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.
THE FILM ASKS HARD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FAILURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENTS TO HALT CLIMATE CHANGE AND SAVE THE PLANET; THE FILM DOES NOT ADDRESS THE FACT THAT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS A FALSE CONSTRUCT PUSHED BY BIG OIL, STARTING WITH CANADIAN OILMAN MAURICE STRONG IN THE 1940S TO INDUCE ARTIFICIAL OIL SHORTAGES AND RAISE THE PRICE.
Definitely humans have made choices throughout history that have been inferior.
I am not yet decided that declaring climate change to be a real and present danger, is one of them, despite some strong evidence and conjecture on the other side.
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 18th April, 2023, 07:21 AM.
To be sure the oil industry has lied about false shortages for the very reason suggested. But this does not demonstrate that climate change is a false construct. The corrupt oil people could be wrong about this and still push their agenda. We need to be a little more logical.
Last week's number of views was low. Low numbers do not necessarily indicate waning interest in the thread. The reality is that when there are few new responses, then people do not visit the thread. They are motivated to come by seeing that there are new responses which they have not yet seen.
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 are 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 in March, 2023). 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 since it is the main contributor to the problem! 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!
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.........
Yes indeed. We have to deal with Putin and Trump instead because they appear (falsely) as more immediate and pressing issues to be concerned with. As I stated a few years back now, we needed to heed the pandemic as our last warning. But we did not. Therefore, as you say, "We will all pay for this...". Only a miracle, a shift, a transition, an Armageddon, a mass/inversion will save us. We will not be saving ourselves. Have fun, spend your money, see the world, laugh and celebrate, smile and love.
"If water is life, then Europeans are under mortal threat.
That was the message in a nutshell transmitted today by the European Commission’s scientific advisers at the Copernicus Climate Change Service.
Drought conditions not seen in some places since the Renaissance are becoming the continent’s new normal, with perilous knock-on effects for food security and supply chains in the European Union, the world’s third-biggest economy. Water levels on European rivers have been shrinking now for six years, with farmland drying up and Alpine glaciers in retreat."
"If water is life, then Europeans are under mortal threat.
That was the message in a nutshell transmitted today by the European Commission’s scientific advisers at the Copernicus Climate Change Service.
Drought conditions not seen in some places since the Renaissance are becoming the continent’s new normal, with perilous knock-on effects for food security and supply chains in the European Union, the world’s third-biggest economy. Water levels on European rivers have been shrinking now for six years, with farmland drying up and Alpine glaciers in retreat."
"Somalia Drought Claimed as Many as 43,000 Lives Last Year
Government, UN says half of those who died are under five
Death toll set to rise further this year as drought persists"
Bob A (T-S/P)
And where is your explanation that with or without CO2 emissions, these types of events have been happening since time immemorial? Interesting, all propaganda,
no substance!
Even your "97% consensus' of scientists" is a pathetic fraud.
BREAKING – Just 0.3% of Scientists agree Humanity is causing Climate Change; NOT 97% as falsely spread by the UN
"You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists take no view on the question of whether climate change is man-made, for it is beyond our present knowledge to answer.
Only 0.3% of science papers state humans are the cause of climate change. And when surveyed, only 18% of scientists believed that a large amount – or all – of additional climate change could be averted.
There is no scientific evidence or method that can determine how much of the temperature change since 1900 was caused by humans. We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces."
"97% Consensus" — What Consensus? by Gregory Wrightstone
Dr. Wrightstone challenges the idea that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. The author contends that a considerable number of scientists are skeptical of the widely accepted narrative on climate change. The article focuses on the origin of the "97% consensus" notion and the studies that support it, examining their validity and accuracy.
The first study mentioned is a 2004 paper by Naomi Oreskes, which claimed that 75% of nearly 1,000 papers reviewed agreed with the consensus on climate change, while none dissented. An update to this study conducted by Klaus-Martin Schulte found that only 45% of the papers endorsed the consensus, concluding that the alarm over climate change was exaggerated.
The primary paper supporting the "97% consensus" notion is a 2013 study by John Cook and his team. They claimed to have reviewed 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on climate change, with 97.1% of the abstracts endorsing the scientific consensus. However, Wrightstone explains that a closer look at the data reveals that 7,930 papers took no position on the subject and were excluded, dropping the actual consensus to 32.6%.
Moreover, the endorsement of human-caused climate change in Cook's study was categorized into three groups. Only the first category stated that humans are the primary cause of recent warming, while the other two categories could include skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic warming. The author argues that Cook's consensus conclusion is misleading and manipulates the data.
Wrightstone also cites the Oregon Petition, which was signed by more than 31,000 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, disputing the idea of anthropogenic climate alarmism. A 2016 survey by George Mason University revealed that 33% of the American Meteorological Society's members did not believe in the dominant climate change narrative.
The author emphasizes that science is not based on consensus but on verifiable results and reproducible research. He suggests that using the consensus argument in climate change discussions indicates a weak scientific foundation, which cannot be supported by open debate and proper scientific inquiry.
