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 decide what the truth is we only have the actual evidence to guide us and, like it or not, that evidence currently is that the surface of our globe is indeed warming, that the warming is largely caused by the activities of people, and that if continued it is going to cause many deaths.
Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct a history of the Earth's past climate. From this data they have found that during most of the Earth's history, global temperatures were probably 8 to 15° Celsius warmer than today. In the last billion years of climatic history, warmer conditions were broken by glacial periods starting at 925, 800, 680, 450, 330, and 2 million years before present.
The period from 2,000,000 - 14,000 B.P. (before present) is known as the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this period, large glacial ice sheets covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for extended periods of time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene was not static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glacier retreated (interglacial) because of warmer temperatures and advanced because of colder temperatures (glacial). During the coldest periods of the Ice Age, average global temperatures were probably 4 - 5° Celsius colder than they are today.
The most recent glacial retreat is still going on..........
Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct a history of the Earth's past climate. From this data..........
Do you think that the scientists who have uncovered the current round of global warming are unaware of all this? Do you think that, knowing these things already, they would make claims about the current situation if they had not already shown that the conditions in the past which caused such warmings do not apply to the current one? Do you really think that scientists ignore the obvious? Well, if you do, you are both ignorant and wrong.
The fact that climate change in the past was caused by natural events does not mean that climate change today is caused by natural events, especially when the causes, such as we know them, of these previous events are observed not to be present today.
As pointed out below, you might as well claim that since we know that forest fires were caused only by natural events for millions of years they therefore cannot be caused by people today!
"If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years."
So the current observed change is faster than any of these previous natural events.
"These examples illustrate that different climate changes in the past had different causes. The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper. FAQ 2.1 addresses the question of how human influences compare with natural ones in their contributions to recent climate change. "
Now, you have quoted a lot of science about the past. Why then would you deny the science about the present? Really, you can't have it both ways. If you believe scientists can find out about climate change in the past, and be trusted, you cannot rationally then believe that these same scientists, when they find out about the climate change of today, cannot be trusted! That is the position of a schizophrenic.
Those who have not already made up their minds can get an education on these matters, if they wish to, at this site.
Note to Ed: Some guys really did sing that on our picket line. Sixteen weeks it lasted that time.
So if it happens once, to you, it must happen everywhere, to everyone eh? The charge that you are merely a troll, which I defended you against, is beginning, alas, to look more credible all the time.
Many of your posts in this thread could be used in a course on critical thinking as examples of typical unreason.
So if it happens once, to you, it must happen everywhere, to everyone eh? The charge that you are merely a troll, which I defended you against, is beginning, alas, to look more credible all the time.
Many of your posts in this thread could be used in a course on critical thinking as examples of typical unreason.
I figure when you have to defend me then I have real problems. Personally, I think I'd have to consider any suggestion you are being a troll. In any case here's another piece on the net which you might find of interest.
Did you not read the "About" tab on the left wing piece you posted for devaluing the dollar? The people from which they invited membership.
Don't mistake my wish for our system to work and for our companies to prosper and people to be in demand to do work and get paid as a blanket endorsement of everything capitalist. There are some things I'd like to see be done differently to improve the system.
A liberal dose of left wing propaganda doesn't mean those who understand the situation will start throwing money at the cause. It simply mean left wingers are spewing propaganda for those who don't understand.
Ah, I see, anyone who disagrees with Gary is a "left winger".
Ooh, he called me a "left winger", I'm so scared. Soon he will call me a "liberal" and I'll melt, I suppose.
That's the type of right wing name calling he indulges in, thinking I suppose that it carries some weight. But those who are fooled by name calling generally already share Gary's opinions.
But even "left wingers" can be right on occasion, as can "right wingers" like, I suppose, Gary. Too bad he hasn't shown any ability to be right in this thread.
Personally, I prefer to look at actual evidence, and as Gary has supplied none in this thread I don't find him very persuasive.
One scientist being bad, by the way, doesn't discredit climate science, nor would a dozen. Throw out all the evidence they provide and still the remaining evidence is overwhelming. Except to Gary because, of course, he isn't interested in evidence.
That's the type of right wing name calling he indulges in, thinking I suppose that it carries some weight. But those who are fooled by name calling generally already share Gary's opinions.
But even "left wingers" can be right on occasion, as can "right wingers" like, I suppose, Gary. Too bad he hasn't shown any ability to be right in this thread.
Personally, I prefer to look at actual evidence, and as Gary has supplied none in this thread I don't find him very persuasive.
One scientist being bad, by the way, doesn't discredit climate science, nor would a dozen. Throw out all the evidence they provide and still the remaining evidence is overwhelming. Except to Gary because, of course, he isn't interested in evidence.
