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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith
After some further research, this site was actually quoted in the emails. The editor was deleting any articles that were skeptical on this 'neutral' site. The people in charge of this site are up to their necks in this scandal. This site is closely linked to Micheal Mann who is now under investigation.
Recalling your insult of me further above wherein you referred to me in a manner that suggests I am a vacuous follower (my words, but your intent), it seems that your response to frustration with a person who may be disagreeing with you is to insult them.
I remember when I was responsible for "Client Credit Risk" for a National Investment Dealer..... We had a saying about recognizing credit "danger"... When a client sounds like he/she has just found Christ, it was time to worry! Your strident comments are getting worse and I am starting to wonder.
Proving a negative (as you suggested further above) is extremely difficult. Is not the onus on the believers to convince the world with science?
"Yes!" you say! But, alas, that science (even that part that one believes is real) is now in doubt. I read some of those e-mails among top scientists today. It seems to me that they asked each other to destroy e-mails and data and at very high levels too! So, even that data that is not in question (yet?) is suspect because of their actions.
Paul would say that much more data is showing that Global Warming is taking place, but are we to believe that science without question? Could some of the science that Paul is referring to be a problem also?
I do many green things at home, but I need to be convinced even more. I would like to see the results of this "crooked" data, etc., shake out a little more yet.
Recalling your insult of me further above wherein you referred to me in a manner that suggests I am a vacuous follower (my words, but your intent), it seems that your response to frustration with a person who may be disagreeing with you is to insult them.
If only he could be a bit more creative it might even be fun. Alas his insults never arise above the level of the school yard at recess.
I remember when I was responsible for "Client Credit Risk" for a National Investment Dealer..... We had a saying about recognizing credit "danger"... When a client sounds like he/she has just found Christ, it was time to worry! Your strident comments are getting worse and I am starting to wonder.
I have faced many trolls like Ed in the past. A few of them were interesting and amusing but Ed, alas, is not.
Proving a negative (as you suggested further above) is extremely difficult. Is not the onus on the believers to convince the world with science?
"Yes!" you say! But, alas, that science (even that part that one believes is real) is now in doubt. I read some of those e-mails among top scientists today. It seems to me that they asked each other to destroy e-mails and data and at very high levels too! So, even that data that is not in question (yet?) is suspect because of their actions.
The data is very much in question, particularly when coupled with the attempted suppression of opposing findings and the apparent disappearance of data sets from recently published articles.
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. This "double ethical bind" we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
- Stephen Schneider, Stanford University, senior "Team" member
"As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations." - Michael Mann
Paul would say that much more data is showing that Global Warming is taking place, but are we to believe that science without question? Could some of the science that Paul is referring to be a problem also?
I do many green things at home, but I need to be convinced even more. I would like to see the results of this "crooked" data, etc., shake out a little more yet.
This is a slow moving train but once it gains some momentum, it will be impossible to stop.
Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith
Well, it looks like this thread has degraded into name calling and insults. :(
Unfortunately, the search for the political solutions to climate change may have been setback years because of a few idiots who couldn't play by the rules. The Copenhagen conference starts tomorrow. Hopefully some progress can still be made, in spite of the controvery.
It has to be very frustrating for the thousands of legitimate climate scientists who are warning us of the dangers. Yes Vlad, there is not 100% consensus, notwithstanding claims by Al Gore, but it is an overwhelming majority. Paul has made lots of strong arguments in favour of climate change, whereas the climate change skeptics have based their entire argument on conspiracy theories, "some of the data is questionable, so it all must be wrong." Really, I mean really?
Gary, where did you get the idea I did not think we would have another ice age? Duh, they are a naturally occurring climatic cycle. But the next one is not due for thousands of years, so who cares! It is not relevant to the conversation.
And what's all this stuff about "don't worry, the human race won't become extinct, it will only kill off a few billion!". I would like to think the lives of a few billion people would be enough to mobilize the planet into action.
Well, it looks like this thread has degraded into name calling and insults. :(
Vlad feels free to call me a liar, but gets upset when I call him a name back. So he's not only a denialist, but a hypocrite.
It's OK to Vlad to call other people names, but not OK for other people to call him names. But of course Vlad's whole attack is based on nothing but name calling, since he has no evidence to back him up.
