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.
And yet you pick ten slightly cooler years and use them to "disprove" global warming. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
Those years that I referred to were the last recent years in history, which therefore may or may not have greater weight. I grant you it only MIGHT be the start of a new trend. Never said I was sure of disproving global warming, just implied there is fodder for dissent. I admit I've listened only with one ear to talk radio hosts here who discuss dissenters, and who claim their ranks are growing. Includes one geologist, though I can't recall his name or arguments. They tend to think further back in time than other scientists.
I hadn't seen your graghs when I made my original post on old and new business (climate etc.), which you refer to in your quote of me, so your goose/gander analogy may be a bit unfair, unless you refer to my later post where I pointed out one of your graphs confirmed my observation of recent years also. That was meant to be an observation on my part of the similarity of what I had heard climatewise of large areas of our own country in recent years to the world's recent years' climate as a whole, rather than a claim of 'disproff' of global warming. Sorry for any confusion.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Thursday, 13th August, 2009, 03:29 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Even the dissenters are having to admit the warming is real, they can only deny the obvious for so long. Now they are taking refuge in saying it isn't caused by man. But the actual climate scientists say that the evidence is now overwhelming that it is.
Well, if it comes down to a decision I think I'll take the advice of the folks who were right all along on the first point because it seems to me fairly likely that they will also be right on the second, as opposed to those who were wrong all along on the first, but want to convince me that nevertheless they are right on the second. The first group just seems to be a better bet to me, you know?
Whose opinion on a chess position are you going to believe? The B player or the GM?
If we assume the dissenters are wrong about denying global warming, we should look at whether a particular subset of dissenters may be right or not about man-made vs. natural causes before making any bets. What I mean is that some people who did not dissent on global warming as a fact may have dissented all along on whether it is man-made. Perhaps by your reasoning we might have to give these people no disrespect as yet to their credibility.
However for the sake of argument, let's take the set where the dissenters on the first point and the dissenters second point are the same, the only set you've considered. Yes, assuming they were wrong about global warming, they would seem to be less credible on the second point. However the second point involves research that may not strictly the same as that done on the first (ignoring the fact that the old guard of scientists are being gradually replaced all the time). True, a chess GM may play a better game of Shogi (Japanese chess, in many ways similar to chess) than a B-class chess player, but it doesn't strictly follow. I'd probably bet on the GM if he played Shogi as long as the B-class player, however.
The problem with this is that we are almost dealing with life and death issues, where betting should normally be frowned upon. In the worst case, if Global warming is real AND man-made, we could pull out all the stops to reverse it asap, even if it wrecks the world economy for decades. We could first try to estimate and compare the cost in consequently ruined/lost lives to weigh against those projected casualties/costs of unrelieved global warming as well. However for all I know it may be too late even now to reverse man-made global warming, so what would be the point of trying? Ideally we should try to establish that too. Meanwhile what we do know for certain is that economic hardship imposed by anti-global warming measures definitely hurts people in a big way. Plus there is still dissent on whether global warming is happening or if it is man-made.
What I know personally faith-wise gives me great comfort, but unfortunately most people may not have that kind of absolute belief in the future. I feel I should apologize for conversing about matters that seem academic for me personally, but it helps me pass the time.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I grant you it only MIGHT be the start of a new trend. Never said I was sure of disproving global warming, just implied there is fodder for dissent.
There is always fodder for dissent. It's just that on global warming there is very little fodder indeed, and the people we expect to be the ones who know, that being the scientists that actually study climate as their specialty, are pretty well all in agreement. Global warming is happening, and it is happening now. And it is also almost certainly anthropogenic in origin. The evidence is in, and the real specialists are not in any doubt any more.
But climate is not weather. Weather varies year to year and the variations can be quite wide. Climate is the underlying trend. That can only be determined by looking at a lot of weather and finding the trend with known mathematical methods.
Weather is also an oscillating system, like a pendulum but a lot more complex. Injecting energy into an oscillating system makes the oscillations wider at both extremes. Just find yourself a pendulum and give it a push in one direction - you'll find that it swings more widely in both directions, not only in the direction of push.
So in fact global warming predicts not only warmer summers, but colder winters as well. We had a lot of snow (for Victoria) last year, and some folks were talking about this "disproving" global warming. In fact if anything it was evidence for global warming, not against it.