Wipe away the tears. All that crying won't stop people from reading the articles and questioning why they are paying big dollars for what appears to be a scam.
The problem with this kind of thread is contained in your posts. You can't deal with the message so it's back to the messenger.
Once governments start losing elections over their hardline expensive stance on the global warming scam the others will drop it like a bad habit. Unless you figure Obama wants to be a one term president for wasting money on something people are starting to realize is a scam.
The moderator was right to close the other global warming threads and should probably close this one. It has nothing to do with chess and gives the message board a nasty tone.
If you aren't making any money from global warming you're wasting your time pushing either side. It's possible to make money betting on it and it's possible to make money betting against it.
The moderator was right to close the other global warming threads and should probably close this one. It has nothing to do with chess and gives the message board a nasty tone.
So we see the real Gary. Afraid of the truth and needing to suppress it.
That really was an odious little message there Gary. You really outdid yourself on that one.
As for the nasty tone, it is plain to see where that is coming from here.
As for wiping away the tears, I didn't do any crying here, though I did cry over something else today and I have no problem with nor fear of tears. Unlike, I dare to guess, another poster here.
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Thursday, 28th January, 2010, 11:36 PM.
So we see the real Gary. Afraid of the truth and needing to suppress it.
That really was an odious little message there Gary. You really outdid yourself on that one.
As for the nasty tone, it is plain to see where that is coming from here.
As for wiping away the tears, I didn't do any crying here, though I did cry over something else today and I have no problem with nor fear of tears. Unlike, I dare to guess, another poster here.
Your reply is not appropriate. It doesn't address the points nor the issues. It reads more like an emotional "trust me" plea to get a strike vote. We expect more.
That's true. The massively expensive propaganda campaign of the denialists is extremely well funded, and that buys press attention.
But, looking at the actual story, and assuming for the sake of argument that every word is true, what does it actually say that might cast doubt on climate change to the rational person? Why nothing at all.
That's true. The massively expensive propaganda campaign of the denialists is extremely well funded, and that buys press attention.
But, looking at the actual story, and assuming for the sake of argument that every word is true, what does it actually say that might cast doubt on climate change to the rational person? Why nothing at all.
Of course, the gullible are easily fooled.
Yet all you have posted are websites that are blatantly biased and won't allow contrary opinions. Have you even looked at a contrary opinion and what these opinions are based on? Failure to look at both sides shows how biased you are. Say what you want, what climategate has shown is that there are many scientists who do not believe that global warming is man made (maybe its Mann made). What bothers me the most is that anyone who questions these 'facts' with there own research is automatically shouted down. This isn't science, its activism.
Yet all you have posted are websites that are blatantly biased and won't allow contrary opinions.
Yet you are apparently unable to cite even one of these, and once again ask us to believe claims without any actual evidence.
I have cited, for instance, the "Skeptical Science" site, which not only allows dissenting replies, but deals with them courteously and with the facts. Most of the climate change sites I have bookmarked allow open comments, in fact.
Have you even looked at a contrary opinion and what these opinions are based on?
Have you? Or is the pot calling the kettle black?
Failure to look at both sides shows how biased you are.
How do you know I haven't looked at both sides? Do you claim to be able to read my mind, or do you have any actual independent evidence you can cite to show that I have not looked at both sides? Or are you just making another claim with no evidence to back it?
Say what you want, what climategate has shown is that there are many scientists who do not believe that global warming is man made (maybe its Mann made).
No actually, it doesn't do even that. But if it did this would say nothing about whether global warming is occurring or if it is not. I am sure you can find many scientists who don't believe in global warming. But there are, for each of them, many more actual climate scientists who do accept the evidence.
What bothers me the most is that anyone who questions these 'facts' with there own research is automatically shouted down. This isn't science, its activism.
Show me one instance where any climate denier has been "shouted down". Show me even one scientist who has done research that has found evidence against climate change, and who has been "shouted down". Until you do that then you are merely making more emotionally loaded claims without any evidence to support them. Rather frequent among the climate denialists, I am sad to observe, and this message of yours adds evidence to support that observation.
Yet all you have posted are websites that are blatantly biased and won't allow contrary opinions. Have you even looked at a contrary opinion and what these opinions are based on? Failure to look at both sides shows how biased you are. Say what you want, what climategate has shown is that there are many scientists who do not believe that global warming is man made (maybe its Mann made). What bothers me the most is that anyone who questions these 'facts' with there own research is automatically shouted down. This isn't science, its activism.
Well the ecoterrorist movement got a major endorsement this week when Osama Bin Ladin came down firmly as a believer in man made global warming.
Tweet
Comment