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 guess my new role is "Gladiator" for all things main stream! Bob for the "status quo".
But........is this consistent with what people other than Sid know about me?????
But........NO.....to the New World Order/The Great Reset. Sid you must accept that I at least have a bit more complexity than an amoeba.
I can be against a global totalitarian government in the making, and still believe that vaccination is of more help than harm (Yes this is mainstream medical science, as consistently reported by MSM). I and my wife did get COVID-19, despite our best efforts to continue to be careful, and yes we each had had 5 vaccination shots. It was definitely more than happens with a flu. But my personal physician assured me that we both would have been much sicker if we had not had the vaccinations (Especially me, being a diabetic senior - this is the group with the highest mortality rate and hospitalization rate).
But my personal physician assured me that we both would have been much sicker if we had not had the vaccinations (Especially me, being a diabetic senior - this is the group with the highest mortality rate and hospitalization rate).
Bob,
First, I am pleased to see you reject the role of "defender of the status quo". Second, we live in a strange time where Doctors can no longer practice medicine or even say what they think if it goes against the so-called vaccine narrative. The College of Physicians and Surgeons In Ontario vigorously have gone after Dr's who prefer therapeutics as am alternative the vaccine or criticize the "vaccine" in anyway shape or form. The CPSO is the enforcer for Big Pharma, this is the first time in history that medical licensing boards and their nonmedical bureaucrats around the world have interfered with the Dr. Patient relationship.
In short, the medical profession has failed us entirely. Hence you have to do your own due diligence when it comes to your health, we are on our own these
days.
She does not provide any evidence whatsoever. How can we know that her horror-tale is any more truthful than the so-called fairy-tales she accuses others of?
Dilip, maybe this is a silly question, but humour me please.
When you say she does not provide evidence, are you saying evidence in support of climate change or evidence in regards to the fairy tales? Or maybe you mean both.
I would not want to mis understand you.
Dilip, maybe this is a silly question, but humour me please.
When you say she does not provide evidence, are you saying evidence in support of climate change or evidence in regards to the fairy tales? Or maybe you mean both.
I would not want to mis understand you.
Evidence that the people she is accusing are not telling the truth, and just spinning fairy-tales...and evidence that her own 'horror-tale' about the future is likely to be true...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Wednesday, 22nd February, 2023, 07:37 PM.
"The same cabal that invented the laughable term “fossil fuels” for their fraudulent “peak oil” narrative in order to extract ever more profits for their energy companies through false scarcity, are now escalating their “climate change” con to impose their electric vehicle (EV) takeover.
Like all things “climate change,” the EV push is total reality inversion that takes the whole green movement to the next level by not just attempting to severely limit the global economic driving force of abiotic fuels, but by also forcing a far more expensive technology with far greater CO2 footprint (net positive) and far greater pollution footprint (net negative) that relies exclusively on an easily manipulated and increasingly super-fragile power grid. And the ultimate endgame for EVs is far more nefarious: this mode of transport will port directly into the social credit score system; imagine the EV without steering wheel or pedals taking you not to your intended 15 Minute City destination, but, rather, to the reeducation camp as a function of you falling short of the social credit score threshold (e.g. thoughtcrime, skipping latest GMH booster dose, etc.) as defined by the central planning technocommunist elite.
All of these agendas, narratives, psyops, and mass induced fear narratives are as transparently absurd as they are anti-real-science. And yet, too many still fall for these painfully obvious scams."
Hey Bob, where is the backup to your claim supporting that mainstream science supports anthropogenic climate change? The mainstream loves saying that 97% of scientists support this false notion based on a 2013 paper that was entirely debunked. The exact opposite is true. Maybe it is time you believe in science and not Government backed MSM Horse shit. See below:
"The primary paper that is often trotted out in support of the notion of “97% consensus” was written by John Cook and his merry band of climate extremists. Published in 2013, it is the most widely referenced work on the subject of climate consensus and has been downloaded more than 1.3 million times.
