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.
Actually a few if not most of my teachers had very anti-climate change beliefs because it conflicted with their religion of living on the perfect world created by God and our actions can have no effect on this planet blah blah blah. Please continue assuming where I get my information from and I'll keep assuming things about you as well. I do my own independent research to create my decision on global warming. i read scientific documents, I hardly listen to what my so-called teachers have to say because they are under-qualified in my opinion to properly teach anything. Vlad why don't you go on the skeptic science website, so you can indulge yourself in more facts, and if the arguments in favour of climate change are so weak why don't you simply show why it is a hoax. From what I saw you posted a few times about scientists making mistakes (they are human after all) and then claiming all scientists are wrong based on this. the vast majority of scientists(97%) specializing on climate change agree that it is a difficult problem and that humans are directly effecting it via greenhouse gases.
Last edited by Adam Cormier; Wednesday, 9th June, 2010, 10:59 PM.
Actually a few if not most of my teachers had very anti-climate change beliefs because it conflicted with their religion of living on the perfect world created by God and our actions can have no effect on this planet blah blah blah. Please continue assuming where I get my information from and I'll keep assuming things about you as well. I do my own independent research to create my decision on global warming. i read scientific documents, I hardly listen to what my so-called teachers have to say because they are under-qualified in my opinion to properly teach anything. Vlad why don't you go on the skeptic science website, so you can indulge yourself in more facts, and if the arguments in favour of climate change are so weak why don't you simply show why it is a hoax. From what I saw you posted a few times about scientists making mistakes (they are human after all) and then claiming all scientists are wrong based on this. the vast majority of scientists(97%) specializing on climate change agree that it is a difficult problem and that humans are directly effecting it via greenhouse gases.
I made no assumptions about where you were getting your information. We were discussing the 8 year old cartoonist having a bad day in art class and the hypothetical children his age who "know" that climate change is being caused by man. It is curious that you somehow take my comment about very young children being indoctrinated in the AGW/Gaia hoax and seem to believe that I was referring to you. You may be young but you're not that young.
I have been to the skeptic website and it is a bunch of hooey. Miyamoto Musashi says that you should do nothing which is of no use. I am with Kensei on this.
Ninety seven percent of statistics used in AGW debates are made up on the spot including your claim that 97% of scientists specializing in climate change agree that it is a difficult problem and that humans are directly affecting it via greenhouse gases. Most of the scientists I know do not believe in AGW though some of them make a living mentioning it in their grant applications.
I am done tilting at windmills. It is the Gaian/AGW crowd which is making extraordinary claims using bad science and asking us to make extraordinary sacrifices which will delay their supposed disaster by a few weeks or a few years at the most. They are the ones that have to supply the proof, not me. I'm not buying. Polls seem to indicate that I'm with the majority. I will do anything in my power to vote out governments that try to shove this down our throats. I have no interest in that snake oil that you are peddling. I am breaking out the sun screen and enjoying the promised hot weather. Anything like AGW built on a structure of lies will fail as it has with the exposure of the emails and the daily revelations of the shaky foundations that their so-called AGW science is built upon.
Environmentalists should be concerned about real pollutants and not naturally occuring atmospheric gases.
Gary,
Nuclear will likely play a very important role as a baseline power generator, supplemented by renewables.
About 3 years ago the US DOD (Department of Defense) issued a white paper on the possibility of constructing large scale solar photovoltaic panels in space, and microwaving the energy to ground receiving stations to provide most of our power. The technology to do all of this exists today; however to get better results we need to a)increase efficiencies of solar panels (top of the line panels today are about 20% efficient; DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Association) has been rumored to be nearing 50% and we also need to b)significantly reduce the cost per kg of transporting material into earth orbit; thus the recent US initiative to privatize space launches to drive down prices.
I think I was mentioning the efficiencies of solar panels once before. I seem to recall some company which had a high grade mine which would give better efficiences but don't think it came to much. Anyhow, I think I'll wait to see the fruit of those solar panels in space before I get too excited.
Kind of reminds me of a guy a number of decades ago. I was doing some work at his plant and he was bragging about his boilers being around 130% efficient. I knew my instrumentation was OK so I spent a few hours recalibrating his and it brought his efficiency down to the low 80's, I think it was.
Majority? Vlad Are you talking about the whole world or Northern America or just Canada, in the states the majority is in favour of climate change (source: Americans worried about global warming)
The majority means nothing anyways, if 10 million uneducated people believe grass can cure cancer, while 1 doctor believes you need chemotherapy and radiation, no matter how large the majority is the doctor is still right. Majority means nothing, the people representing each side are who matter(their education and research into the subject).
Seeing as you choose to claim that 97% of scientists do not believe global warming is a problem, here is a link to my source (97.5% is the actual number of climatologists who are actively publishing papers on global warming). SkepticalScience
What kind of scientists are you hanging around with ones who aren't specialized in climate change or just the 3% of climatologists who deny global warming is occurring because of man-made pollutants who actively publish papers to go against it.
What is your strongest argument against global warming, Vlad? you seem like a very educated and intelligent person so i can't see why you would deny global warming without considerable evidence to support your claim.
my mistake for believing you were speaking about me, my sincerest apologies for misunderstanding your post.
How are the claims that our actions are effecting the world extraordinary, you said yourself that human actions can effect this world so why not out GHG emissions?
You claim that many websites in favour of climate change are hooey, but Skeptical Science is entirely professional often times showing both sides of the argument and why the pro-climate change is superior to the climate change is only natural side by simply showing and explaining the evidence.
