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.
O Bob G.! I never thought you would say that one does not have to practice what one preaches !!
(even if it involves someone you admire so much...)
You are missing the point. Decades ago, environmentalists may have lead the way by example, by recycling, buying electric cars, reducing their individual carbon footprint, calling for global action to combat climate change and save civilization. But this strategy has clearly failed. Even after 50 years of corroborating scientific data, the climate denier campaign of propaganda has been successful enough to delay politicians in doing anything substantial. Time to change strategy.
No sense denying ourselves stuff while waiting for all of you to see the light. Big global action is required.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Sunday, 23rd October, 2022, 08:39 AM.
You are missing the point. Decades ago, environmentalists may have lead the way by example, by recycling, buying electric cars, reducing their individual carbon footprint, calling for global action to combat climate change and save civilization. But this strategy has clearly failed. Even after 50 years of corroborating scientific data, the climate denier campaign of propaganda has been successful enough to delay politicians in doing anything substantial. Time to change strategy.
No sense denying ourselves stuff while waiting for all of you to see the light. Big global action is required.
The Man who invented Climate Change and influenced Schwab’s Great Reset Agenda
"According to such Great Reset luminaries as Bill Gates, Prince Charles, Michael Bloomberg, Mark Carney and Klaus Schwab, humanity is expected to solve the dual threat of Covid and global warming in one revolutionary sweeping reform.
"A "special” and “peaceful” way to depopulate, indeed; in other words, through slow kill bioweapon injections, food and environmental induced sickness, stress, energy depletion, hyperinflation, starvation, selective radioactive eradication, etc."
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 23rd October, 2022, 10:00 AM.
You are missing the point. Decades ago, environmentalists may have lead the way by example, by recycling, buying electric cars, reducing their individual carbon footprint, calling for global action to combat climate change and save civilization. But this strategy has clearly failed. Even after 50 years of corroborating scientific data, the climate denier campaign of propaganda has been successful enough to delay politicians in doing anything substantial. Time to change strategy.
No sense denying ourselves stuff while waiting for all of you to see the light. Big global action is required.
What you are implying is that currently, those who are climate-anxious is such a small minority, that climate oriented sacrifices made by them alone will not make any meaningful improvement in atmospheric CO2, and even if it does, it is not fair for only the minority to suffer for the benefit of all {unless it is the stealing by taxes scenario :-)}. And what you are also implying is that the politicians who have been elected by the climate-indifferent vast majority, should forcibly impose those sacrifices on all.... sounds very undemocratic and outright fascist, Bob G.
The climate-anxious minority first has to convince the climate-indifferent majority of their point of view by an honest debate, which they can request the government to organize, instead of polluting the environment even more to hold one-sided meetings, where all they do is propose anti-democratic, fascist 'solutions'...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 23rd October, 2022, 11:02 AM.
We just had two years of lying, hypocritical politicians mandating various things that were useless or outright harmful. I do not trust them to either do what is right for the general population or follow any kind of green mandates that they impose for "our good". But so many people are sheep ...
"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.
What you are implying is that currently, those who are climate-anxious is such a small minority, that climate oriented sacrifices made by them alone will not make any meaningful improvement in atmospheric CO2, and even if it does, it is not fair for only the minority to suffer for the benefit of all {unless it is the stealing by taxes scenario :-)}. And what you are also implying is that the politicians who have been elected by the climate-indifferent vast majority, should forcibly impose those sacrifices on all.... sounds very undemocratic and outright fascist, Bob G.
The climate-anxious minority first has to convince the climate-indifferent majority of their point of view by an honest debate, which they can request the government to organize, instead of polluting the environment even more to hold one-sided meetings, where all they do is propose anti-democratic, fascist 'solutions'...
You have completely misrepresented my position. Whether or not your posts are genuine or just trolling me, I don't know.
Clearly I am outnumbered here and wasting my time.
As I stated weeks ago, I have no interest in a debate with those who are in the "climate change is a hoax" camp.
Clearly I am outnumbered here and wasting my time.
I have no interest in a debate with those who are in the "climate change is a hoax" camp.
This is my last post. Good bye.
Bob G,, the objective of this thread has been to convince the climate-indifferent majority that they should join the climate-anxious minority. The only civil way to do that is by honest debating, not by banning the ones you do not agree with, as you have previously indicated you would like to do... or by forcing measures upon them in an undemocratic, fascist way, as the folks gathering in Egypt in November would like to do...