Cook runs a climate website that is a smorgasbord of climate fear rhetoric, specialising in attacks – often personal and spiteful in tone – on all who have proven effective in leading others to stray from the dogma of impending climate doom.
The project was self-described as “a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the website.” The team consisted of 12 climate activists who did not leave their climate prejudices at home. These volunteers, many of whom had no training in the sciences, said they had “reviewed” abstracts from 11,944 peer-reviewed papers related to climate change or global warming, published over the 21 years 1991 – 2011, to assess the extent to which they supported the “consensus view” on climate change. As Cook’s paper said:
We analysed a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC [climate change], published over a 21-year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).
The paper concluded:
Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. … Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
The paper asserted – falsely, as it turned out – that 97% of the papers the reviewers examined had explicitly endorsed the opinion that humans are causing the majority of the warming of the last 150 years.
When one looks at the data, one finds that 7,930 of the papers took no position at all on the subject and were arbitrarily excluded from the count on this ground. If we simply add back all of the papers reviewed, the 97% claimed by Cook and his co-authors falls to 32.6%.
A closer look at the paper reveals that the so-called “97%” included three categories of endorsement of human-caused climate change (Figure 1). Only the first category amounted to an explicit statement that humans are the primary cause of recent warming. The second and third categories would include most sceptics of catastrophic anthropogenic warming, including the scientists of the CO2 Coalition, who accept that increasing CO2 is probably causing some, probably modest, amount of warming; an amount that is likely rendered insignificant by natural causes of warmer weather. Only by casting a wide net could Cook conclude that there is any type of “consensus.” Figure 1 – Categories of endorsement – Cook 2013
Agnotology is defined as “the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.” This is how David Legates and his co-authors (2015) describe the Cook paper and similar attempts falsely to promote the notion of broad scientific consensus surrounding the subject of a looming, man-made, climate apocalypse.
They reviewed the actual papers used by Cook and found that only 0.3% of the 11,944 abstracts and 1.6% of the smaller sample that excluded those papers expressing no opinion endorsed man-made global warming as they defined it. Remarkably, they found that Cook and his assistants had themselves marked only 64 papers – or 0.5% of the 11,944 they said they had reviewed – as explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man-made (Figure 2). Yet they stated, both in the paper itself and subsequently, that they had found a “97% consensus” explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man-made. Figure 2 “Agnotology has the strong potential for misuse whereby a ‘manufactured’ consensus view can be used to stifle discussion, debate, and critical thinking.” — Legates 2013
It appears that Cook and his co-authors manipulated the data to present an altogether untrue narrative of overwhelming support for catastrophic human-caused warming.
Note that the official “consensus” position – supported though it was by just 0.3% of the 11,944 papers reviewed – says nothing more than recent warming was mostly man-made. Even if that were the case – and the overwhelming majority of scientists take no view on that question, for it is beyond our present knowledge to answer – it would not indicate that global warming is dangerous.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” – Joseph Goebbels
From the information we have just reviewed, the percentage of scientists who agree with the notion of man-made catastrophic global warming is significantly less than advertised. Several unbiased attempts have been made to assess what the actual number might be. One of the largest petitions concerning climate change was the Oregon Petition signed by more than 31,000 American scientists, including 9,029 holding PhDs, disputing the notion of anthropogenic climate alarmism (Figure 3). Figure 3 – Edward Teller’s signature at http://petitionproject.com
More recently, in 2016, George Mason University (Maibach 2016) surveyed more than 4,000 members of the American Meteorological Society and found that 33% believed that climate change was not occurring, was at most half man-made, was mostly natural, or they did not know. Significantly, only 18% believed that a large amount – or all – of additional climate change could be averted.
Science does not advance through consensus, and the claim of consensus has no place in any rational scientific debate. We ask: What do the data tell us? What does it mean? Can we reproduce the results? If those promoting man-made climate fear need to resort to an obviously flawed consensus opinion, rather than argue the merits of the science, haven’t they already conceded that their argument cannot be won through open debate?
“Cook’s 97% nonsensus [sic] paper shows that the climate community still has a long way to go in weeding out bad research and bad behaviour. If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.” — Professor Richard Tol
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” — Michael Crichton
Legates DR, Soon W, Briggs WM et al (2015) Climate consensus and ‘misinformation’: a rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change. Sci Edu 24:299–318, doi: 10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
The stats for last week are slightly behind the week before, but are keeping pace with the 2023 average so far. The thread remains quite active.
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!
Ahh yes more fraudulent presentations from Bob Gillanders for our consideration
IPCC models have overstated warming up to three times too much.
"A detailed examination by John Christy, a distinguished climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Alabama State Climatologist, provides a stark assessment of the validity (or non-validity) of the models that are used in support of imagined apocalypse. His testimony in February 2016 to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology included remarkable charts that document just how much the models overestimate temperatures. The red line in the chart shows the average of 102 climate model runs completed by Christy and his team at the University of Alabama at Huntsville using the models on which the IPCC itself relies. Also shown on the chart are the actual, observed temperatures. The models exaggerate warming, on average, two and a half times the actual temperature (or three times over in the climate-crucial tropics)."
In this series, it is noteworthy when AOC questions the Exxon scientist that he "knew" that the temperature would rise a full degree since his analysis of increasing manmade CO2 emissions. Based on the analysis below, the average temp actually rose a fraction of a degree in the said time frame. This chart shows that some of the sharpest temperature increases were between 1695 and 1760, when the temperature rose a full 3 degrees, long before there were industrial CO2 emissions. Guess what? The World did not come to an end!
When you graph the average of all these temperature fluctuations, the rate of increase for the last three centuries is .5 degrees per century despite large gaps of up to 3 degrees in between. That is why climate change is not measured in decades but normally over thousands of years and, at a minimum, centuries.
As shown above, the source of this difference is IPCC models based on conjecture rather than the actual data https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...094#post225094.
When you look at the actual data the story is very different than the fairy tales that Al Gore's Al Jazeera claims in the videos or the IPCC models based on the conjecture that do not match the actual data. If you have an explanation why the temp rose .5 degrees on average every 100 years for the last three centuries when the first 150 years were without industrial CO2 emissions, lets talk. I am open to explanations.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 27th February, 2023, 10:52 PM.
Ahh yes more fraudulent presentations from Bob Gillanders for our consideration
IPCC models have overstated warming up to three times too much.
"A detailed examination by John Christy, a distinguished climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Alabama State Climatologist, provides a stark assessment of the validity (or non-validity) of the models that are used in support of imagined apocalypse. His testimony in February 2016 to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology included remarkable charts that document just how much the models overestimate temperatures. The red line in the chart shows the average of 102 climate model runs completed by Christy and his team at the University of Alabama at Huntsville using the models on which the IPCC itself relies. Also shown on the chart are the actual, observed temperatures. The models exaggerate warming, on average, two and a half times the actual temperature (or three times over in the climate-crucial tropics)."
Thank you, Sid, for posting this very instructive graph of the difference between modelling and reality!
World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years
Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft. Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain. The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it – on which governments including Britain’s base their green policies.
But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years. Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its tune after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years
Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change. Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.
Your post #1183 is an excellent presentation of the Negative Natural Climate Change position. It does repeat information you have provided before.
Thanks for your contribution throughout. You have definitely managed to raise reasonable doubt.
Bob A
And there you have it. Judge Armstrong has ruled reasonable doubt exists.
Thus giving everyone not willing to tackle the problem of climate change an excuse to do nothing.
But I would argue, reasonable doubt is not the appropriate legal standard here.
Preponderance of the evidence would be more suitable. How about it judge?
Tweet
Figure 1 – Categories of endorsement – Cook 2013
Figure 2
Figure 3 – Edward Teller’s signature at
Comment