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.
Yes, scientists make mistakes. However, they are able to admit their mistakes. Apparently Vlad holds scientists to the standard of perfection, so that even a few mistakes invalidate every other result as well. I hope he holds himself to the same standard, but I am not optimistic about that.
The failure of a particular projection model, however, does not change the observed fact that the Earth is currently warming more than natural models can explain without considering the activities of people.
The failure of a particular projection model, however, does not change the observed fact that the Earth is currently warming more than natural models can explain without considering the activities of people.
Hmmm... satellite measurements show no recent temperature increase.
Not even adjusted measurements show increases over the last 15 years according to your scientists and not mine.
The observed fact is that the Earth is currently warming in a very explainable pattern based on solar radiation, as is Mars and Venus and the moons of Jupiter. No carbon dioxide required for explanatory purposes. Even the models are totally flawed as they fail to take into account the actual dispersion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Its been a bad few months for your cabal of AGW conspirators. I predict that its going to get worse as more information comes out.
Even the Sierra Club`s ally in the fight to stop the third Windsor crossing and its desperately needed jobs suffered another defeat in court as he is being forced to tear down structures built on city of Detroit property.
Why is the Sierra club trying to keep us poorer, I wonder. At the root of all this AGW hype is a hatred for all progress.
Hmmm... satellite measurements show no recent temperature increase.
Not even adjusted measurements show increases over the last 15 years according to your scientists and not mine.
The observed fact is that the Earth is currently warming in a very explainable pattern based on solar radiation, as is Mars and Venus and the moons of Jupiter. No carbon dioxide required for explanatory purposes. Even the models are totally flawed as they fail to take into account the actual dispersion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Its been a bad few months for your cabal of AGW conspirators. I predict that its going to get worse as more information comes out.
Even the Sierra Club`s ally in the fight to stop the third Windsor crossing and its desperately needed jobs suffered another defeat in court as he is being forced to tear down structures built on city of Detroit property.
Why is the Sierra club trying to keep us poorer, I wonder. At the root of all this AGW hype is a hatred for all progress.
Vlad, you are contradicting yourself. You start off claiming there is no global warming, then you state " the Earth is currently warming in a very explainable pattern based on solar radiation." Which is it?
The truth is that this is a difficult question to answer, hence the debate and the near impossible task of modelling faced by climate scientists.
Hmmm... satellite measurements show no recent temperature increase.
The decade ending in 2009 was the hottest ever measured.
2009 is the second hottest year on record for the planet as a whole. A linear regression from NASA data shows an increase over 1995 to 2009 at 0.15 degrees Celsius per decade.
Those who care about the truth may check out this page if they like.
Not even adjusted measurements show increases over the last 15 years according to your scientists and not mine.
Factually untrue as anyone who reads the page at the above link can see.
There are no scientists that are "mine". Apparently Vlad thinks he owns some himself. At least I refer to actual science, unlike Vlad.
The observed fact is that the Earth is currently warming in a very explainable pattern based on solar radiation, as is Mars and Venus and the moons of Jupiter. No carbon dioxide required for explanatory purposes. Even the models are totally flawed as they fail to take into account the actual dispersion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
These statements are all factually wrong. Check the "Skeptical Science" website for lucid explanations of this, with full references to the scientific literature. All the statements they make there are fully referenced, unlike Vlad who gives none at all in his last message.
I have snipped the rest because it seems pointless to reply.
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level.
So using fudged and cherry picked data there is no statistically-significant global warming. I stand corrected... oh... wait... that's what I said.
Vlad can't post a message without calling something a bad name.
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level.
So using fudged and cherry picked data there is no statistically-significant global warming. I stand corrected... oh... wait... that's what I said.
But that's not what the Dr. said in the quotation above. He says there is no significance over a small number of recent years, which is not at all the same as saying "there is no statistically-significant global warming". In fact later in the same article the same person said that there IS statistically significant global warming. A distinction Vlad is not, apparently, subtle enough to understand.
Now who is cherry picking here? Why it's Vlad, who is therefore a hypocrite, because in that very same interview the very same person stated that he is in no doubt based upon the science that the globe is warming. But Vlad conveniently left that out. And then accused someone else of cherry picking! Pot. Kettle. Black.
Of course "No statistically significant warming" is not the same at all as "no warming". If you limit the sample size of any time series to only a few years that too is cherry picking, which the BBC interviewer did in asking the question. Well, if you cherry pick a small enough slice of a time series out of a longer one, the math says that that will indeed lower the probability of a regression line being "statistically significant".
Of course, given the way he writes, I doubt that Vlad knows what "statistical significance" even is.
Now if there is no "statistically significant" warming, that means there is no "statistically significant" cooling either!
This of course contradicts Vlad's earlier claim in this thread that the earth is currently cooling. But he is apparently unable to understand this self contradiction.
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Wednesday, 24th February, 2010, 12:32 AM.
Vlad can't post a message without calling something a bad name.
Your climate scientists turned it into a junk science. I didn't think that I had to sugarcoat reality for you.
I understand that you are working with the limited set of tools that God gave you and so I try to be somewhat charitable. Notwithstanding you continually confirm that you are either as dumb as dirt or are a troll.
But that's not what the Dr. said in the quotation above. He says there is no significance over a small number of recent years, which is not at all the same as saying "there is no statistically-significant global warming".
