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.
Poorly constructed, dubious criteria and erroneous conclusions. I read the whole study.
And why is it that when the study supports AGW the authors don't have to be climate scientists but when the study does not support AGW they have no standing because they aren't climate scientists?
Your second link doesn't work. The first one did work and the article was just the type of "scholarly" article that I have come to expect from AGW supporters.
97% of the scientists agree with ACC (anthropogenic climate change) and 3% do not. Not only that, the 3% publish far fewer papers and are cited much less.
You do not like the results so you invent general comments. What do you mean by your comments. Get away from generalities and actually say something specific. That means that you actually do have to read the study; I do not believe for one moment that you read it. At least Gary read 2 lines, the first line of the abstract and the first line of the body, and talked specifically about one phrase.
"In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. Several studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities."
"We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one. "
Now that site is managed by a physicist - you know, an actual scientist. For myself, if I have to bet on the opinions of actual scientists on a scientific matter, or on a bunch of random web monomaniacs, well I know who I'm going with anyway.
The Gang of Three Hypocrites can bluster and name call until they run out of air. They will still be just as ignorant about science as they were when they started, which is, of course, almost entirely ignorant.
Vlad, your link is a complete obfuscation. It is just a selection of climate change papers written over the years. It includes gems like "An alternate view of climate change for steelworkers" and like papers. I doubt that you have read any of them.
What education do you have again. Did you finish highschool?
Vlad, your link is a complete obfuscation. It is just a selection of climate change papers written over the years. It includes gems like "An alternate view of climate change for steelworkers" and like papers. I doubt that you have read any of them.
What education do you have again. Did you finish highschool?
His way of thinking is simple enough, we should act as if it(global warming) is from humans, we don't have another planet on which to run this experiment! There is nothing wrong with moving over to non-polluting energy sources, we'll have to get away from non-renewable energy sources sometime in the future anyways, what's the point of delaying?
Adam, you are correct. Usually I am above "ad hominen" attacks, but in the case of Vlad, Gary, and Bonhomme I would consider them "ad simean", or should I say "ad neanderthal" attacks. Oops, there I go again. All in jest...
Sometimes when I get overtired I start using their tactics; after all they can be quite draining!
I could not stop laughing for at least five minutes at your claim to be "neutral"; and your phrases "fairy tales", "fantasies", "torpedoing" and "religious beliefs"; all in one post.
Bravo; keep up the humour...
Still not as funny as Beckwith, the scientist wannabe, assuming all the Vlads on this board are Russian, because of their first name.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Once they went in through a second story window which was locked. Another time they went in through the balcony door which was locked and had a bar to prevent opening it by sliding it sideways. Apparently all you have to do is lift and push really hard at the bottom.
It is really amusing to see Paul ridicule the Harper government for telling it like it is. Unless there is insurance involved which requires a police report, most people don't bother reporting most crimes because it is a waste of time 99% of the time.
There have been some breakins around here over the years.
I never heard they caught anyone.
Insurance claims lead to higher premiums and it has to be worth claiming. Too many claims can make it hard to get insurance.
... Many examples are given of extreme weather events that are occuring with uncharacteristic frequency around the planet. ...
My simple point, since you missed it, was that "uncharacteristic frequency" is a claim that is only valid going back 1 or maybe 2 human generations. Prior to that, no one can say for sure what "uncharacteristic frequency" means, nor how many years having uncharacteristic frequency of severe weather events occured. 1 or 2 human generations is like a microsecond in a geological day. Don't they teach you anything at school?
You should notice that I'm not denying AGW. I'm denying the validity of the evidence that you are trying to pass off as proving AGW.
Just to pound home this point: at the beginning of this year, psychic Sylvia Browne pronounced that this would be the worst weather year around the world that many of us have ever witnessed. Now that I've told you that and you see that it's coming true, are you going to start reading every book Sylvia has written (probably over 30, maybe over 40) and start believing in everything she teaches, such as reincarnation? I hope not.
Neither am I going to become convinced in AGW because you post about "increased frequency" of severe weather events. I might become convinced of AGW, but not because of your faulty logic.
Remember, we are talking "AGW" here, not just "GW". Shouldn't you be trying to prove the "A" part? There is some GW going on, no doubt about it. If this GW means accompanying severe weather events of increasing frequency, it still does NOT mean that this GW is anything worse that the Earth has already experienced even during the entire human era. Humans may already have lived through, and survived, many eras of GW!
So in addition to proving the "A" part of "AGW", you should try to prove that this episode of GW is somehow the one that might wipe us all out. Which it might be, I'm not dismissing the idea.
If you could focus your posts on these points, and maybe provide us with some legit ideas as to what humanity can do about it all, I might be one of your supporters. Instead, you decide to get cutesy and immature and call me and a few others "The Three Stooges".
Please stop with the reposting of stories on weather events. You joined others in criticizing me for posting so much about a certain individual, but you show yourself to be hypocritical in posting so much about weather events. Jeez, where's Steve Douglas and his wedding guest analogy? :D
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
His way of thinking is simple enough, we should act as if it(global warming) is from humans, we don't have another planet on which to run this experiment! There is nothing wrong with moving over to non-polluting energy sources, we'll have to get away from non-renewable energy sources sometime in the future anyways, what's the point of delaying?
Non-polluting energy sources do not exist. Wind and solar power is only viable because the government is overpaying by a factor of five or six times what other energy sources cost. Bankrupt governments will not be able to continue that spending spree.
You are asking us to take a huge hit in our standard of living and to consent to obscene increases in taxes when we are already over-taxed.
If AGW theories are true then humanity is doomed because there is only going to be more carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere. China's output is growing exponentially as is India's. Carbon cap and trade is just another way for people like Al Gore and companies like Goldman Sachs to enrich themselves.
Thankfully the theories are mostly nonsense. If we go up a couple of degrees in a century or two because of GW that will give us plenty of time to adjust.
Tweet
Comment