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.
Bob, do you seriously think this same group that brought you, SarsCov2, COVID Vaccines, and Remdesevir is going to make this protein substitute (insects) is doing it because it is good for your health and will improve the weather? https://twitter.com/SpartaJustice/st...15000977412096
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Tuesday, 24th January, 2023, 09:31 AM.
I'll believe it when I see it.........I can't see it going anywhere........
Bob A
Listen to the video in the link https://twitter.com/SpartaJustice/st...15000977412096 and still tell me that. You had better believe it! Governor Desantis is working
very closely with Dr. David Martin on this case. and the Grand jury has already been approved by the Florida Supreme court to be impaneled
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (NSF) - The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday approved a request by Gov. Ron DeSantis to impanel a statewide grand jury to investigate alleged wrongdoing related to COVID-19 vaccines.
Journalist James Corbett identifies the cast of characters driving the Great Food Reset, a plan to reengineer the global food supply under the guise of a fake food crisis.
With these survey data, the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 up to Dec 2021 in the United States alone.
In case you are puzzled about this horrific data, start watching this video at 45:50. It is a video packed with absolutely horrific information
. Still, it will make sense to what is happening both in Canada and around the world. I have nothing further to add to this thread or the nonchess threads, as this video says it all.
Here is the key point that summarizes the entire video. This legal document was put forward on April 2022 by Pfizer regarding not following FDA Regulations for trials, in response to Pfizer whistleblower Brooke Jackson's pleading.
“Because of pandemic-related exigencies, the agreement was not a standard federal procurement contract, but rather a ‘prototype’ agreement executed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2371b[.]…
The [contract’s Statement of Work] describes a ‘large scale vaccine manufacturing demonstration’ that imposes no requirements relating to Good Clinical Practices (‘GCP’) or related FDA regulations.”
For those not familiar with what 10 U.S.C 2371b is, it is
10 U.S.C. 2371b - Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out specific prototype projects
The stats for last week are significantly down, but so are the “Responses”. Few responses leads to few views. I have been sick, and that is one reason the responses are down from unual.
Climate Change Thread “Responses”
There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.
This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada re wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.
Note:
1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.
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”.
It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........
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 (the original international target) is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.
Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.
Our window of opportunity is fast closing.
The Large Picture Solutions
Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?
Negative “Natural” Climate Change
This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.
We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.
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!
Here's a slightly profitable way to clean up the planet. My wife and I go for walks most every day. Often I bring along a pair of old gloves and a bag. I pick up beer bottles and cans. Over the course of the last fifteen years we've made about $150. That's 1500 cans/bottles that didn't end up as garbage strewn around and instead got recycled.
Some good places to find containers: sports arena parking lots, sidelines of sports fields, near the beer stores, and in isolated parking lots (i.e. places where people can drink a few beers and toss them out the car window without being noticed). Spring time is a really good season as all of the cans that got plowed will be in piles when the snow melts so you can start preparing now.
Do things you can do instead of demanding that other people do what you want them to do.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
The fact that everyone is not doing something to contribute to the health of the planet shows one of three things, as far as I can see:
1. They are totally unimpressed by the suggestion that there is any threat to the planet......fundamental disagreement with mainstream science; there is no need to do anything.
2. They agree there is a need for all to contribute, but they just have too many other of their personal life priorities that come ahead of contributing;
3. They would do their part, but they are now convinced that any saving of the Earth is not possible; we have passed the classic "tipping point". So one might as well do whatever one likes, until the whole system comes crashing down.
Does this seem to cover our Non-Actors?
If this is real, then is it possible for a small minority to somehow pull off a miracle and save the Earth?
."fundamental disagreement with mainstream science"
What are you babbling about? I already showed you that there is no disagreement with "mainstream science"; there is a disagreement with WEF-corrupted propaganda media. https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...729#post223729
You yap a lot, but you don't seem to know how to read.
There is mainstream science [MSS] (that is not propaganda by the Powers that be).....I'm glad we both agree that at least it exists! That's a start.
I identify it as non-propaganda if I see significant main stream science support. Here it seems you start to waffle.......all scientists are in the pocket of the Big Pharma/Military/Industrial complex, and their researched and published scientific writings must be carefully scrutinized before you give your imprimatur that it is truly "NOT" propaganda.
This position is a very far cry from your plaintiff words above that: "I already showed you that there is no disagreement with "mainstream science"".
Of course you are disagreeing with mainstream science all over the place. WTF is smearing most, if not all, MSS as "propaganda", if not DISAGREEING??
So let's stop playing games Sid, shall we?
