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.
After reading some of Syd Ballzborg's recent posts, I've concluded that deliberately misspelling the name of the person you're talking to is the latest mindless ChessTalk fad, so, greetings Dollop Pandawanda!!
Dollop, the part of your post that I 'bolded' is interesting. Do you have a link to an article, or the name of a book, that influenced your thinking on this point?
The rest of your post, in a very general way, makes sense too. One example, if people are so concerned about shutting down carbon emissions then why aren't competing, reliable energy sources being aggressively developed? Where are the nuclear power plants?
After reading some of Syd Ballzborg's recent posts, I've concluded that deliberately misspelling the name of the person you're talking to is the latest mindless ChessTalk fad, so, greetings Dollop Pandawanda!!
Dollop, the part of your post that I 'bolded' is interesting. Do you have a link to an article, or the name of a book, that influenced your thinking on this point?
The rest of your post, in a very general way, makes sense too. One example, if people are so concerned about shutting down carbon emissions then why aren't competing, reliable energy sources being aggressively developed? Where are the nuclear power plants?
Peter, here is the paper I already posted that shows that increases in cold-related deaths went down by .51% while heat-related deaths went up by .21% for a net decrease in climate deaths between 2000-2019, as cold-related deaths account for 95% of climate-related deaths.
Why in hell is there so much worry about global warming when almost all of the climate deaths are from cold???? Obviously, because the climate anxious are being scammed just like the same naive group of fools was scammed during COVID.
The Climate Scam was invented by the WEF/UN/WHO to launder Tax Dollars to their Agenda, which embraces policies that obliterate the Environment. They blame Humans for their catastrophic results while using MSM to repeat their ‘Climate Crisis’ like a broken Goebbels Record Player.
Bob A, Why do you keep on forgetting that the number of persons adversely affected by climate has fallen over the last few decades... and it is not because of efforts of the climate anxious activists, but because of common sense actions by people who just do their regular job instead of always protesting and making a mountain out of a molehill.
After reading some of Syd Ballzborg's recent posts, I've concluded that deliberately misspelling the name of the person you're talking to is the latest mindless ChessTalk fad, so, greetings Dollop Pandawanda!!
Dollop, the part of your post that I 'bolded' is interesting. Do you have a link to an article, or the name of a book, that influenced your thinking on this point?
The rest of your post, in a very general way, makes sense too. One example, if people are so concerned about shutting down carbon emissions then why aren't competing, reliable energy sources being aggressively developed? Where are the nuclear power plants?
It is one thing for the "Naturalists to say that this is part of a longer process in time, of eons, that man is not the main driver, and that it has been worse before. One might agree that, at least, this raises some rational argument.
But many "naturalists" do admit that at the moment, there are more people on the planet than last time, and that, indeed, the environment is slowly (Slower than the "anthropogenicists say) getting more hostile to the human species. So the second time around is going to cause a lot of people dislocation, as it did in earlier phases (Do I get the Naturalists right here?).
But it is entirely something else (Irrational argument) for "climate change deniers" to claim, in the face of world evidence of collateral damage to persons, that "nothing is going on"!
They may claim that what is going on has happened before (That is, it is not "unusual" in that sense). But to deny it is "unusual" for the people of the current time, right now, when we have never faced such hostile environmental changes for multi-centuries, is merely "wishful thinking". I expect that these people will be scrambling to adapt like everyone else who is a realist as the clock ticks closer to midnight..
What will be their explanation for their struggling to adapt, at that time?
Bob A
Bob A,
Why do you keep on forgetting that the number of persons adversely affected by climate has fallen over the last few decades... and it is not because of efforts of the climate anxious activists, but because of common sense actions by people who just do their regular job instead of always protesting and making a mountain out of a molehill.
I am disappointed there is not more protestors at COP28, but it seems protesting has been banned. Mystery solved.
Anyway, it is pretty pointless arguing with Sid and Dilip about it. I am going to try again to avoid posting here. I have better things to do.
I certainly won't miss Dilip's insipid trolling. At least Sid posted with some passion.
Well, back to work Bob G. Lots of tournaments to process. CFC keeps growing.
I think I will try listening to some Taylor Swift while I work.
Keep remembering.....in the land of the lunatics, you're probably king!
What will be their explanation for their struggling to adapt, at that time?
No doubt they will blame it on others.
I am disappointed there is not more protestors at COP28, but it seems protesting has been banned. Mystery solved.
Anyway, it is pretty pointless arguing with Sid and Dilip about it. I am going to try again to avoid posting here. I have better things to do.
I certainly won't miss Dilip's insipid trolling. At least Sid posted with some passion.
Well, back to work Bob G. Lots of tournaments to process. CFC keeps growing.
I think I will try listening to some Taylor Swift while I work.
It is one thing for the "Naturalists to say that this is part of a longer process in time, of eons, that man is not the main driver, and that it has been worse before. One might agree that, at least, this raises some rational argument.
But many "naturalists" do admit that at the moment, there are more people on the planet than last time, and that, indeed, the environment is slowly (Slower than the "anthropogenicists say) getting more hostile to the human species. So the second time around is going to cause a lot of people dislocation, as it did in earlier phases (Do I get the Naturalists right here?).
