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.
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.
You appear to be a blowhard.
The game will soon be over. When the bills have to be paid and cuts have to be made, funding for climate will slowly disappear.
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.
At least we know when we are being scammed. There really is little point in this thread. True believers will believe regardless of the evidence. The real fallout from this whole debacle is that the environmental movement has been set back decades and made to look ridiculous.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. There is no consensus at least among objective scientists. There is a consensus among those who stand to make a lot of money from anthropogenic global warming.
Fortunately Canada is unlikely to commit economic suicide on the altar of the new Gaian religion.
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.
The game will soon be over. When the bills have to be paid and cuts have to be made, funding for climate will slowly disappear.
The bills do have to be paid and cuts will have to be made. This has been my point all along: we can debate and debate and debate whether climate change is happening or not, but it's all irrelevant. Jobs will trump climate change because jobs are now, climate change is later. There is no stopping the herd from running off the cliff.
I posted an idea for a potential solution (albeit expensive, but I figured at least Obama could get job growth out of it) and it was met with silence, because it seems nobody wants to talk solutions.
To complete the analogy, the herd, although fully literate, is running too fast to even bother reading the detour signs.
Carl drives a Hummer (his likely bumper sticker: "My other car is a Segway"). Gary drives a Chrysler. Names synonymous with our age, synonymous with progress, synonymous with 5% of the population using 80% of resources, synonymous with pollution, synonymous with pedal to the metal.
Oh well, let's just watch the Olympics and pretend nothing's wrong. America is still winning the most medals!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Bob this is exactly what they did in the emails of the climategate scandal: find ways to shut the truth from coming out. Maybe you could ask for some data to be destroyed!
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...
Bob this is exactly what they did in the emails of the climategate scandal: find ways to shut the truth from coming out. Maybe you could ask for some data to be destroyed!
?? The advice to Ed is simply that it is pointless to argue with people who have made up their minds. That he should just relax and not get so stressed out. No matter how compelling the evidence, you will never be convinced, never!:( Right?
How is this "exactly what they did in the emails"?
?? The advice to Ed is simply that it is pointless to argue with people who have made up their minds. That he should just relax and not get so stressed out. No matter how compelling the evidence, you will never be convinced, never!:( Right?
How is this "exactly what they did in the emails"?
Bob,
Yes I can be convinced. I have a scientific mind. This is not like a religion. I need real data to believe in something. A few years ago I was convinced that there was a global warming because the newspapers were saying it. The problem is that I read a lot of scientific magazines every week so I discover that there is always a fraud in every alarming report.
This is very surprising in science to see such behavior but I know this is unique to climate. In engeniering the same behavior would lead to bridges going down, buildings colapsing, plane going down, etc.
Take the last graph that Ed showed, this is unique in science to see a scientist make the news saying the sea temperatures are going down and then change his mind three times and then announce in 2007 that there is a rapid increase in temperature. But his story is so similar to the ones we see in the climategate, this is a pity.
Bob I need to see the satellites to show us an increase in temperatures. But actually it does not show. Even the top scientist involved in the climategate and that now has quit his job admit there is no increase in the earth temperatures for the last 15 years.
I need the satellites to show the ice level is going down. But they show the ice level did increase.
Actually the only real "FACT" is that we use petrol and coal and this produces CO2 like the nature itself produce it. But there seems to be no consequence at all when we remove all the bad scientific reports and the falsified data. The only consequence so far is SMOG over a city when the wind is not there. So the only problem with petrol and coal is a matter of air circulation in some big citys, but remember, there is 16 km of air over any city so the concentration of the CO2 over a city is only a local air circulation problem in low altitude.
The real problems we should work on are:
Economy,
Terrorism,
Lack of democracy in many muslim countrys,
Cancer,
Scolarship of our citizens,
Bad food habit of our populations,
Industrial polutions in poor countrys (other than CO2 since this is not a pollution, this is natural) and bad management of their garbages,
Our recycling techniques,
Religion disorder and beliefs,
Eco-extremism lead by scientific corruptions and manipulations,
Promotion of free market, capitalism and productivity.
I send back the question to you: how come do you believe so easily in any report that people show to you. Why don't you apply some skepticism in the first place, look for peer reviewing? What are you afraid of? Don't you think this would be a more rational scientific approach from you? Do you really feel that you can convince everybody with manipulated data, hidden data, falsified reports, false peer reviewing? Do you think Einsteins succeeded that way? Be serious, this is science.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Thursday, 18th February, 2010, 09:46 AM.
Carl drives a Hummer (his likely bumper sticker: "My other car is a Segway"). Gary drives a Chrysler. Names synonymous with our age, synonymous with progress, synonymous with 5% of the population using 80% of resources, synonymous with pollution, synonymous with pedal to the metal.
...
Paul,
Keep writing, we need to hear from you. We need to understand how your mind work to understand the past thousands years of human behavior.
