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.
Thomas Friedman speaking of USA, or, for that matter, any political power that has no oil for sale:
Those electric cars might not be so great. I remember when I lived on the prairies there was one time I went and bought a new battery for my car in the winter. I drove the car to make sure the new battery was charged up. When I got up the next morning the car wouldn't start because of the cold. The battery wouldn't turn it over.
It looks to me like oil companies have put new oil refineries on hold and are closing old ones rather than put in expensive repairs. Possibly they are waiting to see if the electric cars will become a reality before spending a lot of money on oil refineries.
It's interesting they want us to accept flawed, or possibly worse, theories instead of doing the necessary work properly. The article wants people to accept the theories on faith.
The chart didn't show that, did it Ed. The chart showed around 150 years.
The chart covers about the years that humans really started dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. I've already posted graphs for longer periods, in case you don't remember:
Was one of them.
Now if that chart had shown 10,000 years accurately we might see a different picture. You're using scare tactics that civilization won't survive. Short "snapshot" graphs and those leaked emails are not helpful to your cause.
The leaked emails are meaningless to the "debate". You have made up your mind and are not going, I suspect, to be persuaded by mere evidence.
Global warming is not "my cause", it is established fact, based on actual evidence. If the evidence changes, my mind will change, but none of you deniers has posted any credible evidence to show that Global warming isn't happening. The stark reality is that it is happening. Even many deniers at least will admit that much.
Now these threads were all started by the climate deniers, and I only chimed in to make sure that some actual facts were presented. All you have to do to make me lose interest is to stop creating threads irrelevant to Chess but proclaiming obvious falsehoods.
I had little hope from the start that any of you would take the time to actually examine the facts, and even less that anyone would change their minds. Alas, my original expectations have been confirmed in spades.
[QUOTE=Gary Ruben;17400]I gave you a legitimate example where conservation and environment (or so they say) is costing people money and you continue to push your point of view. Everyone made money except the homeowner or renter. The unit prices for water and sewage doubled. Plumber won. Hardware sellers won because so many people bought into it.
QUOTE]
Gary, I understand that you and others see the conservation movement from a "money making" point of view. But I think what Paul was trying to get across to you was that if you are really personally committed to conservation, and make minor life changes to help conservation become reality, then you personally don't pay any extra money.
Here's what Paul wrote: "Flush the toilet twice when you take a sh***. Not a tough solution. You will use less water the other 9/10 times you use the can....Since they doubled the rates aren't you glad you are paying the same as before since you are using less water. Feel sorry for the guys who are not saving water and paying double."
Why get hot under the collar because Joe the plumber (LOL, sorry, had to throw that in) made some extra money? If you flush the toilet twice as Paul says, Joe is not making the money off of you! You can feel doubly good because you aren't enhancing Joe's income and you ARE contributing to conservation.
Yes, some people will make money from conservation. That's because some other people are dumb and won't make the concessions to conserve, and those people deserve their fate. But some people lose money on the stock market too, because they don't know the things that you and other savvy investors know. Too bad for them. In the meantime, why can't you support conservation, make a few minor adjustments to contribute to it, and always make sure you aren't among those paying extra because of the movement to it?
We have so many people on this planet, we are here in this moment in human history, and we can do our little part to try and make more efficient use of limited resources. I think that is what Paul is trying to get across. Some people might be trying to take your money in the name of conservation, but I highly doubt Paul is among them.
BTW, the uranium part I really know nothing about, but you might be interested to know: I went to high school in Elliot Lake Ontario, known at that time as "Uranium Capital of the World". In case you don't know, it's midway between Sault St. Marie and Sudbury. I think it's primarily a retirement community now.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I remember when I lived on the prairies there was one time I went and bought a new battery for my car in the winter.
Yes, and I am sure someone had a grandma that smoked till she was 104 years old.
The article merely states the obvious: common sense urges to stop craving for oil, whatever the science might be, unless of course you wanna sell or buy shares of sellers. So why the comment about articles of faith and accepting flawed theories? A plausible answer: changing the talk from politics to science, or the other way around, when the argument gets tough.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Friday, 11th December, 2009, 02:43 AM.