He says that there is no statistically significant warming over the past 15 years. Those are his words and his claims. If you want to argue about it, take it up with him. Any study studying warming based on his fudged and cherry picked and unverifiable data would conclude the warming was not statistically significant by his own admission. I realize that your religion forces you to make leaps of faith and accept his belief that there is warming but HIS science says otherwise. Further if AGW theories are correct why did AGW come to a grinding halt over the last 15 years when man-made carbon emissions were accelerating?
Of course "No statistically significant warming" is not the same at all as "no warming".
For someone who likes to bash everyone with your much vaunted scientific prowess you sure say a lot of things that make you look like an illiterate who never passed high school physics. If you are going to make science your religion then at least learn to understand the scientific method.
AGW is a farce of a theory based on bad science, manipulated data, deleted data and outright lies, with officials in charge who profit directly from their lies.
In ten years, if you are still alive and posting on chesstalk, I am sure that you will be reporting that you were never taken in by all the AGW hype and never believed it for a moment.
Then again as we freeze through a long cold winter you may stick to your guns and claim that the cold is a symptom of global warming.
Your climate scientists turned it into a junk science. I didn't think that I had to sugarcoat reality for you.
I understand that you are working with the limited set of tools that God gave you and so I try to be somewhat charitable. Notwithstanding you continually confirm that you are either as dumb as dirt or are a troll.
How quickly Vlad shows his real character by resorting to verbal abuse.
He says that there is no statistically significant warming over the past 15 years. Those are his words and his claims.
These are only part of his words and Vlad chooses to cherry pick them. Nor do they mean what Vlad thinks they mean, presumably because of Vlad's inability to understand straightforward math.
I realize that your religion forces you to make leaps of faith and accept his belief that there is warming but HIS science says otherwise.
More verbal abuse and bullying. Yawn.
Further if AGW theories are correct why did AGW come to a grinding halt over the last 15 years when man-made carbon emissions were accelerating?
It didn't, Vlad is merely repeating his lie about it, presumably in the hopes that repeating it enough will make it true. Vlad I've been dealing with bullies for sixty years and I know that it arises out of fear. It's OK Vlad, you have nothing to fear from me. Or is it something else you fear?
Rest of bullying verbal abuse snipped because it is of no interest to anyone except, perhaps, a psychologist.
I want to destroy one faulty argument that Vlad is always saying about CO2 lagging temperature rises in the past.
The following link is simple physics...
A)Human emissions --> CO2 rise in atmosphere --> climate change (warming)
These links are also simple physics...
B)Temperature rise --> warmer oceans absorb less CO2 --> CO2 rise in atmosphere
C)Temperature fall --> colder oceans absorb more CO2 --> CO2 drop in atmosphere
When temperature has changed in the past due to Milinkevich cycles (on the 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands year timescales) both B and C occurred in cyclic fashion.
Vlad is claiming that because B and C have occurred, A cannot. Totally ridiculous logic.
He will have to try harder.
Vlad, you like to point out that CO2 itself is not a pollutant. But that's kind of a silly argument, since the related activity is a huge source of pollution. The Alberta tar sands is the poster boy for pollution, and car exhaust is a leading cause of air pollution.
Moving away from fossil fuels has the duel benefit of reduced pollution and greenhouse gases. :)
Vlad, Here are two youtube clips discussing the hacked emails that you like to talk about. These clips support my suspicions that the controvery has been overstated by the climate change skeptics. It makes the case that the skeptics have not been honest with you, in that their cherry picked quotes are taken out of context. Give it a listen please.
I want to destroy one faulty argument that Vlad is always saying about CO2 lagging temperature rises in the past.
The following link is simple physics...
A)Human emissions --> CO2 rise in atmosphere --> climate change (warming)
These links are also simple physics...
B)Temperature rise --> warmer oceans absorb less CO2 --> CO2 rise in atmosphere
C)Temperature fall --> colder oceans absorb more CO2 --> CO2 drop in atmosphere
When temperature has changed in the past due to Milinkevich cycles (on the 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands year timescales) both B and C occurred in cyclic fashion.
Vlad is claiming that because B and C have occurred, A cannot. Totally ridiculous logic.
He will have to try harder.
CO2 is only one part out of 2000 in the air. It has no signifiance in warming.
Eating make you big but if there is only 1/2000 of fat in your meal don't worry and this is why we have seen no warming in the last 15 years.
CO2 is only one part out of 2000 in the air. It has no signifiance in warming.
Actually it is currently a good deal lower than one in 2000. But a simple calculation based on the laws of physics will show that Carl is as usual, quite wrong about it's significance in warming. Oh that, and they have done actual experiments to determine how much CO2 causes how much warming and the results disagree with Carl. What experiments has Carl done?
Those interested in the actual facts of the matter will find them over at the Skeptical Science website.
Eating make you big but if there is only 1/2000 of fat in your meal don't worry
Well according to Wikepedia the dose of botulism toxin that will kill half of those who consume it is "0.005–0.05 µg/kg". Now a microgram is a millionth of a gram, and a kilogram is 1000 grams, so this dosage is at a level of less than one part in a billion!
Perhaps Carl would like to consume, say, a hundred gram can of beans with one part per two thousand of botulism toxin in it? After all by his own reasoning it couldn't possibly harm him!
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Sunday, 28th February, 2010, 10:53 PM.
Tweet
Comment