Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (135)
Has he considered asking The New Zealand Herald to commission a GIF of Rodney Hide emerging from a fruitcake ?
Mr Seitz: have you considered answering my simple request for where the evidence for man-made global warming/climate change/call it what you will that you declare does exist actually is?
Ravishing Rattie. In ancient Rome during a triumphal parade to honour a general a slave was employed to stand by the general's side to whisper in his ear that he should remember that he was was fallible. You may be occupying a similar role with Seitz.
Just two faults with your comparison, Minty: I am not a slave; and, Mr Seitz has nothing to be generally triumphal about.
Other than that… hahaha.
Yawn-- that makes seven times Rattie has asked the same question , and six that he has refused to read the answer.
As he seems unable to read science journals, perhaps he should stick to watching TV:
PBS Firing line : with William F. Buckley, Jr.
The Threat of Nuclear Destruction in the New World Order-New Voices
Guests: Henry Kissinger, Russell Seitz, Henry Sokolski, Douglas Feith,
Part I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSKwbbKvd20&t=1035s
Episode S0979, Recorded on August 16, 1993
Part II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av-KGuY4yJk&t=547s
Episode S0980, Recorded on August 16, 1993
Part III
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av-KGuY4yJk&t=547s
@ Radical Rodent
What a joke VV Russell is. He quotes some outdated program he was on about a quarter of a century ago from William Buckley Jr. This, in effect is simply a piece of self-promotion from this activist. Pure puffery. His stuff is all about himself right to this day.
He won’t say anything because he can’t. Same as his useless blog.
VV is a has been fake.
But Buckley really believed that in order to convince, you have to debate and not just preach, which of course means risking the possibility that someone will beat you in debate. VV can’t do that. No – he is only interested in himself.
So Rattie - don't expect anything from this guy other than snide insults.
Jun 12, 2017 at 8:43 PM | vvussell
I watched the first one. Should the US have bombed the hell out of North Korea as well as Climate Science back in 1993?
I do not see the relevance of any of it to questions raised by Radical Rodent.
What a day for rodent watchers!
Not one , but two sightings of that rare species, the Google Denialist.
If Rattie &GC want to make it 7 for 7 in science -dodging, there's nothing much wrong with Revelle & Munk's 1977 NAS paper, so they should refuse to read it too.
https://www.nap.edu/read/12024/chapter/12
To avoid further cognitive dissonance , they and Doug Field should instruct their search engines to shun network televison and major newspapers as well as academic sites.
Rather a lot has happened to Supertroll's simile in the last MMXL years too:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-returns-in-triumph-from-covey.html
Actually, Mr Seitz, I was looking for real, verifiable evidence, not suppositions, estimates (“… a flux of perhaps more than 200 Gt…”) or opinions – especially not opinions on nuclear/chemical/biological warfare. Your response makes very little sense; but, then, it is more or less what I expected from you – i.e. nothing. I do find amusing the assumption that you, and so many other “scientists,” make, that there are no changes in nature; let’s ignore that where there were forest is now desert; where there was savannah is now jungle; where there was forest is now tundra; where there was coral reef is now Florida; where there was tropical jungle is now the South Downs – and all this occurred before humans existed, so, no, nature does not change on its own, does it? You are just proving my hypothesis that there is NO EVIDENCE that what changes there might be in the climates (if any) are caused by human activity. You, for all your bluster, are utterly unable to provide any evidence, thus – point proven.
Then, of course, perhaps you expect me to suddenly hold you in awe, as you have appeared on TV with Henry Kissinger. Sorry. I have chatted with aristocracy and royalty – even with the late Patrick Moore. (No, not the Canadian Dr Moore, great as he may be, but the real, actual Patrick Moore; a man whose stature rises above any accolade that could possibly have been bestowed upon him; a man whose only true recognition was that he was Patrick Moore!)
Russel, why don't you just answer the question instead of pouring out waffle. irrefutable proof of Man made climate change. Proof that what is happening now is in any way unusual or is caused by anything other than natural variations that have occurred many times in the past. Remember tat the science is settle so even you should be able to answer the question. Surely you can?
