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.
Would you step on ice just having a picture from a satellite?
No.
But if you use the same satellite in 1979 and in 2009 then I will trust the global output of it since the error level is the same for both years.
I don't think many scientists in the deniers or the warming believers have doubts about the satellites systems so far. In the climategate we see that they had to change the data to make the warming but in their personnal discussions they don't contredict the satellites, they instead wonder how come their theory is not shown in the data coming out of the satellites.
And this graph stop in 2007. In 2008 the ice did recover to the 1979 level as it has been demonstrated. Even in Copennag the scientists used the 2007 data since the year 2008 is very bad for the warming theory. You took this citation on this page.
The graph sited at the URL above plainly shows the very opposite. Feel free to look, remembering that the claim Carl is supposedly disputing is about the extent of the ice in the arctic ocean IN THE SUMMER. The extent in the three other seasons is irrelevant to this claim, nevertheless one can easily see that the trends are also clearly down.
CRU is not NASA. The text you refer says "According to scientists affiliated with the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)". This is the main organisation involved in the Climategate.
The graph sited at the URL above plainly shows the very opposite. Feel free to look, remembering that the claim Carl is supposedly disputing is about the extent of the ice in the arctic ocean IN THE SUMMER. The extent in the three other seasons is irrelevant to this claim, nevertheless one can easily see that the trends are also clearly down.
...
Ed,
Your are 100% right. I agree with you. And this data is from very good satellites systems so yes there is a declining on the graph. The name of the graph is seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg. It stops in 2007!!!
But like I said, in 2008, between august and december there has been a sudden recovery in ice level to the same level as 1979. This is why they always talk of 2007 and never use 2008 data. If you come back in 5 years on this website, they will still be showing the 2007 graph if the ice level stays higher.
In december 2009 we can see that the ice level is so high than the graph is completly violet meaning that there is much more ice concentration than there was in 1979 and in 2008.
See by yourself the increase in ice concentration between december 2007 and december 2008 here. And the increase between december 2008 and december 2009 here.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Tuesday, 22nd December, 2009, 06:57 AM.
Congratulations Carl, you have discovered - WINTER!!! Amazing!
Ed,
During WWII, germans in the camps were treating the prisonners like simple rats so that when they killed one they did not feel they were killing humans.
The way you talk to me is just the same level. I will not do the same to you since I would not even take fun doing it. I don't hate you, I don't consider you an enemy. We are simpy discussing and each of us has his opinions. I like to hear others opinions, it helps me understand the so many socialists I meet everyday and how to talk the same language they do in my business work. You don't have to change your opinion, you are my teacher.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Tuesday, 22nd December, 2009, 08:21 PM.
The idea is to strike the opponent when you THINK he might intend to do something. The press release was made a full month before the Climategate. The press release is made by a group of glaciologists, people studying ice. The Climategate is related to paleonclimatologists, i.e. those who study very old temperature variations.
You seem to fail to make the distinction between glaciologists and paleoclimatologists. You fail to notice that the Climategate is mainly about Phil Jones and Mike Mann, and maybe Tom Wigley, to a lesser extent. With all due respect, and that is not much if we take into account all the dirty tricks you keep using, you simply fail to bring your A game.
I have to admit that it is becoming tiresome, yet again, actually. That said, you won't get away with your mischeavous trickery this time, as I will continue to provide due diligence for your talking points.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Wednesday, 23rd December, 2009, 02:51 PM.
During WWII, germans in the camps were treating the prisonners like simple rats so that when they killed one they did not feel they were killing humans.
I knew you'd pull the Nazi card sooner or later, Carl, so it's not at all surprising that you do it now.
The way you talk to me is just the same level.
Poor baby! If you continue to spout obvious nonsense you have no right to expect better, and deserve richly to be talked down to.
I will not do the same to you since I would not even take fun doing it. I don't hate you, I don't consider you an enemy.
Since you've already been caught lying on this forum, why should anyone believe you now?
We are simpy discussing and each of us has his opinions.
I have informed opinions and you have nonsensical ones. You are arguing that the world is flat, and you expect to be treated as an adult?
I like to hear others opinions, it helps me understand the so many socialists
First, I don't happen to be a socialist. I favour a well regulated and largely free market economy. Second, you don't even know what a socialist is since you use words to mean whatever you like them to mean. By calling me a "socialist" you are merely doing more silly name calling.
But first he should answer the charge that there cannot be any global warming because some claim that the Earth is not a globe, but is flat. Thus their cannot be any global warming by definition.
Wait! Before that he needs to refute the claim that the value of pi is exactly three, as it says in the bible. It is clear that all the measurements are badly flawed because they use an incorrect value for pi! And after that...
After all, the flatness of the earth has plenty of evidence in it's favour as anyone can plainly see that it is flat just by looking. The evidence in favour of the flat earth is at least as strong as the evidence that CO2 is not causing global warming. So I insist that before proving that CO2 is a greenhouse gass he must first disprove the claim that the earth is flat.
And how dare he deny the biblical evidence that pi =3.000...? God has clearly spoken on this. Yet scientists and mathematicians are involved in a global conspiracy to hide the true value of pi.
Since mathematicians believe in imaginary numbers then obviously math itself is merely a conspiracy to hide the truth that positive integers are the only real numbers. This is a much greater scandal than "climatgate", yet I predict that you and Vlad will deny this conspiracy.