Each piece of science put forward in a report must be scrutinized by both sides, supporters and critics. We must put forward the "facts" that lend credibility to the thesis. If you say it is "sound" because you saw it published in a respected journal like The CounterSignal, or The Epoch Times, I will look.....but recognize that though both can be good, they can be simply mouthpieces for extreme right platituding. So you'll have to get used to me claiming your "credibility reference" is lousy.....it is from "Steve Bannon-corrupted propaganda media" (Your phrase from above), at least in this particular case (I find much of what those two more extreme right media put out to be well-researched, and I have posted from both in support of some of my positions.)
Having cleared that up............
You argue that we are in a long-term "natural" warming cycle at the moment.
The Facts I need are:
1. when did the last natural cooling cycle end?
2. What was the rate of warming, and the gross global temperature, from then up to the mid-1800's? (I think this date is identified as the date of the start of the "First Industrial Revolution (FIR)". This I believe is when anthropogenic climate changers' say that "man starts ADDING to the rate of warming, of an already warming planet, by the start of industrial manufacturing, with its pollution and starting to introduce extra Methane, CO2, and other Greenhouse gases into the air/atmosphere. Please correct me if I am wrong on this start date, or if there is some precise date being used, please post it).
3. What do the "Naturalists" say that the temperature rise from the FIR to Jan. 1, 2023 has been naturally, since man is contributing nothing to the rise in temperature.
Please don't inundate me with "already presented and you are stupid or don't read"; don't bury me in a plethora of links with no explanations that I'm supposed to go and read........
when we have bare facts that the ordinary Joe/Jane can understand, then we can start haranguing each other for sources.
Can we just have simple, non-professional answers that all CT'ers can comprehend, to the three questions I have asked. I believe this will start us towards the source of contradiction between Anthropogenicists and Naturalists.
I'll again set out the 3 basic, very simple questions, stripped right down, needing answers (And I am not saying that getting to these simple answers is not complicated).
1. when did the last natural cooling cycle end?
2. What was the rate of warming, and the gross global temperature, from then up to the mid-1800's?
3. What do the "Naturalists" say that the temperature rise from the FIR to Jan. 1, 2023 has been naturally?
I am aware some of this information has been posted, but this mere mortal has no ability to go find it among all the charts, photos, links, posts, etc., and I am not archiving this whole discussion in some database (I have a life!)
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 31st January, 2023, 08:51 AM.
Here's a slightly profitable way to clean up the planet. My wife and I go for walks most every day. Often I bring along a pair of old gloves and a bag. I pick up beer bottles and cans. Over the course of the last fifteen years we've made about $150. That's 1500 cans/bottles that didn't end up as garbage strewn around and instead got recycled.
Some good places to find containers: sports arena parking lots, sidelines of sports fields, near the beer stores, and in isolated parking lots (i.e. places where people can drink a few beers and toss them out the car window without being noticed). Spring time is a really good season as all of the cans that got plowed will be in piles when the snow melts so you can start preparing now.
Do things you can do instead of demanding that other people do what you want them to do.
That is achieving more than what all the climate-anxiety provokers put together ever can...
There is mainstream science [MSS] (that is not propaganda by the Powers that be).....I'm glad we both agree that at least it exists! That's a start.
I identify it as non-propaganda if I see significant main stream science support. Here it seems you start to waffle.......all scientists are in the pocket of the Big Pharma/Military/Industrial complex, and their researched and published scientific writings must be carefully scrutinized before you give your imprimatur that it is truly "NOT" propaganda.
This position is a very far cry from your plaintiff words above that: "I already showed you that there is no disagreement with "mainstream science"".
Of course you are disagreeing with mainstream science all over the place. WTF is smearing most, if not all, MSS as "propaganda", if not DISAGREEING??
So let's stop playing games Sid, shall we?
Each piece of science put forward in a report must be scrutinized by both sides, supporters and critics. We must put forward the "facts" that lend credibility to the thesis. If you say it is "sound" because you saw it published in a respected journal like The CounterSignal, or The Epoch Times, I will look.....but recognize that though both can be good, they can be simply mouthpieces for extreme right platituding. So you'll have to get used to me claiming your "credibility reference" is lousy.....it is from "Steve Bannon-corrupted propaganda media" (Your phrase from above), at least in this particular case (I find much of what those two more extreme right media put out to be well-researched, and I have posted from both in support of some of my positions.)
Having cleared that up............
You argue that we are in a long-term "natural" warming cycle at the moment.
The Facts I need are:
1. when did the last natural cooling cycle end?
