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.
Thanks for the synopsis. Reminds me of when I was reading the Club of Rome publications, I think back in the 60's(? ). A dreary future.
Bob
And what makes you think that the current doomsday scenarios are any more accurate than the ones given by the Club of Rome in the 1960s? It would be interesting to recap how accurate their predictions turned out to be.
Come on Bob G., do not hold back. Amazing how an otherwise perfectly normal person like Vlad can become a raving lunatic regarding climate change is a fascinating study in the weaknesses of the human psyche.
Sometimes banging your head against the wall, just gives you a headache. :(
Fair enough, you don't understand climate change at a technical level but you are willing to believe what you are told.
***
You will excuse the rest of us who are perhaps a little more sceptical and open minded and not entirely satisfied by Professor Youtube.
Same words can be told about you (no background with different sources).
Anyway, my philosophical friend told: there are no names in theoretical debates, it is your right to believe, not believe, or simple make measurements to confirm one or other theses.
Same words can be told about you (no background with different sources).
Anyway, my philosophical friend told: there are no names in theoretical debates, it is your right to believe, not believe, or simple make measurements to confirm one or other theses.
No actually the onus is on the science to prove itself. Certain claims have been made by some scientists. Further they are requiring real world action as a result. Other scientists do not agree with the findings. Science is about proof not about he said, she said, believe what you will. That would be the way science was only if it was run by hippies. I suggest a quick review of the scientific method to verify this.
Bob believes what 4/5 dentists recommend, I think there is room to listen to the dissenting 5th dentist. For Bob it's a game of numbers. He puts the number of scientists agreeing with the claim on one side of the balance beam and the rest on the other side. Whichever side has more is the one he goes with; since he can't confirm the proof himself. Or whichever side has more Youtube videos out there.
When I post about the NASA dissenters he goes quiet because it no longer computes for him. He pronounces the science to be proven. I make no such definitive claim because I am not qualified to do so. I merely point out that there is room for doubt and that science is far from perfect. This is born out by it's history of widely accepted theories that have been shown to be just plain wrong. Particularly in the realm of predicting disasters that threaten to wipe out humanity.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 17th July, 2012, 06:01 PM.
Bob believes what 4/5 dentists recommend, I think there is room to listen to the dissenting 5th dentist. For Bob it's a game of numbers. He puts the number of scientists agreeing with the claim on one side of the balance beam and the rest on the other side. Whichever side has more is the one he goes with; since he can't confirm the proof himself. Or whichever side has more Youtube videos out there.
That sounds like a decent explanation of a popularity contest.
The U.S. mines and uses a lot of coal. One of the top in the world. Also they use a lot of oil. That would seem a logical place for them to demonstrate.
By the way, from a previous post, what's a ceramics engineer? Does it have to do with mud and pottery? I watch ancient type programs on the History channel so I know something about that. :)
That sounds like a decent explanation of a popularity contest.
The U.S. mines and uses a lot of coal. One of the top in the world. Also they use a lot of oil. That would seem a logical place for them to demonstrate.
By the way, from a previous post, what's a ceramics engineer? Does it have to do with mud and pottery? I watch ancient type programs on the History channel so I know something about that. :)
From what I know they do the mud and pottery. They design things like the heat tiles on the space shuttle and the insulators on hydro lines. However, I'm sure Paul would be happy to enlighten us. Since he's always explaining how his engineering degree gives him knowledge about climate change. He also claims that it makes him a physicist.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 17th July, 2012, 06:35 PM.
Mr Bonham, to avoid a rapid transition this decade to a much warmer climate (and unrecognizable our existing one) we have a shot, a good shot. We need to apply regional geoengineering to the Arctic region to keep the sea ice intact. There are many good ways to do this, I highly recommend that you and everyone else on this site have a good look at the group that I work with called AMEG (Arctic Methane Emergency Group) and see our ideas on geoengineering.
Mr. Beckwith, I am glad that you finally are getting around to mentioning solutions instead of repeatedly being the boy who cried wolf. I've been trying to get you to talk about solutions for some time on this thread.
I do notice that the one solution you do mention, geoengineering, makes no mention about curbing the human activities that are the supposed cause of all the problems. I'm sure that's just a temporary blip -- you can't just keep bandaiding forever.
And that's why I asked (Bob G.) whether he felt the necessary solutions might bear higher human cost than just letting things run their course, i.e. doing nothing to curb current human behavior.
I see that some disagree with my assessment that either course inevitably IMO leads to a 90%+ human die-off, although I'm willing to consider that one course may be better than the other (but have no idea which one would be better). Do you care to weigh in on this?
The point is,
(1) drastic changes in human behavior seem to be indicated, if we believe the hype, at this late point in the progress of AGW. So drastic that whole societies will utterly collapse, mostly the more developed ones. One must remember that such drastic changes, which are depressive to economic activity, would come at the most precarious economic moment since the Great Depression.
(2) avoiding those drastic changes and letting things run their course would appear to indicate, if we believe the hype, massive human die-off due to many climatic factors up to and including magnetic polar shift (North Pole and South Pole switching).
It's going to be one path or the other. Either leads to massive disruption, suffering and (to wane Biblical) "weeping and gnashing of teeth".
I think the key part of the whole argument is what I wrote above for both scenarios: "if we believe the hype".