Yes, and I am sure someone had a grandma that smoked till she was 104 years old.
The article merely states the obvious: common sense urges to stop craving for oil, whatever the science might be, unless of course you wanna sell or buy shares of sellers. So why the comment about articles of faith and accepting flawed theories? A plausible answer: changing the talk from politics to science, or the other way around, when the argument gets tough.
People can drive whatever it's legal to drive.
To my way of thinking the dual natural gas - gasoline vehicles make the most sense. I drove one for a few years (company vehicle) and it was pretty good. Not much for pickup but OK for getting around. Probably there won't be many who bother buying electric cars. I was on the highway yesterday. I drove around the speed limit. 100 KM's. It was a 3 lane road. Most vehicles were passing me and going between 20 and 50 kms (estimated) and hour faster than I was. They use more gas at that speed and it doesn't seem to slow them down. Somehow I can't see them switching to electric vehicles.
As long as there are nations which are willing to buy our oil it will be produced and sold. The governments need the money from the royalties.
The chart covers about the years that humans really started dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. I've already posted graphs for longer periods, in case you don't remember:
The leaked emails are meaningless to the "debate". You have made up your mind and are not going, I suspect, to be persuaded by mere evidence.
Global warming is not "my cause", it is established fact, based on actual evidence. If the evidence changes, my mind will change, but none of you deniers has posted any credible evidence to show that Global warming isn't happening. The stark reality is that it is happening. Even many deniers at least will admit that much.
Now these threads were all started by the climate deniers, and I only chimed in to make sure that some actual facts were presented. All you have to do to make me lose interest is to stop creating threads irrelevant to Chess but proclaiming obvious falsehoods.
I had little hope from the start that any of you would take the time to actually examine the facts, and even less that anyone would change their minds. Alas, my original expectations have been confirmed in spades.
The chart is a jumble. The first 3 shown are uncertainties. Guesses. One is Mann's hockey stick. There are only 2 which use instruments for records. Still around 1000 the population was much lower than now and temperatures seemed to rise. The chart is guess and the rising and falling temperatures on the graph indicate variances are normal. The chart does not go back far enough and is not accurate enough for us to know if what we are seeing is anything to worry about, the way I see it.
It's interesting you find the leaked emails meaningless. It's an international scandal and throws doubt on the entire theory.
B.C. has lowered royalties on new wells to try to get an increase in drilling for gas and oil. Alberta is looking at their royalty rates to try to pick up drilling activity as well. The governments don't seem to be doing what's necessary to stiffle oil and gas use. I put some grocery money into Alberta oil and gas. I figure they will drop the royalty rates before too long to try to bring back the drillers.
I have been following along the debate this week, but I haven't until now had time to comment. The climate change advocates have taken a blow to their credibility lately thanks to the hacked email scandal.:o However, In my humble opinion, here on chesstalk, I find the reverse to be true. Advocates continue to present compelling logical arguments and science, whereby the skeptics, not so much.
Since the skeptics have had a field day with the email scandal, lets turn the tables on them. I ran across something called the "Global warming petition project" in my research travels this week when I saw references to 30,000 scientists claiming climate change was a hoax. I found that both astounding and unbelievable, so I did some research. What did I find? This claim has been debunked. No credibility whatsoever!! I found their website, and also a letter of support from Frederick Seitz. Dr. Seitz was a paid advocate for the tobacco industry when they denied links to cancer.
Go to youtube and type in 30,000 scientists and you get 34 copies of a 5 minute video with weatherman John Coleman of San Diego. (not to be confused with our own John Coleman, chess organizer in Windsor). Here we see the skeptics using this discredited petition project to justify their claims. Nothing but propaganda, and why post it 34 times!!! Just trying to drown out the opposition eh. I guess the skeptics have skeletons in their closets as well.
As long as there are nations which are willing to buy our oil it will be produced and sold. The governments need the money from the royalties.
Indeed, and when oil royalties will become ridiculously low, governments might realize that there are other ways to go find royalties, which might even generate less externalities.
We can't see what lies in the future. Hell, we don't even see clearly the past. Predicting an impossibility is tough. Lord Kelvin tried it, circa 1895:
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
It's not what you're saying, I know. But it's not far from it. Still, I agree with you that people will do what's simpler and cheaper for them. The tough part is to see what will be simpler and cheaper in ten years from now.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Friday, 11th December, 2009, 02:07 PM.
The chart is a jumble. The first 3 shown are uncertainties. Guesses. One is Mann's hockey stick. There are only 2 which use instruments for records. Still around 1000 the population was much lower than now and temperatures seemed to rise. The chart is guess and the rising and falling temperatures on the graph indicate variances are normal. The chart does not go back far enough and is not accurate enough for us to know if what we are seeing is anything to worry about, the way I see it.
It's interesting you find the leaked emails meaningless. It's an international scandal and throws doubt on the entire theory.
There are problems with most of the AGW data. Data is shared between CRU and the other sources and then can't be released because some of the data supposedly came from sources that preclude sharing the data. Their records are bad so they can't tell what part of their data come from these sources and what parts come from sources with no strings attached. Therefore they can't share any of their data and in any case much of the original (unadjusted) data has been destroyed. One is left with the question as to why we should trust any of their data. One is also left with the question of how these studies could be peer reviewed if the original data was unavailable.
We are left with, "Trust us."
My answer would be that I don't trust them, their excuses for data destruction and the need to adjust data and to perform "tricks" to hide the decline in temperatures since 1998. I don't trust the UN and I don't trust the international community. The "token" $10 billion dollars that they were proposing at Copenhagen will not go through and neither will the trillions of dollars that the developing world, China and India are demanding as the cost of signing on. How are Canadians and Americans supposed to come up with the trillions of dollars all this is going to cost with a hobbled economy and with the Alberta Tar Sands shut down?
If they really meant to reduce carbon emissions and the situation was as dire as the alarmists were maintaining why does it all seem to come down to money? Why are voices of dissent stifled when the science is not settled as Al Gore and his cabal suggest?
And now we have George Soros looking suspiciously like Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars saying that we can take the money from the IMF. This is all an elaborate con game that needs to move ahead now before all the implications of climategate sink in and more damning evidence comes out.
I found their website, and also a letter of support from Frederick Seitz. Dr. Seitz was a paid advocate for the tobacco industry when they denied links to cancer.
I don't invest in tobacco stocks. I think tobacco kills people so even though the companies are great investments I take a pass.
I don't invest in oil and gas very much either. The reason for that is that even though I worked in the industry for almost 40 years, I'm terrible at picking 'em. I normally miss the part where the ones I buy go bankrupt. That part in itself isn't necessarily bad. What is bad is I always get caught holding when it happens.
I guess if I knew less about the business I'd look at the individual companies more critically. Possibly a good lesson for those who are too closely involved in the global warming theories.
My answer would be that I don't trust them, their excuses for data destruction and the need to adjust data and to perform "tricks" to hide the decline in temperatures since 1998. I don't trust the UN and I don't trust the international community. The "token" $10 billion dollars that they were proposing at Copenhagen will not go through and neither will the trillions of dollars that the developing world, China and India are demanding as the cost of signing on. How are Canadians and Americans supposed to come up with the trillions of dollars all this is going to cost with a hobbled economy and with the Alberta Tar Sands shut down?
We have another problem. Our manufacturing industry is not what it used to be and we import more stuff. We are becoming a nation of shopping malls. I seem to recall reading tax revenues are down.
Here in Ontario I suspect the provincial government will change next election. I'm expecting a conservative majority government to try to control runaway costs and rising taxes. I see the main question being if the premier will step down before the election or after the defeat.
The HST is unpopular. The GST destroyed the Federal Progressive Conservative party. Next election they were reduced to 2 members and finally folded into the old Reform Party. The Progressive Conservative party no longer exists and is a junior partner in the blended party.
The HST would be more popular if the provincial government wasn't using its introduction as a pretext to massively increase provincial taxes on a large number of items and services that were not previously taxed. It seems to me that if they can figure out how to avoid taxing books they can do the same for everything else that isn't taxed now.
The funny thing is that the same people yelling loudest in support of AGW will be the same ones that line up in protest against new nuclear power plants.
Tweet
Comment