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.
Government Role - Intervention - Dealing with Climate Change Issue - Are Capitalist Gov'ts a Hindrance?
Americas - USA
"This is just what the climate activists wanted.
The White House is delaying a decision about approving a new natural gas megaproject, as my colleague Coral Davenport exclusively reported yesterday, in order to more fully consider its impact on the climate.
The contentious Calcasieu Pass 2 project, known as CP2, would allow the United States — already the worlds’ biggest natural gas exporter — to ship much more liquefied natural gas overseas. Climate activists have rallied for months to block the project on the Louisiana coast, arguing that it would lock in dependence on fossil fuels beyond what the climate can bear.
“I’m super excited and ecstatic,” said Roishetta Ozane, an activist based in Louisiana, where the project would be located. “CP2 is a carbon time bomb.” "
"It's become very clear there is a depopulation agenda: "The people behind the climate scare are Malthusians. this idea that MAN is a pest, a plague on the Earth. One of the phrases they use is "Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man."
What is wrong with government taking an equity position with the workers?
The 'Government' is an employee.
It is employed by the people. NOT employed by itself.
Without getting too technical for you Pargat ... entrepreneurs are the heart and soul of democracy. They bring ideas to life. Take all the risk. They hire workers. Workers do NOT hire the entrepreneur nor take the risk.
Control of an idea belongs to the entrepreneur, obviously. Workers do the work the entrepreneur provides them to do.
Government is an employee. They are NOT overlords.
Democracy protects the rights and freedoms of the Individual. One person at a time. That includes the entrepreneur.
NOT the collective and NOT the government.
Sorry to dummy this down, Dilip but some folks just don't understand their places in our world.
It's easy to dummy things down if you are in fact the dummy.
Government is not an employee. Voters only vote for or against candidates, they do not give orders to the government. They can only send requests to the government. If you want government to be an employee, you need a different political system.
You Neil say government is an employee, yet Sid says in post #60 of this thread that government does what it pleases. Who is the dummy?
And even if government WERE to be portrayed as an employee ... they have multiple means at their disposal to carry out the wishes of the voters. One of those means is to invest in enterprises along with the workers of that enterprise.
So the question remains for Dilip, what is wrong with that? Neil has done nothing to answer the question, he has only muddied the water as he likes to do.
"It's become very clear there is a depopulation agenda: "The people behind the climate scare are Malthusians. this idea that MAN is a pest, a plague on the Earth. One of the phrases they use is "Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man."
Thanks for those big fonts Sid ... it makes what you write so much more believable! LOL
I have no problem seeing man as a cancer .... seeing man as not the end product, but as a means to an end ....
But some do see man as the destiny of the universe, the ultimate Master of the Universe. Immortality is within reach .... the singularity is coming ... LOL
Thanks for those big fonts Sid ... it makes what you write so much more believable! LOL
I have no problem seeing man as a cancer .... seeing man as not the end product, but as a means to an end ....
But some do see man as the destiny of the universe, the ultimate Master of the Universe. Immortality is within reach .... the singularity is coming ... LOL
Yes, and, therefore, let others decide who is cancerous and who is not. Amazing, the second-generation descendants of Nazis (WEF globalists) don't even need to force those they deem "cancerous" into gas chambers. They simply convince populations that it is a great idea to slowly suffocate and brain damage themselves and even their children with masks over a virus that, as it turns out, had an IFR rate no worse than the flu.
I mean, only a brain-dead idiot like yourself would declare the most widely referenced medical library in the world, aka the Cochrane database, a "right-wing conspiracy" and reinvent how to interpret a scientific paper thet goes against your narrative of the usefulness of masks. Did you know that most people in the 1918 pandemic died not of an influenza virus but of bacterial pneumonia? Mask usage was widespread back then also and tended to quickly become like Petri dishes to culture bacteria. as they do now. Dr. Fauci even wrote a paper about this in 2008.https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/198/7/962/2192118
Of course, the cherry on top is to convince populations to inject themselves with a lethal immune system-destroying toxin so that they have no defense against florid pneumonia.
Oh, too many people have wised up to the above? So they convince the lemmings that CO2, the most important life-sustaining gas, is harmful and starves the populations by destroying food production in the name of climate change. Have you checked out the news recently about widespread European farmer protests? Hopefully, there is enough left of your oxygen-starved brains to do so.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 26th January, 2024, 08:14 AM.
Bob: Has something to do with the majority of the population of the Earth, and the majority of expert Scientists, telling me that we are going to go extinct as a species, by our own hand, by exacerbating negative climate change!
The Naturalist Negative Climate Changers are a very small, but vocal, minority. In this case, the majority happens to be right, and looking realistically at the scientific evidence.
Capitalist governments of the world are not up to stopping negative climate change - they have a conflict of interest. Only DM Parties springing up across the globe in all nations will give the people a chance of avoiding extinction.
Do any CT'ers, other than the Naturalists, dispute the above statements?
Bob: Has something to do with the majority of the population of the Earth, and the majority of expert Scientists, telling me that we are going to go extinct as a species, by our own hand, by exacerbating negative climate change!
The Naturalist Negative Climate Changers are a very small, but vocal, minority. In this case, the majority happens to be right, and looking realistically at the scientific evidence.
