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.
My latest Sierra Club Canada blog on why meteorologists at Environment Canada and Accuweather and elsewhere can no longer get any seasonal forecasts correct -- they both say Ottawa will be cold and snowy this winter -- don't think so -- http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/Climate2.0
Take that climate denying echo chamber fanatical zombie earth haters...
Great article Paul. Thanks for keeping up the fight against ignorance. Climate change was mostly ignored during the US elections, but it was good to see President Obama acknowledge the problem during his press conference yesterday. Hopefully during his second term, the US will become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
Historically chess organizers have avoided scheduling tournaments during January because of expected snow storms. But this year, we are going ahead and scheduling our Mississauga YCC qualifier for January 20th. :)
Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial
The difficulty is because variation between years is like 5C and the warming trend is like 0.5C/decade. It's really really hard to get positive data in that context.
The difficulty is because variation between years is like 5C and the warming trend is like 0.5C/decade. It's really really hard to get positive data in that context.
Which was exactly my point earlier! Thank you Alan.
The real question in the whole climate change debate is whether you want to live in a state of constant stinking fear as the AGW proponents would have us do or whether you want to take the more realistic view that any problems presented to us by the inheritors of Malthus's doom and gloom philosophy are surmountable. Malthus's gloom and doom was all the rage in 1798 but it has been more than two hundred years and the imminent collapse seems to be pushed further and further into the dimly lit future.
Of course, it is useful to have a large portion of the population in a state of unrealistic, stinking fear because it sells newspapers and advertising on news programs and it also enables the friends of people in high places to make very large sums of money from a cowed population who fund regressive tax schemes like carbon taxes and carbon credits which enrich the few and impoverish the 99%. Who doesn't want to save the planet whether the planet needs saving or not?
The environmental movement has sold its soul in exchange for the lure of easy money and has chosen to whore itself out to the highest bidder regardless of the truth. They have admitted both publicly and privately that their goal is not the spreading of the truth but rather to further their accepted story regardless of how little that story describes reality. The truth be damned when there is money to be made.
New book, "Abundance" by Peter H. Diamandis and Steven Kotler
Gloom and doomers would do well to read the book, "Abundance" (subtitled: "The future is better than you think") for an alternate perspective on their chicken little fantasy world.
This is a very big book which takes a look at underlying trends and shows the current currents washing over our society and showing how current technologies show great promise for solving most of our problems. Malthus must be spinning in his grave as they tackle everything from food production, producing water from toxic waste or seawater for pennies per litre, our secure and abundant energy future which will include a component of the so called green energies (of solar and wind bolstered by new energy storage technologies) but also promise a nuclear revolution that will utilize safe nuclear technology to herald in a new era of inexpensive energy with the cost of future energy being less than what it is today by a factor of ten.
Let go of guilt and fear and learn to live free, secure in the knowledge that every problem that you can even think of in the future of human kind already has the seeds of a profound and permanent solution in current technologies.
Let go of guilt and fear and learn to live free, secure in the knowledge that every problem that you can even think of in the future of human kind already has the seeds of a profound and permanent solution in current technologies.
Well, I've gotta say that I do think that we are into a global warming period, or climate change, but I don't have that fear and guilt you allude to, and I am certainly "living free"!
"...a nuclear revolution that will utilize safe nuclear technology to herald in a new era of inexpensive energy with the cost of future energy being less than what it is today by a factor of ten."
You don't really believe this, do you?
Last edited by Dan Hunter; Monday, 19th November, 2012, 09:35 AM.
Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial
10 is probably an exaggeration, but there are upcoming technologies such as the sodium-cooled reactor that works off of "spent" uranium fuel. They are taking nuclear waste and reusing it in plants that don't require enriched fuel, and don't require 100 billion dollars to build.
Another book on the subject, more palatable to an AGW crowd, is Compression. The core thesis is how technology can be used to help us do more with less. That is, cut resource consumption in half while doubling population and increasing the global standard of living. It's a tall order, but there are organizations actively figuring out the path to achieve this.
Well, I've gotta say that I do think that we are into a global warming period, or climate change, but I don't have that fear and guilt you allude to, and I am certainly "living free"!
"...a nuclear revolution that will utilize safe nuclear technology to herald in a new era of inexpensive energy with the cost of future energy being less than what it is today by a factor of ten."
You don't really believe this, do you?
We can cut the cost of green energy projects by a factor of ten by simply taking the Ontario government out of the equation. The net effect of recent decisions by the World Trade Organization should produce that same result as the made in Ontario provisions were found to be discriminating against various foreign parties who want access to the highest subsidies in the world as well. That is not possible so the whole program will have to be scrapped and soon we will be paying the same ridiculous subsidies that the Americans are which are an order of magnitude less than the ones that we are paying now.
The current problem with green energy is that much of the energy produced is wasted. Reliable storage technologies preferably built with components and materials that are abundant and cheap would mean that we could stop paying U.S. utilities to take the excess off of our hands for a price. At that point we could ramp up solar production and the price would drop precipitously.