But it is entirely something else (Irrational argument) for "climate change deniers" to claim, in the face of world evidence of collateral damage to persons, that "nothing is going on"!
They may claim that what is going on has happened before (That is, it is not "unusual" in that sense). But to deny it is "unusual" for the people of the current time, right now, when we have never faced such hostile environmental changes for multi-centuries, is merely "wishful thinking". I expect that these people will be scrambling to adapt like everyone else who is a realist as the clock ticks closer to midnight..
What will be their explanation for their struggling to adapt, at that time?
COP 28 has shown that the urgency, and dire consequences of negative climate change, are not yet appreciated.
Not to mention the vested interests that will be damaged by quicker action, who are determinedly, at best, trying to slow the process down. They seek to wring as many final dollars out of their enterprises, before the gong strikes, as they can (No care about the damage to millions that will be caused.
COP 28 has shown that the urgency, and dire consequences of negative climate change, are not yet appreciated.
Not to mention the vested interests that will be damaged by quicker action, who are determinedly, at best, trying to slow the process down. They seek to wring as many final dollars out of their enterprises, before the gong strikes, as they can (No care about the damage to millions that will be caused.
I was unable to find a number for those specializing in climate science. If you know, please share.
Are all your 1,600 signatures climate scientists? If so, what percent is that of the total climate scientists?
A better question is what percentage of scientists support Anthropogenic Climate change. Your beloved Gore loved citing "97%" based on a completely
fraudulent study from 2013 that was thoroughly debunked. A published paper showed .3% of scientists were the real number that supported anthropogenic climate change.
As far as my doctor's forum is concerned, the estimate of those dead already from vaccine injuries is 17,000,000 !!! That does not include myocarditis, that close to 20% of those injected have. Untreated, 50% will be dead within five years, and 75% will die in 10 years.
You are good at math, Bob. 5.8 Billion injected *.20= 1.16 billion with Myocarditis, and 550,000,000 of those will be dead in the next several years, and that is
a medical fact.
If anyone is afflicted with this terrible diagnosis, our Doctors have found a way to treat it using sub-antimicrobial doses of doxycycline. This won't cure it, but it will treat the symptoms so one can survive with this condition.
We also have turbo cancer injuries due to DNA contaminants in the vaccine at a rate never seen before.
And you have the arrogance to question what our Doctors' priorities are? Unbelievable!
According to a 2021 report, the total number of scientists worldwide reached approximately 8.8 million. This figure includes all scientists, not just those specializing in climate science.
I was unable to find a number for those specializing in climate science. If you know, please share.
Are all your 1,600 signatures climate scientists? If so, what percent is that of the total climate scientists?
Let's refrain from embellishing our crowd size, shall we.
multiple Nobel Laureates = 2, better described as a couple.
a few thousand scientists, well your earlier number was 1,600 - not really a big number compared to the 8.8 million scientists world wide
the opinion of Bob Gillanders, you got me there, just my opinion, I ain't no scientist
fraudulent politician Al Gore, no he really is a politician, not a fake.
An inconvenient truth, did win an Oscar, or 2?
polar ice caps, still melting.
Polar bears, still on the endangered species list.
Now that we've corrected the record, are you following the news from COP28 in Dubai?
Not really a lot of reporting. Reductions in oil and gas appear to be off the table, with a focus shift to methane.
They have added a Health Day, to talk about the negative effects on human health.
So not all bad I guess. In hindsight, significant reductions in fossil fuels was decades away anyway.
Sid, your physician group that was critical of the COVID vaccine, I was wondering what their position was on the impact of climate change on human health to date, if any? The video mentioned a number of 7 million deaths per year worldwide so far.
Reference, please. According to a 2021 report, the total number of scientists worldwide reached approximately 8.8 million. This figure includes all scientists, not just those specializing in climate science.
Absolutely nothing to do with the bullshit that was proven false in his film. Perhaps it should have been given
a science fiction award.
Originally posted by Bob Gillanders
Polar bears, still on the endangered species list.
Another statement that does not square with the actual data.
According to International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Polar Bears International, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
the population of Polar Bears was 22,000-27000 in 2000 and it is now 22,000-31000. Polar bears appear to be modestly increasing in populatiom
and no signs of decreasing at all.
Just more nonsensical predictions from the fraud Al Gore that did not pan out.
Concerns over climate change have prompted substantial interest in temperature related injuries resulting from extreme weather conditions. Climate models predict that as global temperatures increase, the frequency and severity of extreme heat and cold weather events will grow which will likely increase the incidence of temperature-related injury. The aim of this study was to analyze the healthcare impacts of temperature related injuries in the state of Illinois in order to serve as a model to guide future public health policy.
"however, the crude annual inpatient admission incidence rate was more than four-fold higher for cold injuries compared to heat injuries (10.2 vs 2.4 per 100,000). Although hypothermia made up 27.0% of all temperature related injuries, it comprised 94.0% of all deaths.'
So tell me Bob do you think the Doctors I know are worried about warming or cooling based on
Scientific data?
Leave a comment: