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.
The first link shows that you originally claimed to believe in climate change for irrational reasons, namely the weather around your place. Now you disbelieve for equally irrational reasons.
Until you start basing your opinions on actual evidence (none of which you cite above) you will still be irrational.
"None of this is to say that global warming isn't real, or that human activity doesn't play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren't valid. But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed."
The entire article seems to be suggesting that:
1) Climate change is probably real and it is probably man-made.
2) That the people who are pushing for climate change have a hidden, possibly nefarious agenda.
Of course both could be true, as they are not mutually exclusive, are they?
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
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.[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] - Gary Ruben.
You seem to indicate the only thing worth doing is that which makes you money! So how much are you making from your posting on ChessTalk?
Unfortunately, the vested money interests in Canada will shoot down any environmental remedies to polution and/or global climate detriment if it will cost them money. In past posts you have indicated that you will vote against anyone running for office who advocates remedies which will impact negetively on your personal investments. This is GREED vs the common good, is it not?
Last edited by Vlad Dobrich; Sunday, 7th February, 2010, 10:15 AM.
Unfortunately, the vested money interests in Canada will shoot down any environmental remedies to polution and/or global climate detriment if it will cost them money. In past posts you have indicated that you will vote against anyone running for office who advocates remedies which will impact negetively on your personal investments. This is GREED vs the common good, is it not?
I think pretty much everyone has a vested money interest. Most people have an interest in keeping a regular income flow (e.g. job) as well as the ability to live how they want and buy what they want.
Even if man-made climate change turns out to be true, and even if somehow say half the world's population were to die from it, people would still want to live how they want and consume in the manner they want. No government or scientist is going to convince people to do otherwise. In that sense, climate change debating is just a big waste of time. If saving the planet involves serious inconvenience very few people are going to be onboard. ;-)
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Unfortunately, the vested money interests in Canada will shoot down any environmental remedies to polution and/or global climate detriment if it will cost them money. In past posts you have indicated that you will vote against anyone running for office who advocates remedies which will impact negetively on your personal investments. This is GREED vs the common good, is it not?
For politicans the Blind Trust is supposed to deal with the problem of greed vs the common good.
For the individual, I think if a person doesn't vote for what what he/she believes then the person might not understand the situation.
Why would I vote for a politician who wants to spend a lot of money on global warming when I don't think it's a problem?
You have to ask yourself two questions here. 1. Is there global warming? 2. Is it a problem?
As you know it's a sunny day here today. Take a lawn chair down to the lake and get a sun tan. I know the temperature is -6 C but there is a warm 30 km breeze coming off the lake. Isn't global warming glorious. :)
1) Climate change is probably real and it is probably man-made.
2) That the people who are pushing for climate change have a hidden, possibly nefarious agenda.
Of course both could be true, as they are not mutually exclusive, are they?
I simply presented the article. What I draw from the articles is that before the government spend 100's of billions of dollars on global warming they should spend only 1 billion dollars to redo the reasearch to see how many of the findings can be duplicated.
Two questions are:
1. Is there global warming?
2. if there is, Is it a problem?
I would suspect at the rate the rain forests are being cut down there would be some changes on the planet. But that's a different crusade. :)
There is no question in my mind; climate change is rapidly occurring as CO2 concentrations rapidly rise. I am basing this on my reading and studying of meteorology and climate change at university, i.e. on the science.
Instead of reading newspaper articles and heresay and peoples opinions start reading some of the scientific papers; they are not too complicated, and form your own opinions from the research work. Ignore equations and great detail, just try to get the meat of the articles.
For example, just last week there was a new scientific peer reviewed paper on the state of Arctic ice melt, and how it was still increasing. When it goes it will have enormous implications for our climate. Do a bit of research yourself with google, it is really not that difficult.
One of the most noticeable things that climate change causes is weather extremes and changes in precipitation patterns. Things like lack of snowfall in Ottawa (95 cm this winter as opposed to a norm of 240 cm) versus huge snowfall events like 60 cm storms in Washington and Philadelphia, etc; i.e. 1 in 100 years events. Of course one year does not mean anything, but when bizarre weather happens year in and year out that shows a clearly discernible pattern.
