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.
When I saw them storming the ramparts on TV, I thought it was a strange way of putting REAL (TM) & (C) science in front in front of the public. Someone should have thrown oil down from the roof to grease their descent. :)
That would have given the television stations a rating boost.
Which climate scientist are you basing that analysis on?
It is straightforward physics, actually. I know you don't get the difference between climate and weather, but others do. Weather is an oscillating system, similar in some regards to a pendulum, though not of course entirely.
A characteristic of oscillating systems is that when you inject energy into them they oscillate more in both directions of oscillation. Take a swinging pendulum and give it a push to the right. It will swing further right, but then it will also swing further left as well.
Early in the response of the weather to the warming of the climate, the science predicts that the weather will oscillate between wider extremes, both on the warm end and on the cold end. As energy is injected into the climate, the extremes of weather will become greater. Eventually the rise in average temperature will overcome this on the low end, of course.
This has been explained over and over by the very climate scientists you disdain. Unlike you apparently, I was listening.
I have not seen this startling new development in thermodynamics until you wrote about it.
Hardly surprising, since you think you already know everything about climate and weather you didn't bother to read the actual science. I'd suggest you find every book about science that Isaac Asimov ever wrote and read every one of them. Then you might not continually make such a fool of yourself
So climate is like an oscillating fan and it will go back and forth?
OK. stand up and repeat after me: "WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE". Say it maybe 10,000 times until you understand it, though judging from the way you talk that might not be enough.
Good thing that we have you here to explain these scientific concepts to us.
I'd be happy to explain more if you were willing to learn anything. But a good dose of Isaac Asimov will do you much more good.
Early in the response of the weather to the warming of the climate, the science predicts that the weather will oscillate between wider extremes, both on the warm end and on the cold end. As energy is injected into the climate, the extremes of weather will become greater. Eventually the rise in average temperature will overcome this on the low end, of course.
A characteristic of oscillating systems is that when you inject energy into them they oscillate more in both directions of oscillation. Take a swinging pendulum and give it a push to the right. It will swing further right, but then it will also swing further left as well.
A better way to picture this is to take a Vlad Drkulec bobblehead figure whose head is already swinging left and right (an emphatic "NO" to global warming) and as the head is swinging left, you hit it to make it go further left. It will go further left and then further right, making Vlad's "NO" even more emphatic!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Another "piece" that will cause some consternation, especially because it opens with...
"Repeating the words "scientific consensus" over and over and telling sad stories about polar bears does not qualify as "science." So, why is it that the people who insist that Man-made global warming is based on science, not politics, always get shaky and defensive when people want to actually talk about the reasoning behind it?"
Another "piece" that will cause some consternation, especially because it opens with...
"Repeating the words "scientific consensus" over and over and telling sad stories about polar bears does not qualify as "science." So, why is it that the people who insist that Man-made global warming is based on science, not politics, always get shaky and defensive when people want to actually talk about the reasoning behind it?"
Well, as that is a straight out lie from my own knowledge I don't think I'll be visiting it.
Who care about this post, really? It's a chess site, not a 'global warming' forum. And by the way, do you think anyone on this earth can solve the problem of climate change? Let's face it, folks, we can't even take care of each other on the planet, never mind the environment...
Who care about this post, really? It's a chess site, not a 'global warming' forum. And by the way, do you think anyone on this earth can solve the problem of climate change? Let's face it, folks, we can't even take care of each other on the planet, never mind the environment...
From the action above, I get the impression that many members are interested in the subject even though it is non-chess oriented.
Surely, an intelligent guy like you should be able to figure out how to avoid threads he doesn't like.
Ed, no disrespect intended, but I was getting at the following. if you are/were a scientist in this specific field, you are correct that "knowledge" is accurate. If you are trusting the opinions of others, then "belief" may be a better description.
I guess I was too abrupt in asking for this information in that manner.
Were you directly involved as a scientist in Global Warming?
Ed, no disrespect intended, but I was getting at the following. if you are/were a scientist in this specific field, you are correct that "knowledge" is accurate. If you are trusting the opinions of others, then "belief" may be a better description.
Your logic is entirely faulty. No, I am not a scientist, just someone who has made it his business, over the span of his life so far, to keep up with science in general. I do read publications from scientific organizations from time to time, and though of course I don't understand it all since I'm not good at advanced math beyond statistics, it isn't hard to understand that there is a Scientific consensus favoring anthropogenic climate warming just as it isn't hard to learn that there is a similar consensus about the fact of Evolution.
Plus, you know, I have talked to the odd actual scientist from time to time.
Were you directly involved as a scientist in Global Warming?
No, but that doesn't mean that I am ignorant about what the scientific consensus is.
Hal Lewis of the University of California, Santa Barbara:
I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former.
So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it's easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don't bother you -- you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.
So it isn't simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative
game.
Hal Lewis of the University of California, Santa Barbara:
And what are his credentials as a climate scientist? Why none, since he works in an entirely different discipline. His website makes the claim that he is a "physicist", but makes no claim whatsoever to any expertise in climate science.
Another physicist, Stephen Hawking, believes in the evidence or global warming. But as he is not a climate scientist he is no more of an authority than Mr. Lewis.
Tweet
Comment