I imagine in the Old Egypt, the many Paul Bonham promoting the construction of pyramids, trying to convince everybody with unverified informations and announcing catastrophic events and controlling the people behaviors in every part of their life.
I imagine the Old Inca society with their many Paul Bonham claiming the food problem was base caused by some unverified informations and sending to death thousands in sacrifice for no good reasons.
I imagine in the Old Roman empire, the many Paul Bonham announcing the end of the world and the coming of god(s) to judge everybody and then creating ridiculous religions to change behavior of the people.
I imagine the many Paul Bonham that led to the creation of communism, the expropriation of millions of business owners, the killing of the so many non-believers for a theory that did not work and had not been proven before they started in the first place.
Today we live in a developed society that is quitting the religions gradually. But we have to understand how come it took so many centuries for science to get over these people that preach false beliefs instead of real proven science, who announce the end of world so that the world listen to them and follow their actions.
I say, no more pyramids, no more sacrifies to calm the gods, no more science denying and manipulation, no more religioins or climate-religion, no more socialism that hypertransform the society. We need scientific mind and never forget what that the many Paul Bonham of the past kept entire societies in the dark for so long. The many Paul Bonham could lead the world back to what it was and we must understand their way of thinking to stop them at the source. This is a due respect to the many "rational people" that spent their lifes under the manipulation and control of the many Paul Bonham of the past.
They want to take your liberty and mine. They want to change your behavior and mine. We have to learn from the past and from their actual writing.
Don't be fooled, CO2, oxygene, water none of these are pollution, the end of the earth will be in 5 billions years when the sun will grow and not before. Live you life and be happy and have fun like I do.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Thursday, 18th February, 2010, 11:38 AM.
Yes I can be convinced. I have a scientific mind. This is not like a religion. I need real data to believe in something. A few years ago I was convinced that there was a global warming because the newspapers were saying it. The problem is that I read a lot of scientific magazines every week so I discover that there is always a fraud in every alarming report.
This is very surprising in science to see such behavior but I know this is unique to climate. In engeniering the same behavior would lead to bridges going down, buildings colapsing, plane going down, etc.
.......
I send back the question to you: how come do you believe so easily in any report that people show to you. Why don't you apply some skepticism in the first place, look for peer reviewing? What are you afraid of? Don't you think this would be a more rational scientific approach from you? Do you really feel that you can convince everybody with manipulated data, hidden data, falsified reports, false peer reviewing? Do you think Einsteins succeeded that way? Be serious, this is science.
I say, no more pyramids, no more sacrifies to calm the gods, no more science denying and manipulation, no more religioins or climate-religion, no more socialism that hypertransform the society. We need scientific mind...
Sounds like a religion in itself. This is all off-topic of this thread, but it requires at least something of a reply, and I'll have nothing more to say about it after this:
The result of your desires coming true (which by the way, would be an experiment just as much as you wrote communism was an experiment) would be a world devoid of any meaning or purpose, in which acts of insanity would become the norm.
Just as a thought exercise, imagine a world where science progressed so far that it could promise every human being eternal life, as long as they avoided all fatal accidents or criminal acts. In other words, no disease could ever kill you, ageing would be a thing of the past, but fatal accidents or being killed by criminals were still possible.
Would anyone in that world ever get in a car or any other mechanical device? Everyone would be so paranoid, they'd never venture out anywhere. Any job that a robot couldn't do would never get done. Fear would be on everyone's face, it would have everyone in its grip, especially since no one would have any reason to believe in an afterlife any more. Stay alive at all costs, would be the thought running through everyone's mind.
They want to take your liberty and mine. They want to change your behavior and mine.
No, I'm perfectly happy giving people the liberty to throw beer bottles at your Hummer. After all, you were given the liberty to abolish all religion except your own.
Ahhh, freedom: be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Sounds like a religion in itself. This is all off-topic of this thread, but it requires at least something of a reply, and I'll have nothing more to say about it after this:
The result of your desires coming true (which by the way, would be an experiment just as much as you wrote communism was an experiment) would be a world devoid of any meaning or purpose, in which acts of insanity would become the norm.
Just as a thought exercise, imagine a world where science progressed so far that it could promise every human being eternal life, as long as they avoided all fatal accidents or criminal acts. In other words, no disease could ever kill you, ageing would be a thing of the past, but fatal accidents or being killed by criminals were still possible.
Would anyone in that world ever get in a car or any other mechanical device? Everyone would be so paranoid, they'd never venture out anywhere. Any job that a robot couldn't do would never get done. Fear would be on everyone's face, it would have everyone in its grip, especially since no one would have any reason to believe in an afterlife any more. Stay alive at all costs, would be the thought running through everyone's mind.
There are reasons why this can never happen.
No, I'm perfectly happy giving people the liberty to throw beer bottles at your Hummer. After all, you were given the liberty to abolish all religion except your own.
Ahhh, freedom: be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Paul,
Continue to write. It is very good to understand this way of thinking. I can see that you suggest for the future the same population control that we have seen for centuries.