2. What was the rate of warming, and the gross global temperature, from then up to the mid-1800's? (I think this date is identified as the date of the start of the "First Industrial Revolution (FIR)". This I believe is when anthropogenic climate changers' say that "man starts ADDING to the rate of warming, of an already warming planet, by the start of industrial manufacturing, with its pollution and starting to introduce extra Methane, CO2, and other Greenhouse gases into the air/atmosphere. Please correct me if I am wrong on this start date, or if there is some precise date being used, please post it).
3. What do the "Naturalists" say that the temperature rise from the FIR to Jan. 1, 2023 has been naturally, since man is contributing nothing to the rise in temperature.
Please don't inundate me with "already presented and you are stupid or don't read"; don't bury me in a plethora of links with no explanations that I'm supposed to go and read........
when we have bare facts that the ordinary Joe/Jane can understand, then we can start haranguing each other for sources.
Can we just have simple, non-professional answers that all CT'ers can comprehend, to the three questions I have asked. I believe this will start us towards the source of contradiction between Anthropogenicists and Naturalists.
I'll again set out the 3 basic, very simple questions, stripped right down, needing answers (And I am not saying that getting to these simple answers is not complicated).
1. when did the last natural cooling cycle end?
2. What was the rate of warming, and the gross global temperature, from then up to the mid-1800's?
3. What do the "Naturalists" say that the temperature rise from the FIR to Jan. 1, 2023 has been naturally?
I am aware some of this information has been posted, but this mere mortal has no ability to go find it among all the charts, photos, links, posts, etc., and I am not archiving this whole discussion in some database (I have a life!)
No, we disagree on that as far as the operational definition of "mainstream science" goes. You implied below "Main Stream Science" is what the majority of scientists believe,
"The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here."
In fact, that statement was first proposed under WEF Globalist Al Gore was supported by fraudulent statistics, A reexamination of the papers by Schulte showed" Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on “global climate change” found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes, who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on “global climate change” had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic.
Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...30508783900744
In any event, Science begins and ends with reproducible data. It has nothing at all to do with "mainstream science." So far, the idea that CO2 is a control button to weather is based on conjectures and climate models. This is not reproducible data; it is a conjecture.
As far as the MSM is concerned, my operational definition of this is the well-publicized "Trusted News Initiative" that murdered millions with false narratives regarding how to treat COVID in their efforts to make sure all roads led to lethal slow kill mass injections.
COVID-19 and the Shadowy “Trusted News Initiative”
How it Methodically Censors Top World Public Health Experts Using an Early Warning System By Elizabeth Woodworth
[I]What do the inventor of mRNA technology; the lead author of the most downloaded paper on Covid-19 in the American Journal of Medicine; a former editor of the American Journal of Epidemiology; renowned epidemiologists at Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford; and France’s leading microbiologist – have in common? They have all been censored by a repressive media network that most people have never heard of. This network has outrageously conceived and conveyed a “monopoly of legitimate information.”
Exposing this uncanny censorship of eminent voices is especially vital to the fate of children and youth, who are being aggressively targeted for low-benefit, sometimes lethal, inoculations.
*
Since early in the COVID-19 pandemic, which according to the World Health Organization, kills only 0.23% of those infected[ii], enormous fear and panic have been fuelled by the hourly drumbeat of a “one-voice” media.
An international process of editorial standardization has delivered unprecedented news coverage of the monopolized message:
The pandemic threatens the survival of all humanity
There is no therapy to cure the sick
It is necessary to confine the whole population, and
The delivery will come only from a vaccine.[iii]
Many people have been dismayed by the singularity of this propaganda and how it could have been achieved. That is the subject of this study.
This same group of monsters is pushing a fake food crisis in the name of so-called anthropogenic climate change. Regarding reposting the answers to your questions, I first want to know if the answers will relieve your anxiety about a climate crisis.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Tuesday, 31st January, 2023, 09:56 PM.
As long as I believe MSM about MSS, then a calamity awaits. I am not anxious.....I am nervous about very little. I manage. But this may take tools and effort which will be very difficult to assemble.
I do not fear death.....I ought to have died in May, 1996. I don't care when or how. But I'd prefer our species survive.
So don't label me, please, one of the "climate - anxious". I noted long ago your complaint about inaccurate labelling.....that you were not a "climate-denier".
As to the answers to the questions, I am attempting to verify your position as best I can, until I run into some contraction.
My 3 questions seem the appropriate places to start to understand the "Natural modelling". I do not doubt the naturalists' position that we are in a long-term Earth "warming cycle" and have been for some time now. Do any others with such an interest feel that some other questions are necessary to make some progress on this project of mine? If so, please respond.
So I am, with some help, trying to assemble a layman's (As opposed to scientist's) description of what the Naturalists are explaining to the rest of us.
Tweet
Comment