Martin Mason.
Surprisingly he can't.
My evil spellchecker changed 'surely' to 'surprisingly', but both work. Surprisingly is ironic, surely isn't.
Minty:
“Unsurprisingly, he can’t.”
There, fixed it for you. (Many American don’t understand irony or sarcasm.)
RR. What presumption to change the meaning of what my spellchecker wrote.
Come on Russell, answer the questions like a real scientist or go and stand on the dunce chair.
Seven for seven it is-- you guys need a bigger cult.
In the interest of more realistic troll drawing, Doug should get a mirror.
Here so you can further stretch the string of incomprehension are the latest numbers from perennial denialosphere favorites Christy & Spencer:
UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2017: +0.45 deg. C
June 2nd, 2017
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2017 was +0.45 deg. C, up from the April, 2017 value of +0.27 deg. C (click for decadal graph):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2017_v6-1.jpg
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 17 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.98
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.08
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.64 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.33 +0.50 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.29 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.31 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.38 +0.37
2016 10 +0.40 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.26 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05
2017 03 +0.19 +0.30 +0.07 +0.03
2017 04 +0.27 +0.27 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.45 +0.42 +0.48 +0.41
The UAH LT global anomaly image for May, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.
So what?
Russell, you are totally deranged. Have you ever had a real job like us?
@Jun 13, 2017 at 11:28 AM | Martin Mason
You say “Russel, why don't you just answer the question instead of pouring out waffle” etc.
Don’t expect much from him of any value. I watched through a paper of his given in 2015 – pathetic presentation - yawn inducing stuff and as informative as Will Hay Here
My condolences to Douglas Field on the passing of his one hope of gainful artistic employment in New Zealand: Peter Farrell having pulled the plug on Climate Debate Daily , the Editors have declared themselves too bored to continue-
Who can have driven them to such a conclusion?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/06/another-echo-chamber-bites-dust.html
Well done, Mr Seitz (Jun 13, 2017 at 6:10 PM)! You have actually given us some evidence!
Unfortunately, that particular evidence was not what was asked for – is there anyone on this site who is saying that the world has not warmed since the Little Ice Age?
What I am asking for is evidence that this slight rise in temperatures is caused by humans. As yet, for all my searching, I have not been able to find one jot of such evidence; however, seeings as how you are so convinced that it does exist, I a only asking that you point me to where I can find it. So far, all you have offered is assumptions, speculation and opinions, not solid, verifiable evidence.
Russell Seitz
To paraphrase Cromwell (20 April 1653).
You have waffled too long on this blog in everything you have been doing ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
Jun 14, 2017 at 12:20 AM | Radical Rodent
I think we can all reach our own conclusions as to why the "expertise" of Russell Seitz did not feature much on US TV again, based on his ability to avoid answering simple questions now.
He didn't know the answer before. He still doesn't.
Either that, or he is rehearsing Pleading the Fifth Amendment in Climate Science ....
"The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves in criminal cases. "Pleading the Fifth" is a colloquial term for invoking the right that allows witnesses to decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate them, and generally without having to suffer a penalty for asserting the right."
As "Pleading the Fifth" is normally associated with Criminal Law cases, it may be of particular interest to Climate Scientists.
To return to the essence ot this post
It bears repeating.
Nick Stern and colleagues received £9 million from the UK taxpayer. For the first half of that money, they appear to have exaggerated their output by a factor four. Based on that “success”, they were awarded the second half of the money, and continue to exaggerate their output, albeit by only a factor two.
my take Here
So the second part of the grant was awarded on the basis of a possibly flawed submission. Flawed in the sense that it contained reference to papers where the research must have been conducted before the first grant was awarded and papers not upon climate change economics and policy. Nevertheless the awarding of the second grant would have been based upon the relevant papers submitted and the projected work to be done. Criticism would be better focussed upon these aspects.