You claim a regular pattern of heat increase for some time now.........a natural heating phase that we've been in for eons.
If this is the case, then can one not expect that prediction of future weather, and consequences, should be quite easy. ...... few factors involved in predicting since there is some consistency.
Yet many areas of science have been taken by surprise! Their earliest predictions are not coming true. We are seeing weather events that have not been predicted to be so extreme.
There has appeared some X Factor that has skewered the future reality. It means to me there is something wrong in the Natural Climate Changers' measurement of temperature after the point of the start of the industrial revolution. It cannot be the 100 year average that the NCC'ers claim has persisted since then, as it was pre-Industrial Revolution from the end of the last cooling stage.
You claim a regular pattern of heat increase for some time now.........a natural heating phase that we've been in for eons.
If this is the case, then can one not expect that prediction of future weather, and consequences, should be quite easy. ...... few factors involved in predicting since there is some consistency.
Yet many areas of science have been taken by surprise! Their earliest predictions are not coming true. We are seeing weather events that have not been predicted to be so extreme.
There has appeared some X Factor that has skewered the future reality. It means to me there is something wrong in the Natural Climate Changers' measurement of temperature after the point of the start of the industrial revolution. It cannot be the 100 year average that the NCC'ers claim has persisted since then, as it was pre-Industrial Revolution from the end of the last cooling stage.
It cannot be the 100 year average that the NCC'ers claim has persisted since then, as it was pre-Industrial Revolution from the end of the last cooling stage.
Bob, that statement is incorrect; 150 years before the industrial revolution, we had much sharper rises in temperature than today, as shown. However, the average rate of increase for 150 years pre-industrial revolution was no different than today. For the first 150 years of the modern warming period no industrial CO2 emissions.
What say you?
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 23rd April, 2023, 06:58 AM.
"The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in Great Britain, continental Europe, and the United States, that occurred during the period from around 1760 to about 1820–1840." Wikipedia
So we negative anthropogenic climate changer's say as our initial triad of statements:
1. 1850 (Keeps the time line round) is the start of Mankind spewing greenhouse gases into our atmosphere;
2. at this date we started to create a non-porous canopy around Earth;
3. this non-porous canopy would, in future, progressively keep the heat from the sun within Earth's air/atmosphere (the heat is bouncing off Earth and back up, as a rough description), and not let it radiate back into space, as it had for the 150 years pre-Industrial Revolution.
We are trying to assemble a number of acceptable statements on Climate Change.
Before I go further on Sid's temperature presentation, I need to know:
Are these three statements agreed to by the "Negative Natural Climate Changers" (Sid and other CT'ers of this view). I'm desperately trying to help our discussion here find what is common about the two positions. This will bring into sharper relief where the fundamental disagreement is.
I'm sorry if some say we are going over old territory. But the topic is complex and we have had lots of evidence on both sides.
So I'm trying again to see if we can achieve a layman's set of statements about climate change that is accepted by both sides. Then we can discuss what factors are leading to divergent opinions.
I consider this process as "Conversations" - each presents ideas/approaches for others to consider and discuss. We are all equal in entitlement to contribute; but it will be that some have more information than others. Hopefully the process helps everyone to update their "story" on this critical issue, as they accept new views.
We may in the end agree to disagree on some things.......at that point we'll just have to post opposing views for all to consider.
"The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in Great Britain, continental Europe, and the United States, that occurred during the period from around 1760 to about 1820–1840." Wikipedia
So we negative anthropogenic climate changer's say as our initial triad of statements:
1. 1850 (Keeps the time line round) is the start of Mankind spewing greenhouse gases into our atmosphere;
2. at this date we started to create a non-porous canopy around Earth;
3. this non-porous canopy would, in future, progressively keep the heat from the sun within Earth's air/atmosphere (the heat is bouncing off Earth and back up, as a rough description), and not let it radiate back into space, as it had for the 150 years pre-Industrial Revolution.
We are trying to assemble a number of acceptable statements on Climate Change.
Before I go further on Sid's temperature presentation, I need to know:
Are these three statements agreed to by the "Negative Natural Climate Changers" (Sid and other CT'ers of this view). I'm desperately trying to help our discussion here find what is common about the two positions. This will bring into sharper relief where the fundamental disagreement is.
I'm sorry if some say we are going over old territory. But the topic is complex and we have had lots of evidence on both sides.
So I'm trying again to see if we can achieve a layman's set of statements about climate change that is accepted by both sides. Then we can discuss what factors are leading to divergent opinions.
I consider this process as "Conversations" - each presents ideas/approaches for others to consider and discuss. We are all equal in entitlement to contribute; but it will be that some have more information than others. Hopefully the process helps everyone to update their "story" on this critical issue, as they accept new views.
We may in the end agree to disagree on some things.......at that point we'll just have to post opposing views for all to consider.
Before I go further on Sid's temperature presentation, I need to know
I do not agree with statements 2 or 3 as drivers of climate change as my temperature presentation is indicative of solar activity being the main driver
of climate change. So carry on and go further with respect to my temperature change presentation.
