't that what Nixon said about the erased tape? Didn't it help bring down his presidency?
It "reveals" that scientists are human beings with human failings and human emotions, which is only a surprise to people who have been asleep all their lives.
It reveals a pattern of collusion and deceit and a lack of confidence in their science which required them to destroy the evidence so that it could not be questioned.
The purpose of the scientific method, including the peer review you scorn, is to make advancements possible in spite of our all too many human failings.
How can you have peer review when you conspire to destroy the evidence? Do you understand what peer review means?
Now if you want to reject science I suggest you should stop using computers and the other things science has developed (along with engineering of course).
I only reject shoddy science as practiced by your so-called climate "scientists".
Vlad, how does a hoax make the ocean more acidic? Have you considered a job at Yuk Yuk's?
Did they destroy the original data on ocean acidity too?
The numbers in your post on acidity seem a bit off. You also fail to account for the feedback mechanisms that will tend to buffer the effects that you discussed.
I see that certain individuals are now claiming much larger temperature rises over the next century hoping to ram through an agreement before too much more is made of the revelations in those emails and the incidents with the destroyed data, not to mention that if we wait ten more years there might be conclusive evidence that its all a crock. Chicken Little in full FX and digital surround sound.
Until the climate change deniers provide counter-arguments to the substantive arguments made by the scientific community, I see no reason to give them any creedence. If this is a big hoax, it should be a simple matter to demonstrate the flaw in one or both of these arguments:
1. An increase in C02 concentration in the atmosphere is likely to cause increased surface temperature.
2. Increased C02 concentration in the atmosphere is caused in part by human activity.
The argument that the temperature has not actually increased over x number of years is not a response to either of these arguments. Nevermind that it is patently obvious that the average temperature HAS increased over the last several decades. Even if it had declined, there could be unrelated mechanisms responsible for that decline.
It is interesting though that no one makes logical arguments saying, for example, "the theory that CO2 affects climate is wrong for the following reasons..." or "the idea that humans affect the CO2 content in the atmosphere is wrong for the following reasons..." If they did there could be a real debate, but as it is there is no point in engaging in this discussion.
Let's assume for the moment that points one and two are true (though I don't really see how point two can be proven or disproven). Sadly, even this will not do much to change human behaviour, imo.
Democratic governments are elected. They generally have a very short vision. Getting re-elected relies on telling people that things are going to get better if you are in charge, even if it isn't true and even if you know it isn't true.
People behave like governments. They will do what is expedient, convenient, and which requires the least work for the most immediate payoff. The guy who smokes knowing that there is a decent chance it will end his life early, the guy who likes Doritos even though he knows that it isn't good for him and is unhealthy, the guy who drives his SUV five minutes to the store instead of walking, all of these people sacrifice their long-term prospects for short-term pleasure and convenience. BTW, I am the Doritos guy. ;-)
Look around you. I see people who are too lazy to take their garbage five metres and put it in the trash can, and instead just drop it on the ground. These people are going to vote to inconvenience themselves and sacrifice their way of life? Surely, there is pretty much a 0% chance of that!
You could tell people that with 100% certainty that humankind will die out in 200 years if we do or don't do X (e.g. stop eating meat, stop driving cars, stop drilling the Tar Sands) and if X is inconvenient to them now, the majority of people will not change their behaviour.
And why should they? I walked to and from a lesson this morning. It is a pretty miserable day here in Ottawa and the walk is about 45 minutes each way. I could take a car and do it in less than ten. So I decreased today's world-wide carbon footprint by .0000001% and inconvenience myself by an extra 350+%. Who is going to make that sort of sacrifice? It's clearly not rational. ;-)
While coming back, I decided to make a short observation. Standing over the Queensway on Woodroffe, I made a totally unscientific survey of the cars passing below. I counted 100 cars pass in a bit less than a minute. More than 80%(!) of them had only one occupant. Okay, my sample size is tiny and not scientifically relevant, but I would wager that the actual percentage is not far off. Those people are simply never,ever going to change their behaviour. They will not elect governments that change it and they are certainly not going to be thankful that they were "saved" from their present, pleasant way of life.
Imo, it will require a calamity the likes of which modern man has never seen in order to enact the type of major change necessary to halt the warming of the planet if people are the cause. Even then, frankly, I wouldn't bet on humanity.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Re: Have you read about the e-mails and, if so,.....
Ken, this letter from over 500 scientists to the PM may interest you...
Scientists press PM on climate change
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Dec. 03, 2009 12:00AM EST Last updated on Thursday, Dec. 03, 2009 2:11AM EST
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
In advance of UN climate talks next week in Copenhagen, more than 500 of Canada's leading scientists have issued an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper warning that global warming is happening much faster than previously estimated and that government needs much more aggressive targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
"We're seeing no movement on the part of our politicians and yet pretty well all of the science that's come out since about 2007 has indicated that climate change is moving faster than we thought," said David Schindler, a professor of ecology at the University of Alberta, who helped draft the letter, which was circulated to scientists by environmental group WWF-Canada.
The letter, which will be released publicly later today above the names of some of Canada's most internationally recognized environmental researchers, says the Conservative government's current policy, which amounts to a cut in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2.7 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, will not be large enough to forestall rapid climate change.
It says far larger reductions - in the range of 25 to 40 per cent - will be required to keep global warming to less than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Scientists believe any greater increase will lead to catastrophic climate change.
"Each year that we delay taking sufficient action on climate change costs us and future generations more and increases the difficulty in succeeding," the letter says.
Dr. Schindler says that in the scientific community there is dismay over what is perceived as a lack of reaction by Ottawa to research showing the country is at risk of great damage. These projected effects include a greater frequency of droughts on the Prairies, forest destruction through the spread of pests such as the pine beetle, and infrastructure damage from melting permafrost.
"I really think the key people in our government don't believe in science at all," Dr. Schindler said.
"I don't know what we have to do to get this government's attention."
Brad, "seeing the light" is actually a result of the climate changing rapidly now, as compared to previous decades. A carbon tax is not likely to happen, more likely is a cap and trade type system to make it profitable for companies to become more efficient and lower their emissions.
Tweet
Comment