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.
I have not researched these reports yet (I am on vacation); however I can say this:
The term "alarmist" is not used by bona-fide scientists. In these quotes it is used repeatedly and this immediately sends up red flags as to the validity of the reports.
James Taylor is a well known climate change denier whose works at the Heartland Institute which is well known to be funded primarily by Exxon and other oil companies. It represents the interests of big oil, big corporations, and the fossil fuel industry, as well as the Koch brothers.
The articles appeared in Forbes business magazine, a magazine of big business. Do you ever see Forbes articles on climate change from climatologists, NO...
Roy Spencer is another well known denier with connections to the fossil fuel industry, and again the term "alarmist" that he uses shows his position.
Climate change models by different groups around the world using various appoaches to modelling and simulations make links from radiation budgets, to energy budgets, to temperature changes, and are consistent in matching warming that is occurring today from CO2 and other greenhouse gases (difference in models gives variance). Google the IPCC and look at some of their chapters on these topics for more information.
In addition, the information from Taylor, Spencer, and the Heartland is repeatedly invalidated by climatologists; nothing is different in this case...
The term "alarmist" is only as subjective as the term "denier", which you have used over and over and over again. I could equally state that "denier" is not used by bona-fide scientists, which kind of leaves you out in the cold.
However, more to the point is the study itself, and its co-author Roy Spencer. Can you elaborate on his fossil fuel industry connections? Not for my benefit, but just because you shouldn't state something like that without providing provable corroboration or evidence. Logic 101.
If he does have such connections, how is he so highly involved in scientific studies? And how are we to know whether other "scientists" that you have included links to or to their studies don't have links to left-wing government agencies or such?
The door swings both ways.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
It's always rough when an article has to be read to find if it contains only approved nouns and adjectives. Probably alarmist and denier would not be approved nouns. :)
It's always rough when an article has to be read to find if it contains only approved nouns and adjectives. Probably alarmist and denier would not be approved nouns. :)
Unless you're the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. :D:D:D
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
Paul Bonham, give me a break. Do some of your own digging. Just Google Roy Spencer and spend a few minutes looking over the links.
Here is one of the first that comes up, contains lots of tidbits:
"He is a member of the Heartland Institute, a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute, and the favorite climatologist of Rush Limbaugh. In addition to being skeptical about the existence of climate change, Dr. Spencer also doubts the theory of evolution."
""Intelligent design explains similarities based upon common design. An Audi and a Ford each have four wheels, a transmission, an engine, a gas tank, fuel injection systems ... but no one would claim that they both naturally evolved from a common ancestor."
Source: "Faith Based Evolution" by Roy Spencer"
"2 May, 2007
Appeared in Glenn Beck's May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"
Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007"
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
Another Roy Spencer link:
"The greatest irony of Roy Spencer is that while he presents himself as a voice of skepticism and doubt, he has actually aligned himself with organizations that promote the opposite of doubt. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that's based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. Spencer has also been a defender of the pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" Creationism, saying that the theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion."
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
James Taylor links:
"“Cold weather kills, as does cold climate. Yet global warming zealots tell us it is better to have a ‘natural’ climate that kills people than a benign climate that is partially caused by humans.” -In a blog post on Forbes.com, pronouncing that global warming would keep more people alive, as “cold climate kills”.
Source: Forbes"
He is also connected to the Cato Institute, a well known right wing thinktank with fossil fuel funding.
If you look at a post I made a while back, I provided links to an article that showed that 90% of climate change deniers are funded by Exxon and other oil companies, and groups like the Koch brothers.
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
Heartland Institute:
"The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation."
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
More info on Heartland funding:
Exxon contributions include:
$30,000 in 1998;
$115,000 in 2000;
$90,000 in 2001;
$15,000 in 2002;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
$119,000 in 2005; and
$115,000 in 2006.
Paul Bonham, I enjoy your posts on Chesstalk for the most part, they are well thought out and some are very philosophically deep. However you certainly dropped the ball when you ask me to provide some information on guys like Spencer, I find a request like that surprising...