Perhaps Gary can calculate the cost of this snow-pocalypse, as they are calling it.
There is no question in my mind; climate change is rapidly occurring as CO2 concentrations rapidly rise. I am basing this on my reading and studying of meteorology and climate change at university, i.e. on the science.
Instead of reading newspaper articles and heresay and peoples opinions start reading some of the scientific papers; they are not too complicated, and form your own opinions from the research work. Ignore equations and great detail, just try to get the meat of the articles.
For example, just last week there was a new scientific peer reviewed paper on the state of Arctic ice melt, and how it was still increasing. When it goes it will have enormous implications for our climate. Do a bit of research yourself with google, it is really not that difficult.
One of the most noticeable things that climate change causes is weather extremes and changes in precipitation patterns. Things like lack of snowfall in Ottawa (95 cm this winter as opposed to a norm of 240 cm) versus huge snowfall events like 60 cm storms in Washington and Philadelphia, etc; i.e. 1 in 100 years events. Of course one year does not mean anything, but when bizarre weather happens year in and year out that shows a clearly discernible pattern.
Perhaps Gary can calculate the cost of this snow-pocalypse, as they are calling it.
I think many studies have to be redone before they will be taken seriously. The articles I posted are not from a single source but for diifferent parts of the world.
The emails aren't very complicated either and possibly you should read them.
Perhaps Paul doesn't know the difference between climate and weather. What's happening this year is weather. What happened in the Dirty 30's with the droughts and dust bowls on the prairies was weather.
Before you start calculating all the megabucks that will be poured onto the collection plates of climate control have a look at the economies of the Eurozone. Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain are practically bankrupt. Germany and France have debt to GDP ratios of around 70%. Italy over 100%. Non Eurozone like Japan over 100%. The U.K. and the U.S. around 70%.
Now if they want to pour megabucks into climate control I say good for them. Canada is only running debt to GDP or around 35% but I don't look for our government to go it alone. It seems to me our government stated they would wait and see what the U.S. comes up with before making any decisions. That translates to they won't be sucked into pledging billions and having the Americans back out on the issue.
The way I read the newspaper articles they are suggesting the world leaders were duped at Copenhagen.
Before you start calculating all the megabucks that will be poured onto the collection plates of climate control have a look at the economies of the Eurozone. Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain are practically bankrupt.
But only because they are victims of a badly run central bank controlling the Euro. If things continue as they are and they leave the Euro zone, which is fairly likely unless the power brokers in Europe come to their senses, they will then regain the power to use their currencies for their own people's benefit and the fiscal part of their crisis will pass fairly quickly. However if the Euro zone keeps the clamps on there is likely to be at least one violent revolution in Europe and that will cost far, far more than allowing a rational monetary policy would.
Germany and France have debt to GDP ratios of around 70%. Italy over 100%. Non Eurozone like Japan over 100%. The U.K. and the U.S. around 70%.
Anyone with a mortgage on their house these days has a much higher debt to income ratio, of course. And the USA ran far higher deficits after WWII and grew out of that debt in just a few years, while at the same time providing enough money for Europe for them to do the same.
All in all I am afraid Gary's ideas about macroeconomics are about as out of touch with reality as his ideas about global warming.
Notice that the G7 summit called for stimulus spending for at least another year. These guys are not so dumb, or at least the technocrats who advise them are not, and they'd rather like to get re-elected, so they will probably continue the stimulative spending as long as necessary. All the while they will be talking about the big cuts that are coming, mainly to make the big exchanges less panic prone.
Economically, our big problem right now is avoiding deflation, which is actually occurring in various parts of the world, and which economists of all stripes uniformly agree is far worse more damaging than moderate inflation could ever be.
The way I read the newspaper articles they are suggesting the world leaders were duped at Copenhagen.
But as long as you rely only on newspaper articles from folks you already agree with you are likely to be just as duped about economics as you are about global warming.
What's stopping you from looking at the actual Science as Paul has suggested you do?
Tweet
Comment