Technologies like LED lights will decrease the amount of energy required to supply a given unit of light. Improvements in technology, efficiency and a smart grid for electricity consumption and distribution will lower costs significantly much as fuel consumption improvements and improvements in the technology of extracting oil have greatly increased the supply of available energy from oil and natural gas extraction. The result of larger supplies and lower consumption for a unit of output will be lower prices.
The nuclear power industry is two generations past the plants that generate most of our power today. The next nuclear power plants built will be much more efficient and safer and probably much smaller than what we are used to today.
10 is probably an exaggeration, but there are upcoming technologies such as the sodium-cooled reactor that works off of "spent" uranium fuel. They are taking nuclear waste and reusing it in plants that don't require enriched fuel, and don't require 100 billion dollars to build.
Another book on the subject, more palatable to an AGW crowd, is Compression. The core thesis is how technology can be used to help us do more with less. That is, cut resource consumption in half while doubling population and increasing the global standard of living. It's a tall order, but there are organizations actively figuring out the path to achieve this.
Ten is not an exaggeration. A barrel of oil is usually priced in American dollars. The U.S. dollar has taken a beating in the last few years and there is no sign that this trend is likely to abate any time soon. I suspect that if you looked at how much oil any given quantity of gold could purchase would be an eye opener.
Doubling population is not possible according to the AGW orthodoxy but regardless it is going to happen and probably in our lifetime.
Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial
Two important articles out this past week on what business as usual will result in; basically a "hellish" world...from highly influential sources that have been on the side of fossil fuel companies until recently when they realized the clear and present danger that climate change poses...
World Bank: "The report warns that the world will heat up by 4 degrees at the end of the century if the global community fails to act on climate change." http://climatechange.worldbank.org/
Another poster here is absolutely delirious. The people who are getting filthy rich are the oil company executives, the 0.1% and the 1%. Climatologists are not, NGO's rely mostly on volunteers and donations to get information to the public, WTF is that dude smoking. Not worth answering him directly, what a total BS factory...he mixes up people causing the problem and getting rich with the people who donate huge amounts of time and effort because they care about humans maintaining a presence on the planet. I feel sorry for his nieces and nephews who can read about his invective in the near future and try to figure out how stupid he has been and how his views endangered their future if anyone listened to them...
Two important articles out this past week on what business as usual will result in; basically a "hellish" world...from highly influential sources that have been on the side of fossil fuel companies until recently when they realized the clear and present danger that climate change poses...
World Bank: "The report warns that the world will heat up by 4 degrees at the end of the century if the global community fails to act on climate change." http://climatechange.worldbank.org/
Another poster here is absolutely delirious. The people who are getting filthy rich are the oil company executives, the 0.1% and the 1%. Climatologists are not, NGO's rely mostly on volunteers and donations to get information to the public, WTF is that dude smoking. Not worth answering him directly, what a total BS factory...he mixes up people causing the problem and getting rich with the people who donate huge amounts of time and effort because they care about humans maintaining a presence on the planet. I feel sorry for his nieces and nephews who can read about his invective in the near future and try to figure out how stupid he has been and how his views endangered their future if anyone listened to them...
Do you always have to personally attack anyone who disagrees with you in the least? You sure don't sound scientific doing so. Your comments tend much more to personal destruction and dogma than science.
In my opinion this whole topic has gone off the rails since this third thread was started.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 20th November, 2012, 02:52 AM.
The people who are getting filthy rich are the oil company executives, the 0.1% and the 1%. Climatologists are not, NGO's rely mostly on volunteers and donations to get information to the public.
The truth is the same in every industry around the world. Oil workers aren't getting rich; it's the owners. Likewise climatologists aren't getting rich; it's the first-movers in the new government-sponsored industries - people who set up businesses in renewable energy, carbon offsetting, and related things. Not all of those will enter top wealth categories, but some will.
Governments, George Soros, oil companies who are also solar companies, various companies hoping to make large sums of money from the gold rush.
Al Gore was worth approximately one million dollars when he left politics. For a while he was reputed to be worth one billion dollars though I suspect that there has been some decline in that with the collapse of some of his carbon trading initiatives.
The UN would like to set itself up as the central authority in the fight against global warming/climate change and thus to gain taxing authority at which point the corruption which we see in the UN now would be looked on in nostalgic terms as the good old days.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Tuesday, 20th November, 2012, 10:52 AM.
Do you always have to personally attack anyone who disagrees with you in the least? You sure don't sound scientific doing so. Your comments tend much more to personal destruction and dogma than science.
In my opinion this whole topic has gone off the rails since this third thread was started.
He is in pain. His alarmist dream is collapsing around him. I can't take him seriously anymore and don't read what he says. He will say anything to advance his silly AGW religion even if he knows it is not true. I am still waiting for an explanation of the September 30th checkmate of mankind. To be fair to Paul the UN head said we were doomed in six months a couple of years ago.
"Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?"
"You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat."
It may be that the whole global warming thing is bias introduced into the record by the adjustments made to the raw temperature data which is used to create data that supports the central hypothesis of global warming despite any evidence to the contrary.
Tweet
Comment