But actually of course it wasn't evidence either way since a single year isn't evidence about the underlying trend over many years. The record hot spell here this summer is also not evidence of global warming.
I admit I've listened only with one ear to talk radio hosts here who discuss dissenters, and who claim their ranks are growing. Includes one geologist, though I can't recall his name or arguments. They tend to think further back in time than other scientists.
A geologist is not a climate scientist and his opinion about climate is no more important than yours or mine. Typical of the fallacies promoted by many talk shows. Scientists who give opinions outside of their specalties should be given no more weight than anyone else.
The likely consequences of the global warming we are almost certain to have to deal with in this century are so severe that we had better start doing something about it soon.
The scientists are probably right about global warming, not that you would know it this summer - in this area.
Which scientists? The real ones who say it is a hoax or the ones with a vested interest in perpetrating a fraud on the public. Someone said that stock market graphs and techniques don't apply here but that is not the case. Billions of dollars are on the table for the middlemen like Goldman Sachs and other would be traders in carbon credits.
The head of the UN says we have four months before we are doomed. I guess we will see now.
Global warming is a religious movement that believes in big government and is inherently anti-technology and anti-man. If they succeed in ramming their laws and taxes down our throats, we will be much poorer, they will be much richer and the temperature will not change one hundredth of a degree whether Celsius or Fahrenheit.
I'm sure our Ontario premier is salivating over the new taxes he is going to be able to impose to "save the planet"
There is always fodder for dissent. It's just that on global warming there is very little fodder indeed, and the people we expect to be the ones who know, that being the scientists that actually study climate as their specialty, are pretty well all in agreement. Global warming is happening, and it is happening now. And it is also almost certainly anthropogenic in origin. The evidence is in, and the real specialists are not in any doubt any more.
Endlessly repeating that canard does not make it so. Mars has also seen a temperature increase. Is that anthropogenic in origin as well? Might it not have something to do with solar cycles?
Which scientists? The real ones who say it is a hoax or the ones with a vested interest in perpetrating a fraud on the public.
All the real ones I've read say the very opposite. Got any names of these "real scientists" who disagree with global warming? Thought not. Of course just being a "real scientist" doesn't make you credible about global warming.
The head of the UN says we have four months before we are doomed. I guess we will see now.
No he didn't. got any evidence? Got a source? Thought not. But, on the other hand the head of the UN is not a climate scientist so his opinion is beside the point.
Global warming is a religious movement that believes in big government and is inherently anti-technology and anti-man. If they succeed in ramming their laws and taxes down our throats, we will be much poorer, they will be much richer and the temperature will not change one hundredth of a degree whether Celsius or Fahrenheit.
Got any actual evidence as opposed to going on a name-calling rant as above?
Which scientists? The real ones who say it is a hoax or the ones with a vested interest in perpetrating a fraud on the public. Someone said that stock market graphs and techniques don't apply here but that is not the case. Billions of dollars are on the table for the middlemen like Goldman Sachs and other would be traders in carbon credits.
The head of the UN says we have four months before we are doomed. I guess we will see now.
Global warming is a religious movement that believes in big government and is inherently anti-technology and anti-man. If they succeed in ramming their laws and taxes down our throats, we will be much poorer, they will be much richer and the temperature will not change one hundredth of a degree whether Celsius or Fahrenheit.
I'm sure our Ontario premier is salivating over the new taxes he is going to be able to impose to "save the planet"
I don't know which scientists are right. Like I wrote to someone earlier. There have been many ice ages and each time the ice recedes.
I've also noticed the environmental stuff is big business. Are government grants for science also involved?
Regarding tax grabs by our Premier, he has already convinced me to vote PC next election. This will be the first time I've done that in a Provincial election.
Global warming is a religious movement that believes in big government and is inherently anti-technology and anti-man. If they succeed in ramming their laws and taxes down our throats, we will be much poorer, they will be much richer and the temperature will not change one hundredth of a degree whether Celsius or Fahrenheit.
I'm sure our Ontario premier is salivating over the new taxes he is going to be able to impose to "save the planet"
Are global warming activists really anti-technology? Aren't they in favor of wind farms, fuel cell technology, hydrogen research, cold fusion research, just to name a few?