Capitalist governments of the world are not up to stopping negative climate change - they have a conflict of interest. Only DM Parties springing up across the globe in all nations will give the people a chance of avoiding extinction.
Do any CT'ers, other than the Naturalists, dispute the above statements?
and the majority of expert Scientists, telling me that we are going to go extinct as a species, by our own hand, by exacerbating negative climate change!
The long and hard road to scientific truth cannot be followed by the trivial expedient of a mere head-count among those who make their livings from government funding. Therefore, the mere fact that climate activists find themselves so often appealing to an imagined and (as we shall see) imaginary “consensus” is a red flag. They are far less sure of the supposed scientific truths to which they cling than they would like us to believe. “Consensus,” here, is a crutch for lame science.
What, then, is the origin of the “97% consensus” notion? Is it backed up with research and data?
The earliest attempt to document a “consensus” on climate change was a 2004 paper cited by Al Gore in his allegedly non-fiction book, An Inconvenient Truth. (Gore attended natural science class at Harvard, but got a D grade for it.) The author of the cited paper, Naomi Oreskes, asserted that 75% of nearly 1,000 papers she had reviewed on the question of climate change agreed with the “consensus” proposition favored by the IPCC: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” None, she maintained, dissented from this line of reasoning.
The Oreskes paper came to the attention of Klaus-Martin Schulte, an eminent London surgeon, who had become concerned with the adverse health effects of his patients from their belief in apocalyptic global warming.
Professor Schulte decided to update Oreskes’ work. However, he found that only 45% of several hundred papers endorsed the “consensus” position. He concluded: “There appears to be little basis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for the degree of alarm on the issue of climate change which is being expressed in the media and by politicians, now carried over into the medical world and experienced by patients.”
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, specializing 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 skeptics 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.
Bob: Has something to do with the majority of the population of the Earth, and the majority of expert Scientists, telling me that we are going to go extinct as a species, by our own hand, by exacerbating negative climate change!
The Naturalist Negative Climate Changers are a very small, but vocal, minority. In this case, the majority happens to be right, and looking realistically at the scientific evidence.
Capitalist governments of the world are not up to stopping negative climate change - they have a conflict of interest. Only DM Parties springing up across the globe in all nations will give the people a chance of avoiding extinction.
Do any CT'ers, other than the Naturalists, dispute the above statements?
Bob A (Dem. Marxist)
But your fellow-Marxist says humans are a cancer (so better gotten rid of) and you say the Earth is just a negligible tiny dot, not the Big Apple... so stop being climate-anxious, Bob
Only Man/Woman believes they & Earth are the centre of the Universe.
There are millions of galaxies (An under-count). We are just a small part of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Ask the many Extra Terrestrials if Earth is the Big Apple!!
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
Bob A., I just watched a video on YouTube about the MINIMUM size of the Universe.
The visible Universe from Earth has a diameter of about 92 billion light years. The figure I have seen is well over a trillion galaxies in that sphere.
But the minimum size of the total Universe, which includes luminuous objects (stars etc.) whose light has not yet and might never reach us, a sphere 250 billion light years in diameter. That dwarfs the visible universe. Possibly trillions of trillions of galaxies.
And of course, the Universe may be infinite in size. In fact it most likely IS infinite because it is expanding outward, and the definition of infinity is ever-growing.
And the common factor of all the intelligent life forms in the Universe .... they are all in debt. LOL
Earth is a very small apple, and it is full of worms.
..... only a brain-dead idiot like yourself would declare the most widely referenced medical library in the world, aka the Cochrane database, a "right-wing conspiracy" and reinvent how to interpret a scientific paper thet goes against your narrative of the usefulness of masks. Did you know that most people in the 1918 pandemic died not of an influenza virus but of bacterial pneumonia? Mask usage was widespread back then also and tended to quickly become like Petri dishes to culture bacteria. as they do now. ......
But it is ok for you to declare that mass media is a left-wing conspiracy, despite IT being the most widely-referenced news source in the world. Oh, the mass media can be compromised and doing fake news, but NOT the Cochrane database! No!
I would conclude that widely-referenced means absolutely nothing.
Kind of funny how so many people in Asia wear masks daily even before the pandemic, and Asia has the densest populations in the world. Shouldn't they all be dying of bacterial pneumonia?
BTW.... you want to imply that this bacterial pneumonia in 1918 Spanish flu outbreak was caused by mask-wearing. But here's what the National Institute of Health actually wrote:
"The majority of deaths during the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 were not caused by the influenza virus acting alone, report researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. Instead, most victims succumbed to bacterial pneumonia following influenza virus infection. The pneumonia was caused when bacteria that normally inhabit the nose and throat invaded the lungs along a pathway created when the virus destroyed the cells that line the bronchial tubes and lungs."
NOTHING ABOUT MASK WEARING! Your mask hypothesis DESTROYED. You are a spreader of fake news!
LOL I stole your idea of using bigger fonts!
LOL what a silly bunch of bs you push! But it's ok because sensible people know what to do. Do you really want to debate me further? I'm making a fool of you!
Now, you remember that before you hijacked this thread, I had mentioned that 250 of the world's top billionaires want governments to tax them more?
Well, now comes word that Reagan's favorite concept, trickle-down theory, has never worked and has in fact been harmful to the overall economy....
Tweet
Comment