It is sad to see you leave Bob A. all by himself to make his points...
I, as originator, started this thread because I am one of the ones who has trusted, on this point, mainstream government and "experts". I believe they are generally onto a real problem (Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change) and that the public is not giving it the urgency and priority which it requires.
I am aware of the position that there IS Climate Change happening, but it is Negative Natural Climate Change. It is argued that man's contribution is negligible, and so societal radical change is not required, nor helpful. I have been pleased that this side of the argument has been well-elucidated, with sources.
Regardless of viewpoint, it seems agreed that we are headed into trouble (Maybe species suicide) in either case..... Unless something totally unexpected occurs (I am not convinced that science confirms that a new millenial-length age of Cooling is about to override the current natural warming cycle, if this is indeed the case.)
I do have MY position.........with an openness that some amount of evidence to the contrary may at some point cause me to review my position.
But the point of my thread was to help ordinary, pleb ChessTalker's, like me, to try to sort through some of the evidence on both sides, and come to a conclusion.
I am pleased that this thread seems to have been accomplishing this. Maybe people have not changed their positions despite the other side feeling that they have provided the necessary evidence. This is up to the individual..........no one is to be wood-shedded into agreeing......this is not independent decision-making.
Just present the evidence on both sides, and let ChessTalker's decide.
I, of course, am disappointed if some find the value of this project to be negligible for them, and stop participating. But I also respect their decision.......we must all align ourselves in action with our true appreciation of that in which we are involved. Life is short....spend time on the priorities in your own life!
Bob G,, the objective of this thread has been to convince the climate-indifferent majority that they should join the climate-anxious minority. The only civil way to do that is by honest debating, not by banning the ones you do not agree with, as you have previously indicated you would like to do... or by forcing measures upon them in an undemocratic, fascist way, as the folks gathering in Egypt in November would like to do...
It is sad to see you leave Bob A. all by himself to make his points...
Dilip, the only honest debating that could possibly change anyone's mind would be between the two opposing camps of scientists / climatologists. This is the debate that I encouraged Sid Belzberg to try and put together. He seems to be close to one of the camps, and he should encourage that camp to put out the offer for this debate, which should be telecast live around the entire world. Maybe you, Dilip, could encourage Sid to work towards that happening also. I think Sid's side has a very great chance to put forward their views and make a very good showing, maybe even getting the majority of the world to think that indeed we do not need to change our way of life as significantly as the opposing camp seems to believe (I'm not claiming that as my own view, by the way, but it would be the view that Sid's side in the debate would put forward, and I could be persuaded to that view with enough evidence and little or no countervailing evidence).
Dilip, the only honest debating that could possibly change anyone's mind would be between the two opposing camps of scientists / climatologists. This is the debate that I encouraged Sid Belzberg to try and put together. He seems to be close to one of the camps, and he should encourage that camp to put out the offer for this debate, which should be telecast live around the entire world. Maybe you, Dilip, could encourage Sid to work towards that happening also. I think Sid's side has a very great chance to put forward their views and make a very good showing, maybe even getting the majority of the world to think that indeed we do not need to change our way of life as significantly as the opposing camp seems to believe (I'm not claiming that as my own view, by the way, but it would be the view that Sid's side in the debate would put forward, and I could be persuaded to that view with enough evidence and little or no countervailing evidence).
Pargat, my original educational background is molecular genetics and I worked in a virology lab for a few years in my youth. I dusted off that background and did volunteer research for a group of scientists and Dr's when the pandemic first broke. I have no background in climatology and have no contacts with anyone with that background.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 23rd October, 2022, 10:44 PM.
Dilip, the only honest debating that could possibly change anyone's mind would be between the two opposing camps of scientists / climatologists. This is the debate that I encouraged Sid Belzberg to try and put together. He seems to be close to one of the camps, and he should encourage that camp to put out the offer for this debate, which should be telecast live around the entire world. Maybe you, Dilip, could encourage Sid to work towards that happening also. I think Sid's side has a very great chance to put forward their views and make a very good showing, maybe even getting the majority of the world to think that indeed we do not need to change our way of life as significantly as the opposing camp seems to believe (I'm not claiming that as my own view, by the way, but it would be the view that Sid's side in the debate would put forward, and I could be persuaded to that view with enough evidence and little or no countervailing evidence).
I agree that a high level debate would go a long way in bringing together the climate-anxious and the climate-indifferent, Pargat. It would also need a very intelligent and 'neutral' large facilitator team, which is willing to spend time checking out whether what is being presented is factual or fake/exaggerated/unknown/unlikely, etc. The facilitators would also ensure that the debaters stick to resoving disagreements, instead of trying to make it theatrical... In a Libertarian system, organizing such debates would be one of the government's functions; in our system, it would be nice if someone convinces the powers that be to invest the money it would need to run it... The first step would be to form the facilitator team, which would then make an open invitation to high level honest debaters from each side to form one team for each side...
Pargat, my original educational background is molecular genetics and I worked in a virology lab for a few years in my youth. I dusted off that background and did volunteer research for a group of scientists and Dr's when the pandemic first broke. I have no background in climatology and have no contacts with anyone with that background.
Ok, Sid, but I'm sure you've hear about "6 degrees of separation". Supposedly everyone is separated from everyone else by 6 connections.
But since you Sid are already in a scientific field, even though not climatology, maybe you are only 3 or 4 connections away from the climatologists on both sides of this argument. And you are very passionate about your views. So maybe you just need to start a ball rolling within the contacts you do have?
This debate really needs to happen, Dilip seems to agree as well. This issue affects the entire planet. Both sides need to put everything out there, and respond to each other's points. For example Sid, a while ago you posted a curve of historical warming and cooling trends showing that Earth's temps were even higher at another time in history, I can't remember if it was during human history or not but I think it was. So I am very much wanting the other side to respond to that, to tell us why they think this time is "different" and we have to stop the warming.
Ok, Sid, but I'm sure you've hear about "6 degrees of separation". Supposedly everyone is separated from everyone else by 6 connections.
But since you Sid are already in a scientific field, even though not climatology, maybe you are only 3 or 4 connections away from the climatologists on both sides of this argument. And you are very passionate about your views. So maybe you just need to start a ball rolling within the contacts you do have?
This debate really needs to happen, Dilip seems to agree as well. This issue affects the entire planet. Both sides need to put everything out there, and respond to each other's points. For example Sid, a while ago you posted a curve of historical warming and cooling trends showing that Earth's temps were even higher at another time in history, I can't remember if it was during human history or not but I think it was. So I am very much wanting the other side to respond to that, to tell us why they think this time is "different" and we have to stop the warming.
Sorry to disappoint but my contacts are no different or better than the next man's. Molecular biology has nothing to do with climatology, period.
Is this what we need a debate for?
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Tuesday, 25th October, 2022, 01:08 AM.
This would seem to indicate that the majority on the planet (By extrapolation) do believe that negative climate change is mainly driven by man's economic activity, and man is mainly responsible for the Earth's canopy becoming less and less porous to solar heat (Greenhouse Gases).
Are the majority taking the position that the evidence being put forward by the negative NATURAL climate change promoters is insufficient to convince them of the opposing position?
What do ChessTalker's think?
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 25th October, 2022, 01:01 PM.
This would seem to indicate that the majority on the planet (By extrapolation) do believe that negative climate change is mainly driven by man's economic activity, and man is mainly responsible for the Earth's canopy becoming less and less porous to solar heat (Greenhouse Gases).
Are the majority taking the position that the evidence being put forward by the negative NATURAL climate change promoters is insufficient to convince them of the opposing position?
What do ChessTalker's think?
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
Dear Bob,
The AP is part of the 'Trusted News Initiative" along with other MSM sources that have proven not to be trusted at all. Here is an interesting post on
former Premiere Brian Peckford's website.
The majority on the planet also believed that they were protecting others by taking an experimental, unproven genetic therapy. that proved
to be a lie as admitted by the manufacturers themselves, starting with calling it a "vaccine".
The same group of politicians is now promoting a scientifically unproven new set of lies as a way to control the population.
If you harbor any beliefs about the Genocidal authoritarian WEF's involvement in government being. a "conspiracy theory" you might find this WEF/Trudeau Govt partnership interesting. https://tnc.news/2022/10/05/digital-id-contract/
here are details of the partnership from the company itself. https://ktdi.org/
Tweet
Comment