Ed, don't group me with the so-called "deniers". I'm not in their camp, at least not right now.
Your points seem to be more emotional than rational. We're not trying to reprove things that are known already. Anyone currently claiming the earth is flat is known to be simply anti-science. Perhaps in the end those who are against man-induced global climate warming will be viewed in the same camp as those claiming the world is flat. But right now, that isn't the case no matter how much you want it to be the case. To make it the case, we have to advance the evidence, and we have to do it in a way that once done, can't be undone. My proposal is for an international court case in which evidence is presented to a jury in the same way as is done for a criminal trial. If you have an objection to this process, please outline it for us and propose an alternate process.
We need a process because we don't yet have an unalterable concencus. Please don't claim that we do, because no world authority has ruled on it. What we need is for rational people who don't have any previous vested interest for either side to make a decision based on preponderance of evidence, and for that decision to be declared binding.
Are you against this idea? If you really believe in your evidence, I don't think you could be against this idea. Let the evidence decide, via a known and binding process.
P.S. I have never heard of an argument for biblical evidence that pi = 3.00, who is putting forth this argument?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
P.S. I have never heard of an argument for biblical evidence that pi = 3.00, who is putting forth this argument?
Speculation on the verse:
1 Kings 7:23-26 (New International Version)
23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
I have to admit that it is becoming tiresome, yet again, actually. That said, you won't get way with your mischeavous trickery, this time. And so I will continue to provide due diligence for your talking points.
In your due diligence for my talking points, you forgot the post in the french chesstalk. The title is "Climategate". We could have double the fun!
I am tiresome a bit too. I don't have as much fun I had in the beginning of my posts.
If this is too tiresome for you I understand why. But in the French Chesstalk we could simply switch sides! I can be the eco-extremist pushing socialists solutions, showing false data, funny catastrophic projections and you could be the denier if you want. We both would have more fun.
But if you want to take a pause for the christmas time, I would understand also. If this is the case, then I wish you and family a happy christmas. I wish you a good 2010 and I hope to be in your chess class in september 2010 like I was in 2009 since your presentation was very good.
Mes amitiés
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Wednesday, 23rd December, 2009, 01:45 PM.
We're not trying to reprove things that are known already.
Well, yes actually, you are.
Anyone currently claiming the earth is flat is known to be simply anti-science.
And anyone who does not yet understand that the earth is definitely warming at a dangerously fast rate, and that this is almost certainly caused by human activity, is equally anti-science, or at least scientifically illiterate.
I know you don't like the comparison, and that you think you are being reasonable, but in fact you aren't and the comparison is perfectly apt.
Perhaps in the end those who are against man-induced global climate warming will be viewed in the same camp as those claiming the world is flat.
They already are so regarded by all scientifically literate people.
But right now, that isn't the case no matter how much you want it to be the case.
It is the case, no matter how much you want it not to be.
To make it the case, we have to advance the evidence, and we have to do it in a way that once done, can't be undone.
Already done. Measurements made, results analyzed, all publicly available, conclusion compelling and no longer in reasonable doubt.
We need a process because we don't yet have an unalterable concencus. Please don't claim that we do, because no world authority has ruled on it.
Wrong again. The only reasonable world authority on the matter, the scientific community, has already ruled. The fact that you don't accept that ruling only means that you are irrational. As, of course, we all are to some extent.
Of course no scientific consensus is ever unalterable, nor did I ever say that the consensus on climate change is unalterable. That is your word, not mine. I said, and say, that it is a consensus, not that it is unalterable. All that is required to alter it is convincing evidence against it. Given what we know now that is an extremely low probability, but science can hardly ever prove anything absolutely.
Are you against this idea? If you really believe in your evidence, I don't think you could be against this idea. Let the evidence decide, via a known and binding process.
The evidence has already decided. Only a massively funded campaign by interests that continue to deny the reality out of
pure interest in money and irrational greed is putting doubt in the minds of the uneducated and gullible. The process you advocate has already happened and to repeat it would be a pointless waste.
That is an indictment of our educational system, of course, but that's another problem. Big Tobacco were able to do the same thing for decades around their poison, and big Oil will probably be able to do what they are doing now for awhile because our system is largely irrational and we fail to teach people how to think accurately and critically. Money talks, and is now shouting.
But the data is IN on global warming, the conclusion is definite, and only the gullible and uneducated are unaware of it. More is coming in every day and all of it confirms what we have already discovered.
P.S. I have never heard of an argument for biblical evidence that pi = 3.00, who is putting forth this argument?
Then you haven't been awake. I heard it on the shortwave made by an evangelist preacher just last year! The bible does in fact clearly imply that PI=3. That is it makes a series of statements that cannot all be true unless PI==3. I believe that it is in the description of the pool in Solomon's temple, but it's been awhile since I researched it and it might be somewhere else.
As you are surely aware, there are still millions of people in the world who believe that every word in the bible is literally true. And such people, to the extent that they are consistent, must believe that the earth is flat, and that PI is exactly equal to three point zero forever.
Of course, these beliefs were perfectly reasonable at the time the books were written. What is unreasonable is to believe them today when we know better.
And it is about equally unreasonable, in the present state of scientific knowledge, to deny the clear evidence of global warming caused by human beings.
Tweet
Comment