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.
To recap, yes some stupid climate scientists got caught "cutting some corners" in making their case.:o., (
It has gone way beyond that. The emails were just one thread that got pulled out of a rather threadbare garment. There have been many more pulled out since that time.
Its pretty much over.
The only thing keeping this alive is that there are vested interests who stand to lose a lot of money if this juggernaut goes off the rails as it seems it must.
What evidence? Apparently it doesn't exist. The other shoe keeps dropping almost daily on this giant centipede. We've had fifteen years of cooling.
LOL, it's the same shoe you keep picking up and dropping over and over again, same story. There is lots of uncontaminated evidence. You've seen it, but you choose not to believe. Fine, you will never be convinced.
This graph is base from the data of Josh Willis from Nasa who has been under so much pressure. He published a few years ago a report showing that the sea temperatures were going down. This was not a good news for the climate change eco-extremists. Then he realized his careers would be over if he did not correct his offence. He could not resist the pressure and then made big corrections for the sea temperatures for the period 1955 to 1997 that showed no decrease. This was not enough for the community and he made further changes which led to this completly new graph showing now an increase.
So now his historical ocean temperature record show a relatively steady increase in line with the climate models of alarmists. He will have a good career until a new climategate shows the tricks behing his surprising changes in the results.
Many say that we will never be able to trust the official temperature record again.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Tuesday, 16th February, 2010, 11:58 PM.
For you this is a religion. For me this is science so we need to see the sources. This guy made a big publication in 2003 about the rapid drop of temperatures in the ocean.
Don't you think any serious scientific would wait for peer review about the work of this guy? You call peer review to be "deny the facts"? Come on, start being rational just one second.
You say I shoot the messenger? Read the climategate emails and you will see that the eco-extremists say that there is no increase in the sea temperature.
You say I shoot the messenger? Read the climategate emails and you will see that the eco-extremists say that there is no increase in the sea temperature.
Carl
With all due respect Carl, I think we all need to take this statement with a grain of salt. There appears to be lots of good data out there that the sea temperatures are rising. (and yes, I am quite sure that you can find a study or two linked to Curly, Larry, and Moe):(
However, with all the thousands of scientists debating the issue, many not qualified (on both sides):(, you surely can find support for almost any statement. So, can you cite the email specifically that says there is no increase in sea temperatures? And can you assure us that it has not been taken out of context? IMHO, both sides are guilty of this sin many many times.
With all due respect Carl, I think we all need to take this statement with a grain of salt. There appears to be lots of good data out there that the sea temperatures are rising. (and yes, I am quite sure that you can find a study or two linked to Curly, Larry, and Moe):(
However, with all the thousands of scientists debating the issue, many not qualified (on both sides):(, you surely can find support for almost any statement. So, can you cite the email specifically that says there is no increase in sea temperatures? And can you assure us that it has not been taken out of context? IMHO, both sides are guilty of this sin many many times.
I am not saying that what is in the email is right. I am saying that if ecoextremists are saying the sea temperature did not increase then Ed can not say that I "myself" deny scientific "facts".
There is a difference between "facts" and "theory". When the theory from a single man goes from sea getting colder, then no change in sea temperatures and now "rapid increase in sea temperature" all that for the same period of 1955 to 1997 then please don't show the graphic here of only the last report. Show the entire story and the three differents conclusions this guy had in the past. I don't call it "attack the messenger", I call it rational science behavior... always be sceptikal.
I am sure Darwin would have been pissed off of the scientific community and the public if everybody had believed him without analyzing his data and chalenging his conclusions. This is the reason why he put so much work on his theory and he never hided any data. He gave all the data for peer-review. Can you imagine Darwin or Einstein changing their own theory three times in seven years. No. Mistake is possible but when you change the conclusions drastically three times this is what I would call in french translated here since I my vocabulary is too reduced: "a dirty pig job".
Here we have a guy with 3 differents conclusions in a range of 7 years. Come on. I think that in 2010 this scientist would be a better candidate for Nobel prize than a Darwin because the climate debate is politic and become a european religion.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Wednesday, 17th February, 2010, 12:12 PM.
I am not saying that what is in the email is right. I am saying that if ecoextremists are saying the sea temperature did not increase then Ed can not say that I "myself" deny scientific "facts".
Huh? Perhaps you could re-write that in actual meaningful English sentences? As written it appears to be devoid of all meaning.
Huh? Perhaps you could re-write that in actual meaningful English sentences? As written it appears to be devoid of all meaning.
If the eco-extremists in the emails of the climategate have the right to say there is no increase in the sea temperature then it means that nobody can says that the warming of the sea temperature is a "SCIENTIFIC FACT". So when you say I deny "facts" this is simply not the case. This is a theory from a guy who changed his mind three times on sea temperatures, not FACTS.
while you deny deny deny, and never provide evidence.
...
See this article about Josh Willis. I would rather suggest that you present evidences and scientic reports that have been peer reviewed by outsiders.
BTW, if you want to compare today ice level to the one we had 30 years ago, click here. The more purple it is the more the ice level is high. See how today the ice level is higher than it was in the past. Are we entering in a global cooling period? Lets start a new religion so that we can promote cooling and attack everybody that want to make real science with it.
There is absolutely no point in responding directly to nonsense posted by Vlad, Gary, Carl, and unnamed others; they know absolutely nothing about climate change. I will continue to post interesting science on the issue and not waste my time addressing their points directly unless they post something original.
Ed, you are wasting your time addressing their nonsense; it only feeds the fire. Instead just ignore them and post interesting new science findings on how climate change is affecting our planet. You are wasting your time and breath in addressing their points directly. Notice that they never post anything original, they only attack others. There is a reason for this, they have nothing original to say since there is absolutely no evidence to support their views.
Just remember the fundamental issue of rapidly rising CO2 levels. As long as they are still rapidly rising, we have climate change, end of story....
For readers of this thread who want to see what climate scientists think about all this recent nonsense, look at the following links:
Also, note that the US government is setting up a new federal body to more deeply study the science of climate change and the US military and government is taking the issue very seriously. They are NOT skeptics...
There is absolutely no point in responding directly to nonsense posted by Vlad, Gary, Carl, and unnamed others; they know absolutely nothing about climate change.
But Carl has a Bachelorette degree! He got it while he was in the Army, no less!
He even knows the difference between linear and exponential growth! He can draw the graphs! Or at least he can copy and paste them from other sources! :)
Carl says science and capitalism will solve all problems in 50 years! All we have to do is wait and live that long!
(I'm now doing a Herman Munster imitation: pounding the table, breaking it into pieces, as I shout "I want it, I want it, I want it!" )
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment