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.
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
Look at how much you're spending in Ontario to move two power plants. Do you think the costs of building the infrastructure to transport the electricity won't go up? How about the over runs on the nuclear plants in Ontario and the cost to retube the reactors? The amount they spent to put the old side of the Pickering reactors back in operation. I guess they must be safe because they have installed old world war II air raid sirens in the area to inform residents if something goes wrong. I think when the sirens go off we're supposed to run but I haven't seen any information on where we're supposed to go. This might sound like a joke but it's not.
In any case, NFLD is a oil based economy and I wouldn't worry too much about the cost increases. Over the next 50 to 100 years the capital cost will be more than be recovered and the cost will look like a bargain.
As the link is likely to be truncated, it says: Global warming stopped 16 years ago Met Office report quietly released chart prove it.html Note that this is coming from your rabid climate change folks who had their dirty laundry leaked in the climategate email scandal. Unlike people like you and Paul whose faith in the AGW religion is not based on empirical facts some of us like to look at the data even if it comes from suspicious sources like the Met Office. It really needs to be looked at before they lose it again.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Tuesday, 30th October, 2012, 02:32 PM.
Look at how much you're spending in Ontario to move two power plants. Do you think the costs of building the infrastructure to transport the electricity won't go up? How about the over runs on the nuclear plants in Ontario and the cost to retube the reactors? The amount they spent to put the old side of the Pickering reactors back in operation. I guess they must be safe because they have installed old world war II air raid sirens in the area to inform residents if something goes wrong.
No surprise. Ontario is a rich province, which bribes others to accept its overproduced electricity :D
I think when the sirens go off we're supposed to run but I haven't seen any information on where we're supposed to go. This might sound like a joke but it's not.
It depends on a wind. You don't want to follow fallout. It might be safer to stay at home after closing windows & doors, and get/wait for further instructions.
As the link is likely to be truncated, it says: Global warming stopped 16 years ago Met Office report quietly released chart prove it.html Note that this is coming from your rabid climate change folks who had their dirty laundry leaked in the climategate email scandal. Unlike people like you and Paul whose faith in the AGW religion is not based on empirical facts some of us like to look at the data even if it comes from suspicious sources like the Met Office. It really needs to be looked at before they lose it again.
Thanks Vlad, I am very glad to hear this news. However, you really should try and be more objective in your reporting. You are reading too much into it.
The article acknowledges clearly that global warming is real. These new findings, are that for a 16 year period, we have a lull in global warming, suggests only that. So maybe (hopefully) some climate models may have been too aggressive in predicting immident doom. A problem the climate scientists have always been quick to acknowledge. The problem remains. I really do hope the data is true, but I am skeptical for now.
This reminds me of my days as Controller at an automotive finishing parts plant in Mississauga. We had a daily production report that was issued early each morning that reported on the previous days production. The report was quite reliable most days, but every so often, unbelievably high production numbers were reported. Each time that happened, everyone was quick to congratulate themselves on a job well done. Everyone except me, of course. When I got the report, it was obvious to me that it was wrong. I then quickly audited the report, found the errors, and had the report corrected. People are always quick to believe good news. I have learned to be skeptical. So, is this report true? Have we really had a 16 year period of no global warming? There still seems to be a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. So believe what you want. I will wait for the reviews.
Thanks Vlad, I am very glad to hear this news. However, you really should try and be more objective in your reporting. You are reading too much into it.
The article acknowledges clearly that global warming is real.
How much does the Met Office have to lose if it turns out that global warming is not real? A great deal. Chicken Little will have to move on to the next manufactured crisis. Hence the very low key release of the data.
These new findings, are that for a 16 year period, we have a lull in global warming, suggests only that.
While the models predicted imminent doom and gloom the Met Office staff were wringing their hands and trying to think of ways to "hide the decline".
So maybe (hopefully) some climate models may have been too aggressive in predicting immident doom. A problem the climate scientists have always been quick to acknowledge.
The ones that have acknowledged it have been subject to persecution and termination actually.
The problem remains. I really do hope the data is true, but I am skeptical for now.
You are skeptical of the data from the Met Office which they still have that shows no warming over the past 16 years but you believe the adjusted data from the Met Office for which they conveniently lost the raw data which does show global warming in previous time frames? Curious...
This reminds me of my days as Controller at an automotive finishing parts plant in Mississauga. We had a daily production report that was issued early each morning that reported on the previous days production. The report was quite reliable most days, but every so often, unbelievably high production numbers were reported. Each time that happened, everyone was quick to congratulate themselves on a job well done. Everyone except me, of course. When I got the report, it was obvious to me that it was wrong.
If this report is wrong then so were previous ones which just goes back to my main point that you can't trust these guys as far as you can throw them given the disregard for truth that they showed in the climategate emails.
I then quickly audited the report, found the errors, and had the report corrected. People are always quick to believe good news. I have learned to be skeptical. So, is this report true? Have we really had a 16 year period of no global warming?
Yup!
There still seems to be a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
Manufactured and adjusted evidence some of which has been conveniently lost so no one can check their work.
So believe what you want. I will wait for the reviews.
I think they are hoping that everyone else says the same thing.... Another nail goes into the coffin of the AGW religion/theory. How many more before they switch the conversation to global cooling again?
As the link is likely to be truncated, it says: Global warming stopped 16 years ago Met Office report quietly released chart prove it
As MetOffice answered, they did not release anything. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...-october-2012/ "Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit."
The author should provide a link to an original data. Just a good tone in a scientific discussion.
These are the same people who strategized about how to block FOIA requests for access to their data despite the fact that it was required by law to provide that information. Their reasons were that access to the raw data would in no doubt be used against their premise of AGW.
Apparently they have learned their lesson. Here is the data download page:
These are the same people who strategized about how to block FOIA requests for access to their data despite the fact that it was required by law to provide that information.
FOIA is good and bad, depends on which side you are :) Canada prevents that with various fees :D
Re: THE NEW One and Only Climate Change Whatever...
Bob, the article is crap, the plots are crap, the author is a well known denier with ties to fossil fuel and the paper is well known as being sympathetic to the denial industry. And it is a huge industry with unlimited backing. Notice how when you demonstrate some modicum of doubt that certain posters spend huge amounts of time commenting on every single sentence of you post. Complete and utter trash. Not worth the time to answer his questions, read the crap, or engage. Nothing would ever change their minds. No science for them, just rants and raves.
Notice how the original topic has been completely deflected. The thread is silent for weeks on end, with the deniers never having anything to post of worth. As soon as I drop in and post a few comments there is a hive of denial activity. Happens every time.
Comment instead on the 2 links that I posted, the Scientific American one and the Oceanography one. Why even bother with a newspaper article from a UK version of National Enquirer?
The whole premise of that newspaper article will no doubt be completely debunked shortly, if it has not been so already. Whenever such crap is posted google sites like Real Climate, or Skeptical Science or Climate Progress; Climate Progress is probably the best. Read a few books like Merchants of Doubt for example if you want to understand the anti-science people that post nonsense here.
It depends on a wind. You don't want to follow fallout. It might be safer to stay at home after closing windows & doors, and get/wait for further instructions.
Considering all the money they spent, what could possibly go wrong?
Considering all the money they spent, what could possibly go wrong?
I am not on its risk-assessment team :p
Though for a normal operation it should be safe in terms that it should not make a big bang. However, if all union members would stop their work what would be consequences for the plant? (and of course, it was not stopped completely)
Tweet
Comment