You prefer that people have false beliefs about a forever life after their death so that they will not work to live longer on their actual life!!! To me this is the same as for the climate scandal, lie to people so that they believe the earth is at risk to force them to take actions THAT YOU WANT. Lies again and again to control the people.
If people like you do not succeed to abolish the free market and the free world, when the technology will make people live for ever I will be the first capitalist to commercialize a "deadly watch" for those who prefer to die the "good old way". For 300$ this watch will inject you a deadly dose of cyanure ramdomly within the next 80 years. This way you will keep your liberty to exit from the normal evolution of the mankind and I will have mine.. and I will make money with you. That way, you will have the liberty to create new gods and spend you life praying them to gain points so that these gods will prefer you to sing stupid songs to them after your death.
During your forever singing to these gods or your reincarnation in the body of a cow, I will be candidate for the colonisation of a moon like the one shown in the movie Avatar. I will also be candidate for the new robotic plastic surgery so that the top female candidates choose me for the colonisation of this moon (I presume that to save space in the vessel they will take only one man and thousand of women). I will also spend 15 years to become a GMI and many other things not too risky for my precious life.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Friday, 19th February, 2010, 01:18 PM.
I send back the question to you: how come do you believe so easily in any report that people show to you. Why don't you apply some skepticism in the first place, look for peer reviewing? What are you afraid of? Don't you think this would be a more rational scientific approach from you? Do you really feel that you can convince everybody with manipulated data, hidden data, falsified reports, false peer reviewing? Do you think Einsteins succeeded that way? Be serious, this is science.
Carl
Hi Carl,
You make some very good arguments. I have found the debate interesting, and like you, I have done a lot of reading on the topic along the way. I am glad to see that our discussion has not degenerated into childish insults like some of our colleagues. The fact that we have reached opposing viewpoints only serves to illustrate the complexity of climate change, the science, the economics, and the politics.
We live in a world where we are constantly bombarded with ridiculous and false claims from our politicians, business leaders, and journalists. Too many of them sacrifice the truth for their own personal gain. Some simply get lost in their own rhetoric. And then you add the internet, where any crazy or delusional psychopath can get a soapbox. Let’s not forget the telemarketers, snake oil salesmen, email viruses, no money down real estate, pyramid schemes, bait and switch, and we’re just doing a survey scams.
Your impression that I am quick to accept any report at face value without scepticism is totally wrong. Let me repeat that last sentence for emphasis, “Your impression that I am quick to accept any report at face value without scepticism is totally wrong.” Rinse and repeat!
I am very disappointed in any climate scientist involved in; quoting you “manipulated data, hidden data, falsified reports, false peer reviewing”. All the data, any adjustments, climate models, theories, all need to be available for scrutiny. How else could the world ever hope to reach a consensus and take the necessary corrective action? What were they thinking?
Call me skeptical but, IMHO the email scandal has been overstated. I see a relatively small group of overzealous climate scientists anxious to make their case before the Copenhagen summit. The result has been to polarize the debate and sabotage any agreement. IMHO the climate change deniers lose credibility when they portray it as a global conspiracy to redistribute wealth to the third world and protect their own research funding. Ah, come on, I just don’t buy it!
Weather and climate are very complex sciences, very difficult to predict and understand. Besides any man made effects, many strong natural cycles like sun spots, ocean currents, and ice age cycles, all have their effects. IMHO, this very fact leads to many false (but sincere) claims. This inevitably leads to changing opinions and conclusions. I am not alarmed when the forecasts change; it is a sign that the climate scientists are willing to accept new data into their thinking. IMHO most of the climate scientists are careful in there conclusions, basing their decisions on years of study, and applying a healthy dose of scepticism.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I believe we can all agree on that. Adding CO2 in large quantities must have an effect. Is it dangerous? I believe so, but I could be convinced otherwise. But to date, the deniers have not made their case. I find many of their arguments based solely on trying to discredit the other side, often taking comments out of context. For the record, I don’t consider Fox news as a credible source.
You put a lot of faith in the satellite reports. A recovery of polar ice mass over a few years is not conclusive evidence. There is contrary evidence from an expedition last year which found “rotten ice”. Lower quality new ice was replacing solid long term ice. Not a good sign. Why did the satellite images not see this? I don’t know either? Besides, the polar ice recovery is likely the result of sunspot cycles. Check it out.
You are correct that the world has many serious problems to solve. This is not a good reason to ignore the climate change problem. We need to work on all the worlds problems simultaneously. Hell, there are 6 billion of us, and most of us are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Anyway, you have a nice weekend. I am not seriously expecting to convince you of anything. I am just enjoying the debate.
Tweet
The advice to Ed is simply that it is pointless to argue with people who have made up their minds. That he should just relax and not get so stressed out. No matter how compelling the evidence, you will never be convinced, never!:( Right? 
Comment