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
"Our planet is rapidly approaching "tipping points" in climate. Billions of trees died in the Amazon in 2010 (as in 2005), for these years the Amazon rainforest was a carbon source instead of a carbon sink. The link is the news story, look at the links for the details in the actual scientific paper. "
Blah, blah, blah! Yada, yada, yada! The sky is falling. Why do you always go on posting tears when I am away at tournaments?
The game is over for global warming/climate change. No one is drinking the poisoned koolaid. The cost is too high and once we eliminate the last two or three sympathetic politicians (through voting them out at election time) we won't have to worry about this nonsense for another four years.
In a related note, it appears that the NDP shot itself in the head with the picking of their Post-Layton interim leader. Looks like the Liberals will be making a slight comeback in four years.
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
Interesting that the Sierra club's bedfellow is targetting Dalton McGuinty in those bridge to nowhere ads without identifying the fact that it is a foreign company spending money in an election campaign. I guess those anti-democratic election muzzle laws don't apply provincially.
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
Vlad, please provide me with your tournament schedules so that I can post when you are at tournaments.
I think that I wil start a Beckwith Climate Change rating service (BCCRS) to rate peoples knowledge on climate change science. Here is a first cut:
Vlad Drkulec 1000 (I think that I am being quite generous here, do not want to damage Vlad's ego so have bumped him to 4 digits, he gets more bonus points than any other person for posting copiously, but loses some for sounding like a harping seal or broken record; blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada, etc.)
Gary Ruben 1200 (initially he was higher, but with Vlad as a mentor he has dipped back)
Paul Bonham 1500 (very high beta, has boughts of insight (trees on rafts) but lack of research on climate deniers has pulled him back, needs to learn to google things more)
Tom O'Donnell 1700 (understands the basic problem, lives a low carbon lifestyle, but a little jaded about humanities ability to innovate)
Chris Mallon 1700 (not much info to go on but I think he gets it)
Bob Gillanders 1800 (understands the issues, member of Green Party)
Larry Bevand 1900 (not much to go on, but keeping this link alive means he is willing to learn lots about climate change, have to keep the boss happy and he deserves an honorary rating)
I hesitate to give myself a rating, but I think I am approaching IM (not to be too presumptuous, still loads to learn). I know that I am forgetting people, feel free to post a suggested rating for yourself or a modification to my estimates...I would love to hear something from Kevin Spraggett to determine his rating...
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
"I hesitate to give myself a rating, but I think I am approaching IM (not to be too presumptuous, still loads to learn). I know that I am forgetting people, feel free to post a suggested rating for yourself or a modification to my estimates...I would love to hear something from Kevin Spraggett to determine his rating... "
You are a legend in your own mind. I would give you a rating of 200 because I believe that is the lowest rating that I have ever seen. HTH.
Paul Bonham, I enjoy your posts on Chesstalk for the most part, they are well thought out and some are very philosophically deep. However you certainly dropped the ball when you ask me to provide some information on guys like Spencer, I find a request like that surprising...
You did read the part where I said it's not for my benefit, but because you made a claim about Spencer without any backup whatsoever? So all these posts you just made, with all these links, you should have done alongside your initial claim. Talk about dropping the ball.... and you're in university, as a mature student no less, you really should know better. I should forward this to your profs, you'd lose a grade instantly. Actually two, for telling people that you are trying to swing to your point of view to "do your own googling". That's like a car salesman telling a customer to go to all the other dealerships in town before making a decision. You don't sell many cars that way.
So, according to the internet gods, Spencer is a right-winger and doesn't believe in AGW or in theory of evolution. Extreme right-wingers, like extreme left-wingers, are suspect, I'll agree. Evolution, creation: nothing mutually exclusive there. Fossil fuel funding: definitely a red flag.
So now the question shifts to the study itself and Spencer's role in it. Would you go so far as to say he fudged data? Or would you be more benign and say he's just arriving at wrong conclusions because of his vested interests? And if he's doing that, what can you tell us about the ACTUAL DATA of this particular study? Is it true or false that the data strongly refutes the AGW computer models? Why or why not?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment