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.
What I'd like to see is a formal debate between the best scientists who say rising CO2 isn't a problem and the best scientists who say it is.
That debate is over. The deniers love to pretend climate change is still an open question so they can delay any action forever. But sure, have a debate if you must, but realize the video Sid posted "climate change is a hoax" is at least 10 years old. If you haven't seen it before, you might get the impression that the scientific community is split on climate change, it isn't. It a very well produced piece of propaganda, but thats all it is. We have 50 years of data to prove climate change, progressing just as the science predicted. Sure, along the way, models gave different predictions, results differed from forecasts, but that is the nature of predictive models. You update them as new data is available, predictions change over time as we learn more and assumptions are updated. The general trend of the predictions, more greenhouse gases equates to higher global temperatures have been demonstrated conclusively. If a further debate will settle the matter amongst the public, then go ahead.
Seal levels have risen already, just ask the citizens of many tropical islands, which will be underwater soon. But much more is to come. The Braithwaite glacier, google it.
Climate change is here. Extreme weather events are here. How bad will it get before we take action? That is the debate we should be having.
Since the two of you will be organizing this global "Non-Porous Atmospheric Canopy" debate, I'd suggest that you include methane gas, since it is substantially more important than even CO2, as I understand the problem.
As of Tuesday morning, Aug. 2, 2022, ChessTalk initiated a new forum called “The Non-Chess Forum”. Our climate change thread, and one on COVID-19, were then moved out of the “Open Forum”, which is the homepage by default, and into this new forum, with no significant change on the homepage to indicate that this now third forum existed (Though a change has been promised, it has not yet been carried out).
Concern
Many chessplayers looking for chess content, would sometime see “non-chess” posts, decide they were a bit interested, and take a look. This is the way our viewers number grew. Separating us off into our own forum would eliminate this possibility.
We were very concerned that our stats would drop dramatically.
We Eat Crow
To our absolute amazement, our loyal climate change CT'ers rallied and found us, and kept doing the extra clicks needed to get to our thread. Now this may diminish, as we think it will. But we have to admit that we were wrong in saying that our early stats on the new forum would plummet. See the surprising stats above!
Thread Activity
Activity last week continued to go through the roof , as had been happening the most recent prior period, when still in the “Open” Forum. Activity is clearly dependent on new responses, and last week there were 6 responses per day, compared to 4 per day the prior week!
Accordingly the views last week, 71 per day, were near the prior week stats (93!) and more than the yearly average that had existed in the “Open” forum (45 per day).
So, the climate change issue among ChessTalker's is continuing to grab more attention, even after being hidden away in the new “Non-Chess” Forum.
Climate Change Responses
There are lots of climate change articles out there.
This thread encourages CT'ers to re-post responses here when they see climate change posts of interest elsewhere.
I personally, as the thread originator, am shooting to post a new response at least every 2nd day, but am sometimes even falling short on this, depending on the amount of time I have to be on-line, which is limited.
The Pressing Climate Change Issue
The core issue:
Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!
The public is aware of the climate change issue.......
BUT.....
climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.
The Time Line
Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 9 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report). UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025! And for the first time, CO 2 “removal” has now become a necessary part of the solution, along with eliminating spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.
Our window of opportunity is fast closing.
The Large Picture Solutions
Can we come up with at least one or two viable suggestions of impressive, radical things that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned client activists?
CT'ers' Local Actions on Climate Change
You can do something! When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!
I consider the debate is over. The science is settled.
In fact the whole world came together and passed the Paris agreement in 2016.
Then along came idiot Trump and tore it up.
"The science is settled" Why because some WEF corrupted scientists, bureaucrats and politicians say so? Science is NEVER settled! Show me science where sunspot activity no longer correlates with temp on the earth. I will save you the suspense you won't!
Exaclty this type of bullshit that killed 10,000,000 people in the last 2.5 years from being denied proven treatment and coerced into taking death shots. You do not know the first thing about science. Why do you think Sri Lanka's climate change fear pron fanatic govt was over thrown? They did not appreciate the food supply disruptions resulting in their starvation over the climate change scam.
The same fate awaits the Netherlands with the farmer's revolution. https://www.rebelnews.com/tags/farmer_rebellion
Since the two of you will be organizing this global "Non-Porous Atmospheric Canopy" debate, I'd suggest that you include methane gas, since it is substantially more important than even CO2, as I understand the problem.
Methane issue was already addressed in the documentary I posted. You are unwittingly carrying out a genocidal agenda of the WEF and I no longer have time for you or Bob G. You are scientifically too ignorant and brainwashed to recognize reality. Had you taken the time to read my posts on jabs and myocarditis going back over a year you might have avoided the heart issue you experienced.
I don't believe the vaccine (4 doses) had anything to do with my heart.
The Valve implant can cause the natural Aortic valve to expand. The conduit to the heart runs contiguous to the natural valve. If the valve (expanded) presses on the conduit, the regular beating of the heart can be altered, thus requiring a pacemaker.........my heart did not stop for 10 seconds due to spikes on vaccines.
This is the cardiologist explanation at what is considered the 4th best cardiac unit in the world.
I don't believe the vaccine (4 doses) had anything to do with my heart.
The Valve implant can cause the natural Aortic valve to expand. The conduit to the heart runs contiguous to the natural valve. If the valve (expanded) presses on the conduit, the regular beating of the heart can be altered, thus requiring a pacemaker.........my heart did not stop for 10 seconds due to spikes on vaccines.
This is the cardiologist explanation at what is considered the 4th best cardiac unit in the world.
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
Good, I hope it was not your cardiologist’s idea to
take all four shots.
What I'd like to see is a formal debate between the best scientists who say rising CO2 isn't a problem and the best scientists who say it is. The whole world should tune into that debate and make up their minds, and the majority can decide which way we go: limiting CO2 or not limiting it.
That debate is over. The deniers love to pretend climate change is still an open question so they can delay any action forever. But sure, have a debate if you must, but realize the video Sid posted "climate change is a hoax" is at least 10 years old. If you haven't seen it before, you might get the impression that the scientific community is split on climate change, it isn't. It a very well produced piece of propaganda, but thats all it is. We have 50 years of data to prove climate change, progressing just as the science predicted. Sure, along the way, models gave different predictions, results differed from forecasts, but that is the nature of predictive models. You update them as new data is available, predictions change over time as we learn more and assumptions are updated. The general trend of the predictions, more greenhouse gases equates to higher global temperatures have been demonstrated conclusively. If a further debate will settle the matter amongst the public, then go ahead.
Bob, I don't think you can just tell everyone the debate is over and expect them to give up their lifestyle, maybe even their careers, based on that. They need to be SHOWN, and I think such a debate is the best way to show them, if indeed the scientists who are on the side of climate change being caused by CO2 and methane are correct AND CAN PROVE IT IN A DEBATE.
If they can't prove it in the debate, or if such a debate is not held, then just hoping the world will change is not a plan. Hope is not a strategy.
People will follow the path of least resistance. It is, and always has been, human nature.
Climate change is here. Extreme weather events are here. How bad will it get before we take action? That is the debate we should be having.
That would be part of what the pro-anthropogenic climate change scientists WOULD demonstrate (I would expect) at the debate I am proposing.
You say Sid's video is 10 years old, I'm not arguing it but people are still watching it and saying, "WTF, I am being hoodwinked by the media." So to counteract that, someone MUST DO THE EDUCATING.
To me, the best education would be this debate I propose with the pro-ACC scientists winning hands down with actual proof of just what you said, HOW BAD ITS GOING TO GET.
In that 10-year old vide, they show that Earth has undergone previous warming cycles with temps even higher, much higher, than we are seeing now. The fact that the video is 10 years old doesn't negate this piece of information. If the Earth in fact did get much warmer in the medieval time period, and humans are still here now, then what is the fuss all about? Could we be overreacting?
Can we in fact "weather" this period of climate change? (Sorry for the pun).
To anyone who wants to change world behavior in such an extreme way, you simply MUST make it real and you must do that for everyone, not just the paltry few who have lost homes to wildfires or hurricanes or floods. That isn't enough people.
A good analogy is what the anti-tobacco industry did. They showed the lungs of lifelong smokers, and that was graphic proof. Still, many smokers just carried on, ready to die coughing. So you see what your up against?
You will not change humanity, they will simply not listen to warnings. SOME will but not enough by a long shot, and that's the best you can manage. I know Bob you are more optimistic than that, good for you, not going to say you should change, but be ready for some big disappointments.
Both Happer and Lindzen have long held out against the current demonisation of atmospheric CO2, pointing out that the current 415 parts per million (ppm) is near a record low and not dangerously high. They note that 600 million years of CO2 and temperature data “contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming”. Omitting unfavourable data is an egregious violation of scientific method. Facts omitted by those who argue there is a climate emergency include that CO2 levels were over 1,000 ppm for hundreds of millions of years and have been as high as over 7,000 ppm; CO2 has been declining for 180 million years from about 2,800 ppm to today’s low; and today’s low is not far above the minimum level when plants die of CO2 starvation, leading to all other life forms perishing for lack of food.
Finally, the authors note that the logarithmic influence of CO2 means its contribution to global warming is “heavily saturated”. The scientists calculate that a doubling of current CO2 levels would only reduce the heat escaping to space by about 1.1%. This suggests warming of around 1°C or less. The saturation hypothesis explains, they say, the disconnect between CO2 and temperature observed over 600 million years.
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth/
"The main evidence proving that CO2 does not control the climate, but at most can play a second fiddle by just amplifying the variations already present, is that of lags. In all cases where there is a good enough resolution, one finds that the CO2 lags behind the temperature by typically several hundred to a thousand years. Namely, the basic climate driver which controls the temperature cannot be that of CO2. That driver, whatever it is, affects the climate equilibrium, and the temperature changes accordingly. Once the oceans adjust (on time scale of decades to centuries), the CO2 equilibrium changes as well. The changed CO2 can further affect the temperature, but the CO2 / temperature correlation cannot be used to say almost anything about the strength of this link. Note that I write "almost anything", because it turns out that the CO2 temperature correlation can be used to say at least one thing about the temperature sensitivity to CO2 variations, as can be seen in the box below."
Tweet
Comment