In other words, AGW believers have to convince the world to believe the hype, all in an effort to channel the world into scenario (1).
Which returns us to my question: which can we really believe has greater human cost, scenario (1) or scenario (2)?
Of course, scenario (3) is that the Greenland icesheets melt, and instead of a huge land mass rising up out of the northern sea, it turns out Greenland is an alien mothership, lying dormant until the inevitable melting of the ice sheets caused by human greed, and the aliens take over and save the world. Bruce Willis, eat your heart out.
By the way, Mr. Beckwith, I noticed that the sign you so proudly held up on Parliament Hill lacked something: it didn't even mention man's influence on climate change. To correct that, I submit:
Attached Files
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
When I post about the NASA dissenters he goes quiet because it no longer computes for him.
Hmmm....interesting. Since I did not respond to your last post, you have concluded that you have won the debate. Talk about jumping to conclusions. I think your scientific method needs a little work. I hope that you will find this instructional video helpful.
Hmmm....interesting. Since I did not respond to your last post, you have concluded that you have won the debate. Talk about jumping to conclusions. I think your scientific method needs a little work. I hope that you will find this instructional video helpful.
No, since you did not respond to the point about the NASA dissenters I assume you don't know how to respond to this point. You still have not responded to this point either. I am standing by waiting to be amazed by your refutatation of these NASA scientists and astronauts.
I think it's time you realize this is not about debate. This is not about who can post more youtube videos and articles. Nor about who the captain of the debating team was in high school. This is about the science needing to be proved. This is also about you not being an expert in the field who can make pronouncements as to what has been proven or not. To say the least your 'scientific method' is lacking.
At such time as you respond to the post about the NASA dissenters I will watch the video you have posted. Conveniently for you, you still have not and are evading the issue yet again. I"m not about to engage in a conversation where you require me to watch or read your links but conveniently ignore anything I link. If you choose to use the Paul Beckwith approved method of mud slinging against any 'dissenters' by saying they are in the pockets of industry etc etc then good luck with that. Character assasination is not science. It is a debating technique. A pretty low one but then if you make it about debate and not about the science it may work for you.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Wednesday, 18th July, 2012, 04:21 AM.
No, since you did not respond to the point about the NASA dissenters I assume you don't know how to respond to this point. You still have not responded to this point either. I am standing by waiting to be amazed by your refutatation of these NASA scientists and astronauts.
I think it's time you realize this is not about debate. This is not about who can post more youtube videos and articles. Nor about who the captain of the debating team was in high school. This is about the science needing to be proved. This is also about you not being an expert in the field who can make pronouncements as to what has been proven or not. To say the least your 'scientific method' is lacking.
At such time as you respond to the post about the NASA dissenters I will watch the video you have posted. Conveniently for you, you still have not and are evading the issue yet again. I"m not about to engage in a conversation where you require me to watch or read your links but conveniently ignore anything I link. If you choose to use the Paul Beckwith approved method of mud slinging against any 'dissenters' by saying they are in the pockets of industry etc etc then good luck with that. Character assasination is not science. It is a debating technique. A pretty low one but then if you make it about debate and not about the science it may work for you.
If you choose to use the Paul Beckwith approved method of mud slinging against any 'dissenters' by saying they are in the pockets of industry etc etc then good luck with that. Character assasination is not science. It is a debating technique. A pretty low one but then if you make it about debate and not about the science it may work for you.
Since they can't argue based on the facts they have to resort to mud slinging and such time honoured usenet techniques as trying to register sock puppets so as to give the appearance of more support for your position than actually exists. Further when caught in a brazen and totally unnecessary lie try to bluster your way out of the situation.
This "debate" is not changing any minds. The weak willed continue to follow the herd and subscribe to the demands of the hive mind which dictates thinking on these and all other topics. Note Paul's homage to Gary and myself, crediting us with helping him to hone his arguments. Obviously the herd can't do this for him because they are required to believe and follow the scriptures of the divine Church of Gaia as revealed to them by their prophet, Al Gore. There are no dissenting voices in this church. It is not tolerated nor allowed.
Alas it takes a great deal of psychic energy to keep up the facade in the face of mounting counter evidence. We have had a relentless barrage of doomsday scenarios at least since the late 1960s from the same group of usual suspects and yet Armageddon never seems to arrive. It always moves off farther into the future. It always will at least when it comes to the pronouncements of their religion, which always has a healthy dose of financial self interest dripping from every sentence uttered.
The best way to deal with them is to choke them at the trough on which they are feeding. Harper seems to be doing a good job of that lately.
Science is about proof not about he said, she said, believe what you will. That would be the way science was only if it was run by hippies. I suggest a quick review of the scientific method to verify this.
Your cited letter of former Nasa workers are full of believers or hippies :p
"We believe"
"declaring their disbelief "
"we feel"
And that's why I asked (Bob G.) whether he felt the necessary solutions might bear higher human cost than just letting things run their course, i.e. doing nothing to curb current human behavior.
Paul, just letting things run their course is not an option. Eventually, enough humans will realize climate change is real and action will be taken. It is only a matter of time. But the longer we wait, the tougher it will be.
But I do like your alien Greenland scenario. That is really thinking outside the box.
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
Gary, the earthquake effect on the planet was negligible. What is your point? Nothing alleged about climate change, to bad you were not in Ottawa where I would give you a comp. to attend my climatology course.
Tweet
Comment