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.
Ed insulting Gary not seeing Vlad insulting Ed not defining Vlad faulty reasoning Ed redefining Vlad not believing Ed whopper lying Gary not remembering Ed correcting Gary false ideas Paul Beckwith doesn't know the difference climate vs weather.
Wow, what a thread!
Don't be that way. Ed has to get the last post.
Climate change is about money. Some make it from grants, others from the stock market. It doesn't matter what a person believes. Only that there are two sides to the coin, if you'll pardon the pun.
Well, if we're going to gather evidence from newspaper reports, rather than from actual real scientists, here's one to consider: I had never even heard of the "Northern Pole of Inacessabilty", I must admit.
Well, if we're going to gather evidence from newspaper reports, rather than from actual real scientists, here's one to consider: I had never even heard of the "Northern Pole of Inacessabilty", I must admit.
Sounds like hearsay and excuses to me.
Your heart wrenching title is misleading. It is accessable. They CLAIM they don't want to go for a reason.
Here are his actual words from a slightly more direct source, the BBC. The people who actually interviewed him.
Notice, for example that when asked "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?", his answer is:
"I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
Oddly enough, the daily mail did not report this particular statement. Nor did they mention a lot of other things the Professor said to the BBC, things that tend to contradict the false spin they put in their headline. Those of you who follow the link I have given above can, if you like, read it all, and make up your own minds.
So the piece in The Mail gives the impression that the Professor does not believe in global warming, whereas he actually says that he is 100% certain that the climate has in fact warmed. Spin at it's worst.
I wonder why Gary, reading "The Daily Mail"'s story did not track down the source himself and read it in total. I will leave it to others to judge what his motives might have been for that.
I wonder why Gary, reading "The Daily Mail"'s story did not track down the source himself and read it in total. I will leave it to others to judge what his motives might have been for that.
I long ago lost interest in your one sided rants.
In any case, here's some quotes from your "source".
"P - The "Climategate" stolen emails were published in November. How has your life been since then?
My life has been awful since that time, but I have discussed this once (in the Sunday Times) and have no wish to go over it again. I am trying to continue my research and supervise the CRU staff and students who I am responsible for."
He doesn't want to discuss what he already said. I assume he has nothing to correct which was printed in the Sunday Times.
"R - Why did you ask a colleague to delete all e-mails relating to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC?
This was an e-mail sent out of frustration at one FOI request that was asking for the e-mail correspondence between the lead authors on chapter six of the Working Group One Report of the IPCC. This is one of the issues which the Independent Review will look at."
I'm surprised you would use such arguments to support your point of view. It's even funnier than the article I linked. Do you understand this stuff at all?
I will simply trust that those who are rational will look at the entire actual interview and make up their own minds on the matter.
And when deciding who is and who is not "one sided" they will notice, perhaps, that it was I who provided the link to the entire interview, and not Gary.
"And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."
That sure doesn't sound like we are facing an imminent disaster like the AGW alarmists have been claiming. The snake oil salesman have been proven to be peddling useless tonics yet again.
"And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
Of course, if Vlad knew anything about science or statistics he'd know how silly his fixation on that particular phrase sounds to those who do know something of it. I will leave it to the rational to read the whole article and make up their own minds about it.
They will also note that Vlad does not actually quote the words the man actually said to the BBC, preferring the second hand "spun" version which is, alas, also not untypical of him
Of course, Ed has to have the last word, no matter how mindless. Is global warming one of the causes your union supports?
When is it projected the Iditarod will have to be scrapped because of global warming?
No. It appears Gary must have the last word!
The Gary, Ed, and Vlad show continues. blah blah blah....give it a rest guys.
To recap, yes some stupid climate scientists got caught "cutting some corners" in making their case.:o., and Gary continues to rub Ed's nose in it, not sure why, something to do with unions?
The case for action on global warming has certainly been dealt a blow. But IMHO the evidence is still compelling. We still have a climate problem.:(
To recap, yes some stupid climate scientists got caught "cutting some corners" in making their case.:o., and Gary continues to rub Ed's nose in it, not sure why, something to do with unions?
The case for action on global warming has certainly been dealt a blow. But IMHO the evidence is still compelling. We still have a climate problem.:(
Cutting some corners. I guess that pretty much sums up the global warming movement.
I kind of object to my tax dollars going toward the Voodoo Science you find compelling.
The case for action on global warming has certainly been dealt a blow. But IMHO the evidence is still compelling. (
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.
When the actual records are analysed there appears to be a whole lot of inappropriate adjustments being made. This seems to be happening everywhere. Data for Russia, China, Canada, New Zealand and Antarctica have all been adjusted and edited to show evidence of warming where the data shows the exact opposite. The Jones interview seems to be arguing a case that this is the result of incompetence rather than malfeasance.
Either way the argument for consensus or settled science is obviously quite strained.
Tweet
Comment