Also you claim all the proof is 'bad' science so it seems no matter how much proof you see you disregard it even if it published and sourced by leading climatologists. i still fail to see the problem with Skeptical Science website which is probably the website with the strongest evidence to support global warming by human activities. I just can't see how you can deny this, it is based on years and years of evidence and study, why will you not listen or even give it a chance to change your opinion on the matter.
Where is your science that global warming is a hoax or just man-made? you claim all the vast amounts of evidence in favour of global warming as 'bad' science, so where is the obviously superior evidence in favour of global warming by human interactions is just a myth? You constantly claim your side of the argument is superior but instead of promoting the facts of your side you only try to denounce the other side, seems to me like the average attack plan of republicans in the states,
What do you suggest we be concerned about, what are these real pollutants that you speak about?
It's going to be kind of hard to find a government that doesn't believe in Anthropogenic climate change.
My current opinion is that global warming is happening, but it is due to human and natural reasons and we can have fix the problem with certain sacrifices.
Seeing as you choose to claim that 97% of scientists do not believe global warming is a problem, here is a link to my source (97.5% is the actual number of climatologists who are actively publishing papers on global warming). SkepticalScience
You keep quoting a propoganda website to which I attach no credibility. They are part of the scam. They are apologists for the tactics revealed in the hacked emails and actively try to spin away all of the revealed difficulties. If you do your best to blackball everyone with an opposing viewpoint and define everyone who is actively publishing papers on global warming as everyone who is publishing papers on global warming to the journals that you control then I am sure that that 97.5% figure could then have some basis in fact if you accept those definitions. I don't accept those definitions.
you seem like a very educated and intelligent person so i can't see why you would deny global warming without considerable evidence to support your claim.
I have examined considerable evidence and done a great deal of reading on these subjects which has convinced me that man-made global warming is a scam and the scientific evidence absent of adjustments does not support what these scientists are putting forward. They have an agenda, they are making money as a result of this agenda and anything which contradicts their agenda is swept under the rug. They lie and even defend their lies saying that they are necessary because of the greater truth. Good science cannot be done on this basis.
I have been having these types of arguments for well on a decade.
How are the claims that our actions are effecting the world extraordinary, you said yourself that human actions can effect this world so why not out GHG emissions?
Carbon emissions and specifically CO2 have been demonized because it is something that can be measured. The middleman can make a lot of money by setting up carbon trading markets. The net effect of these markets is that the people who set them up and regulate them make a lot of money but realistically the net effect on carbon emissions is negligible. If you increase CO2 emissions they will be absorbed by plants which will convert them into plant mass and oxygen.
You spoke of China's concerns about anthropogenic global warming. China initially thought that they could use AGW as a way to milk money from North American and Western taxpayers. As soon as this became a non-starter their enthusiasm was visibly muted. As was mentioned in a post that you quoted China is building a coal powered energy plant every five days. If you want to understand someone's or some entity's beliefs look at what they do and not what they say.
You claim that many websites in favour of climate change are hooey, but Skeptical Science is entirely professional often times showing both sides of the argument and why the pro-climate change is superior to the climate change is only natural side by simply showing and explaining the evidence.
Are they being entirely professional and showing both sides of the argument on the above link?
Also you claim all the proof is 'bad' science so it seems no matter how much proof you see you disregard it even if it published and sourced by leading climatologists. i still fail to see the problem with Skeptical Science website which is probably the website with the strongest evidence to support global warming by human activities. I just can't see how you can deny this, it is based on years and years of evidence and study, why will you not listen or even give it a chance to change your opinion on the matter.
If someone brazenly lies to me once, I can no longer take their statements at face value. I have to examine each statement to see whether it is true or not. This takes a lot more energy so I will tend to avoid those websites that I catch in a lie or which attempt to cover up a lie. That website clearly falls in that category.
What do you suggest we be concerned about, what are these real pollutants that you speak about?
The pollutants spewing into the Gulf of Mexico are one example that spring to mind.
It's going to be kind of hard to find a government that doesn't believe in Anthropogenic climate change.
Few governments can see a tax that they don't like. Let's call it an environmental fee and people's eyes will glaze over and just pay it without questioning why it isn't actually spent in an environmentally friendly way but just goes to swell bloated government general revenues.
My current opinion is that global warming is happening, but it is due to human and natural reasons and we can have fix the problem with certain sacrifices.
Define "fix the problem" and define "certain sacrifices".
Vlad's postings are just his opinion, and not science based. They just reflect a biased preconception and are not based on science.
For some real science, recent work is indicating that the Arctic ice melt acceleration in recent years is modifying our climate in North America; leading to more extreme weather events, mostly heavy precipitation in the U. S. Remember, there was loads of snow in the US this last winter, and many extreme rainfall events (like 12-16 inches of rain within a day) causing flooding of cities like Nashville, Tennessee and most recently Oklahoma City. All the major climate change models indicate that drier areas become drier, and wetter areas become wetter with climate change.
From todays Ottawa Citizen (originating from Reuters link below):
Last month was the warmest May on record, according to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) with a global land surface temperature of 53.87 degrees F (1.87 degrees F above the 20th century average of 52 degrees F).
Another key point: It was the 303rd consecutive month that was hotter than the 20th century global average for that month.
Vlad says that he agrees that the planet is warming, so we have made some progress with him. For years the skeptics have been saying there is no warming. Remember the graph of the last decade that Vlad kept using to try to claim there has been no warming.
Gary, Just change the display mode to this thread to Linear and it becomes very easy to follow, since posts appear chronologically...The display mode appears near the top right hand corner...I hope that helps...
Comment