Climate Change Lockdowns disguised as “15 Minute Cities” are being introduced under the UN Agenda 2030 Directive & WEF Great Reset plan
Your Government is pushing ahead with plans to bring 15-minute cities to a location near you. They are a brainchild of the UNs Agenda 2030, and are in effect Climate Change lockdowns.
And once combined with a digital ID, a carbon credit score and a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC) token, you’ve got the perfect recipe for creating a digital open-air prison.
By Sikh For Truth – Editor of Truth Talk UK
Canterbury’s council bosses have drawn up a radical plan to tackle congestion that will split the city into five zones and ban residents from driving directly between them.
During the Middle Ages, Canterbury, a cathedral city in southeast England, was a pilgrimage site. With cobbled streets and timber-framed houses, ancient Roman walls encircle its medieval centre. It has a population of 43432.
In Canterbury’s ‘Local Plan to 2045’, the council proposes splitting the city into five districts, with drivers unable to cross between districts by private car – even if they live there.
Within the document is the idea of 15-minute neighbourhoods: For example – “Community infrastructure provided as part of upcoming developments should be accessible to new and existing residents – preferably within 15 minutes walking time and always within 15 minutes.” – They say this is about ’living locally’.
Those who break the rules will face fines (possibly the same as Oxford’s £70) enforced by number-plate recognition cameras and won’t be able to make simple journeys around the city. According to Page 14 of the draft Canterbury District Local Plan to 2045 – there will be “Implementation of an ANPR-based sectoring system and modal filters to limit cross-city trips.”
They will instead have to drive out of their ‘neighbourhood’ and onto a new bypass – essentially a much larger outer ring road – before re-entering their chosen zone. Short, direct journeys across the city – like to supermarkets, retail parks or GP surgeries – will be banned to encourage residents to walk, cycle or use public transportation.
He continued: “The amenities and services that you would need are all in your neighbourhood. You wouldn’t have all the rat running, so it’d be fantastic if we could achieve it.”
He also said: “In 20 years’ time, you’re likely going to have your groceries delivered or you’re planning to go to a different supermarket or a new local shop in your own neighbourhood.”
However, Lib Dem councillor Nick Eden-Green says the scheme raises some “serious questions”. “When I visit friends I don’t consider which zone they are living in. It’s “frankly ridiculous – you’re creating ghettos where people are locked in and can’t travel elsewhere.”
It gets even more difficult for outsiders too: Visitors from other Kent districts and boroughs, or tourists, can’t park within the city walls. As a result, most parking lots will be made redundant. Tourists and visitors can park in one of four zones around the city centre. From each zone, visitors will be able to ride the park and ride into the city.
They explain what it means: The “15-minute city” concept—which implies having all necessary amenities within a short walk, bike ride, or public transit trip from one’s home—has demonstrated stickiness not just as an idea, but as a powerful tool for action – from Paris to Seoul, from Bogotá to Houston. It was coined in 2016 by Sorbonne professor Carlos Moreno, who won an Obel Award in 2021.”
The plan seems to limit car ownership. If you combine these plans with plans to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2030, it all starts to make sense. It is part of a coercive drive to keep motorists on their toes, posing as a revival of Britain’s green and pleasant land. Homes with cars will have to count how often they use them and there will probably be more surveillance, permits, and penalties coming.
No matter what is happening, it is being done outside of democracy, by climate change companies and climate zealots. This is in the name of saving the planet from net zero destruction.
Of course in order to save the day we have to give up more and more of our privacy and liberties or be fined. The classic behavioural nudge. No, it’s not a lockdown in the normal sense, but it is more authoritarian for sure. This is where we must think about our own daily routines and make sacrifices for the supposed global good. Decarbonising the west may be a way of deindustrialising the west.
I think I can agree with your statement # 1: "Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change". It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the problem.
And I think I can agree with your statement # 2: "Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will continue to rise in the future."
Of course, we do differ on the degree this is happening: the average rise every 100 years from 1700 - whether it is somewhat constant, or whether a change started occurring in 1850 with the rise of the Industrial Revolution, and the burning of fossil fuels.
Have we now achieved our first two "Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change"? I am trying to make accurate what you hold......revise my statement if it is a bit off.
Part II
Statement # 2 (First Triad)
So you do not agree that there is forming an impervious canopy around Earth, from Greenhouse Gases?
What then is it that is trapping heat around the Earth, and causing even the lesser temperature rise that you claim is happening?
Are you positing that the solar energy is, itself, progressively, increasingly, becoming stronger, and causing more heat when it hits the Earth? Is this why the Earth temperature is rising?
Trying to sort out where the difference lies re Statement # 2 first.
Part III
Then we'll deal with what you find wrong with the NACC'ers Statement # 3; what is the source of disagreement?
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Sunday, 23rd April, 2023, 01:08 PM.
Of course, we do differ on the degree this is happening: the average rise every 100 years from 1700 - whether it is somewhat constant, or whether a change started occurring in 1850 with the rise of the Industrial Revolution, and the burning of fossil fuels.
Tweet
Comment