Vlad, I think you are superimposing political ideology on the global warming debate, and I think anyone who does this is just trying to find any avenue they can to promote their own politcal agenda.
This whole battle... between "right wing" conservatives who champion freedom of choice and freedom from government (and have not one iota of understanding as to what freedom encompasses nor how tiny and tenuous the freedoms they are so proud of can ever be) and "left wing" liberals who believe in restraining man from unbridled greed and upholding the rights and dignities of the less fortunate... is permeating every issue that affects the future of man, there being so MANY such issues is this age of technology and population explosion. This is a bad trend that is paralyzing mankind. When we have a debate that is purely scientific, such as global warming, we really need to set aside the political agendas. The only people who can do this are the truly open minded people on this planet. They are few and far between.
To say that global warming is a religious movement is pure hyperbole. Too many people seeing too many conspiracy theories. If just a small percentage of all the conspiracy theories out there were true, we'd all be assimilated into something that would pass for the Borg by now and all resistance would be futile.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
30 years ago Newsweek wrote an article on how scientists noticed a trend of global cooling and "they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."
30 years ago Newsweek wrote an article on how scientists noticed a trend of global cooling and "they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."
It's easy to select a single quote in isolation from somewhere and ignoring the rest claim it proves that "scientists are wrong", but another quote from the article says
"Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Which was perfectly true back then, but you didn't quote it for some reason.
it may look silly today, but just because you have a Ph.D. after your name doesn't make you infallible...
But it also doesn't make you wrong. Many things affect global food production, among them a greatly increased use of energy to produce food in these last twenty years, along with other scientific developments in, among other things, genetics. The quote you give may, in fact, have been perfectly correct. You certainly cited no evidence that it wasn't.
But it also doesn't make you wrong. Many things affect global food production, among them a greatly increased use of energy to produce food in these last twenty years, along with other scientific developments in, among other things, genetics. The quote you give may, in fact, have been perfectly correct. You certainly cited no evidence that it wasn't.
That's quite true regarding the use of energy to produce food. Take sugar. An awesome amount of natural gas goes into making sugar. It's enough that I wonder if a company which produces sugar in a province without a carbon tax has an advantage over a company which produces in a province which does have a carbon tax.
Any idea if the sugar beet crop yield in Alberta is down this year? Sugar in made from both sugar beets and sugar cane. With the shortage this year it might be hard or expensive to obtain the sugar cane.
I like sugar companies and one trades on the TSX as an income trust. Rogers. I forget who owns the one in Toronto at the lake front. Sugar is a real sweet business, if you'll pardon the pun. :)
The summer passes and some signs of some economic recovery can be seen. At least one of the automakers is ramping up production to meet the demand provided by the U.S. Cash for Clunkers program. Another automaker is running a shift (or shifts) on Saturday. An extra days production. I think these are at U.S. plants and I don't know how many shifts a day they run. I would think this should help the parts makers employees as well as the auto makers employees. The American government seems to have provided stimulus for the auto industry and stimulus incentive for the public to buy the product by giving an substantial amount for the trade in (clunker). Those of you who have been reading this thread probably recall I've mentioned the lack of a decent trade in value for vehicles is a deterrent to people buying a new vehicle.
I keep hearing on TV about how the stock markets are overdue for a correction and how the markets will likely drop. I suppose if people got in a real selling mood it would happen. The danger is if the market doesn't drop and they want to get back in they will likely pay more. Still, I don't have a crystal ball and can't see tomorrow. I can only "read sign" and decide what I think is most likely to occur. An analysis based on lifetime experiences and a child psychology course I once took - and passed.
The price of natural gas has become very low. The other day I more or less hedged my natural gas usage for this winter. I bought a natural gas ETF. While I normally like the 2X ETF's, this time I bought a 1X ETF. In addition, the ETF is based on the AECO natural gas price. Now AECO is the Alberta natural gas price. That price on the Sept. contract is around $2.75 per MCF (thousand cubic ft). In case you're wondering, that works out to a little less than 8 cents a cubic meter. The major reference price in the U.S. is the NYMEX (New York Mercantile Exchange). That was trading around $3.25 in U.S. dollars. I think AECO trades in U.S. dollars as well so the $2.75 price is actually around $3.00 Canadian (at current exchange rates) or 8.5 cents a cubic meter, Canadian. Have a look at your gas bill and see how much you are paying for a cubic meter.
Anyhow, my reasoning is this. If the price of natural gas keeps dropping my ETF will also drop in value, but so will my gas bill and the trade will be a "wash", more or less. Same thing is if natural gas remains stable. If Natural gas prices rise my ETF will rise along with my gas bill and I'm covered.
Ideally, the price of natural gas will rise enough in the next couple of months to pay my full bill for the winter and I will cash out. The value of the ETF could drop before it picks up as I suspect the natural gas storage is filling up quickly.
There are a couple of smaller gas explorers I like but am afraid of the company risk in this low commodity price environment.
I still hold my shares in the BC paper company and hope my trees weren't caught up in the awful forest fires I've been seeing on TV. I also hope my sugar beets weren't caught up in the drought in Alberta.
I've been reading in the newspaper that Lithium is all the rage for investment. I don't have any. It's for the batteries for the electric vehicles. I really don't know about that technology. The battery in my pacer only lasted around 8 years, almost to the month. The car batteries are rechargeable but I have a rechargeable electric shaver with a battery. In fact, I've had several over the years. Each charge seems to last less time than the last charge until you can barely get one shave out of the electric shaver from a charge. I haven't seen any price projections for the operation, repair and replacement of parts in the electric vehicles.
DISCLAIMER: None of what I write should be used for investment decisions. I write this stuff for entertainment. Consult a financial advisor.
All the real ones I've read say the very opposite. Got any names of these "real scientists" who disagree with global warming? Thought not. Of course just being a "real scientist" doesn't make you credible about global warming.
You first. You made some extraordinary claims without mentioning the names of any "real scientists" who do or don't have a vested interest in continuing to feed this hysteria. It is standard operating procedure for a troll to demand evidence and citations which he himself does not provide. Once you provide the proof he then will claim that those aren't real.
I have been through this line several times and you don't play it nearly as well as some of the others have. I first heard of man-made global warming some forty years ago. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now.
No he didn't. got any evidence? Got a source? Thought not.
Do you watch the news on TV? It was on CTV, CBC and CNN. Its even on the UN website. Are you just trolling? Do you understand how dumb you look to anyone who reads the newspaper or watches the news?
No he didn't. got any evidence? Got a source? Thought not.
I have plenty of evidence and sources as I have been debating this same topic for many years. You will cite your sources and I will cite mine. Are you going to trot out the old hockey stick? The looney left has a long history of exaggerated claims of impending environmental doom. As previously mentioned here it was not so long ago that global cooling was the doomsday scenario. Remember the Club of Rome and their doomsday clock? The oil was supposed to run out in the eighties and then the nineties.
The current orthodoxy is to speak of climate change and not global warming because the recent evidence is that things have cooled a bit.
Global warming hysteria is fueled by inaccurate models and lies and bad statistical analysis. It is big business. There is too much money involved for them to let the truth get in the way.
The summer passes and some signs of some economic recovery can be seen. At least one of the automakers is ramping up production to meet the demand provided by the U.S. Cash for Clunkers program. Another automaker is running a shift (or shifts) on Saturday. An extra days production. I think these are at U.S. plants and I don't know how many shifts a day they run. I would think this should help the parts makers employees as well as the auto makers employees. The American government seems to have provided stimulus for the auto industry and stimulus incentive for the public to buy the product by giving an substantial amount for the trade in (clunker). Those of you who have been reading this thread probably recall I've mentioned the lack of a decent trade in value for vehicles is a deterrent to people buying a new vehicle.
Cash for Clunkers is a typical government program. Take perfectly good cars, ones that people actually own outright, and demolish them. At the same time "encourage" consumers to purchase "better" (read: more expensive) ones on credit. Of course any of this stuff is at best zero sum, so all those people who don't fall for this scam are obligated to finance those who do. There is no free lunch. If Paul gets a government subsidy, then Peter is going to have to finance it.
It is in the government's interest to get people working more, and consuming more, while taxing them all the way. If the government could get away with it, I think they would try to convince all citizens to yearly demolish every good they own (Cash for Old Clothes! Cash for Old Furniture! Cash for Old Electronic Items!) so that they would be forced to buy them back, thus stimulating the economy and keeping everyone employed, while taxing all that income and consequent consumption.
"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.
Tweet
Comment