Gary, where did you get the idea I did not think we would have another ice age? Duh, they are a naturally occurring climatic cycle. But the next one is not due for thousands of years, so who cares! It is not relevant to the conversation.
That must be your interpretation of what I said. I can't recall writing you didn't think there would be another ice or that I even thought that was your position. How would I know what you think?
I happen not to agree with the current global warming fad and doubt what we are seeing is anything more than normal cycles over the ages.
I wonder how many of the global warming crowd smokes cigarettes or the odd cigar or pipe.
Vlad feels free to call me a liar, but gets upset when I call him a name back. So he's not only a denialist, but a hypocrite.
It's OK to Vlad to call other people names, but not OK for other people to call him names. But of course Vlad's whole attack is based on nothing but name calling, since he has no evidence to back him up.
Quit crying like a little schoolgirl. You have been wrong at every turn, you data deletion denialist. HTH.
The data must be deleted or the truth will come out. Then the significance of the data deletion must be denied. What are your revered climate scientists trying to hide, Ed?
This is not about a few rogue scientists. This is the whole AGW industry on trial. I predict a significant uptick in the next Rasmussen poll on this subject. It won't be just a significant majority that believe that the scientists lied. It will be a massive majority.
The Dems will in full CMA mode for the 2010 elections.
Maybe we can get some people who will do honest research and allow scrutiny of their raw data to take the lead on this from here on. Take it out of the corrupt hands of the UN and these purveyors of dirty tricks.
We need people to whom the truth does matter, wherever it may lead us.
Interesting points raised are:
a) Energy related companies in U.S. hired more than 2,000 lobbyists and spent more than $200 million U. S. on lobbying the government in the first six months of 2009 as climate change debate heated up (to protect their wallets)
b) Energy related companies outspent environmental groups 20 to 1 (I disagree with this figure, I think it is more like 200:1 or 2000:1)
c) U. S. Chamber of Commerce (leading critic of climate change legislation and healthcare reform) spent more on lobbying in 3rd quarter of this year then it spent in first 3 quarters of 2008 ($39 million)
d) For decades, coal mining companies did not lobby (spent less than $2 million annually before 2005). In 2005 they jumped to $7 million reaching $16.7 million in 2008
e) Some leading Republicans are pushing for adoption of "purity test" in which those seeking party nomination have to oppose cap-and-trade
Gary, the only reason you or anyone else thinks global warming is a fad is because you are getting a lot of incorrect information from the above...
Just sit and google climate change stories of the science for a few hours to see the truth...
I would like to see Vlad categorically state that he does not have a connection to oil or other energy companies..
Last edited by Paul Beckwith; Monday, 7th December, 2009, 12:09 PM.
According to Vlad, the only "have" province left is Alberta, so basically Canada has become a "corrupt petrostate". Do some research into states that have become petrostates and in almost all cases the local people lose out big time, and the governments become very corrupt as back room deals are signed and the environment gets totally destroyed. Look at the pictures of the tar sands, they look like a moonscape...
This argument is simply a red herring. No one is suggesting that the climate didn't change in the past. Earth's climate is a highly dynamic system, and it has changed constantly throughout the several billion years of our atmosphere's existence.
But by implying that there's nothing particularly new about what's happening now, skeptics play down two features of the current situation. First, in historical terms, the size of the potential change we're inducing is huge. In just a few decades, we've boosted the atmosphere's carbon dioxide level by more than a third, to 387 parts per million. The full impact of these higher levels won't be fully visible for a long time – in the case of rising seas, for hundreds of years. But just-published research shows that the last time the atmosphere saw a similar concentration (14 to 20 million years ago), temperatures were three to six degrees higher than they are now. Much of the planet's ice, including at the poles, didn't exist. And sea levels were 25 to 40 metres higher than they are today.
Second, the predicted speed of change this century – especially if it's accompanied by a surge in extreme climate events such as severe droughts and floods – could overwhelm many human societies. We may be a remarkably adaptive species, but the agricultural systems, transportation networks, hydroelectric facilities and urban infrastructures that support us were built to function within the 20th century's relatively stable climate – and that climate will soon be a thing of the past. Much more than warmer temperatures by themselves, it's the rapid rate of climate change that will hurt humankind.
Tweet
Comment