This is not an apology for Stern or his team, it is merely an attempt to get criticism better focussed. I suspect that the grant paid for peoples' salaries. If so, then work they did finalizing work done prior to the grant, and work done on non climate change subjects is still relevant and indeed should have been reported. Papers published during the period of the second grant, but based on work done during the time of the first, would seem to be criticized inappropriately.
Jun 15, 2017 at 9:06 AM | Supertroll
It is amazing how the World's top expert on the Economics of Global Warming, has based his expertise on flawed science, and still made lots of money, yet all the others profiting out of flawed science can't see any problem with the Science or the Economics.
Who should be criticised appropriately? (Whether with a "z" or "s" in criticized) The Stern Report IS destroying lives.
golfCharlie. In this case to be criticiZed appropriately means to be criticiSed legitimately and most effectively.
Jun 16, 2017 at 9:05 AM | Supertroll
Any Bishop Hill post with a Zed in it, is cause for concern.
golfCharlie. Jun 17, 2017 at 3:10 AM
Au contraire. Any Bishop Hill post with a Zed in it, is cause for merriment, but you have to read quickly before the Moral Guardians remove it. Surprised your post survives, perhaps it persists because of its early morning submission (couldn't you sleep?)
|
June 16, 2017
Stern reckons Four TRILLION Dollar Per Annum
Carbon Tax Required to “Save the World”
How can this be done? Here are a few figures
US GDP – 18 trillion $
Debt as of May 2017
US Debt - US: $19,846,129,308,636 - The debt keeps growing
Adwww.concordcoalition.org
Here is a schedule of the world economies as at 2015.
Published on Jun 16, 2017
The U.S. debt to China is $1.059 trillion, as of February 2017. That's 27.8 percent of the $3.8 trillion in Treasury bills, notes, and bonds held by foreign countries. The rest of the $19.9 trillion national debt is owned by either the American people or by the U.S. government itself. For more, see Who Owns the U.S. National Debt?
China holds less than the $1.1 trillion held by Japan. Both countries have reduced their holdings in the past year, but China has reduced it faster.
China held $1.3 trillion in U.S. debt in November 2013. The reason China is reducing its holdings is to allow its currency, the yuan, to rise. To do that, China has to loosen its peg to the dollar. That makes the yuan more attractive to forex traders in global markets.
Major nations GDP in trillions Here
It seems to me that Stern is somewhat ‘barking’ to suggest that anyone would even consider spending four trillion dollars per annum on a ‘will o’ the wisp’ fantasy notion such as this to ‘save the world’ given the indebtedness of the US and the GDP of the other major powers of the world.
Josh can chill out forr the rest of his unmentionalbly hot Northumbrian summer - he has even less competition in Kiwiland than subscibers in the Northern hemisphere.
RS. Has no one ever told you that you should write for your audience, not just to demonstrate your extreme cleverness (self perceived).
@ Supertroll 5:13 am
You say “Has anyone told you.......”
He needs pictures Here
Yes, O brave anonymous suoertroll , in your very words.
Get with it Seitz, most here know exactly who I am (so hardly anonymous) and some even recall why I adopted my nom-de-blog. You were around at the time and cross posted. golfCharlie was kind enough to inform me of your identity, because at that time you were being so so brave.
Take my June 22 correspondence as helpful advice.
Yes O more greatly anonymous Supertroll, but if your productions are as infallible as Delingpoles', and as deserving of reverence as the Bish or Cardinal Pell, why do you fear to sign them ?
It's rather like Rattie infinitely repeating the I Don't Geddit mantra.- at least Dellers has explained himself :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-truth-that-sets-men-free-is-seldom.html
No wonder this anonymoid has identity problems :
Ravishing Rattie. I was having similar discussions/arguments with Amoco's chief geologist back in the early 1980s. He was of the opinion that everyone should look after themselves and the buyer should beware. Anything else was a departure from democracy. I demurred. I recall that this was followed by a report in the press of a young child blinded by a toy bear imported from China whose head was attached solely by a metal spike.
I desire my government to protect me from the unscrupulous, from those who place profit before my safety or those I love. I need protection from those that would charge me extortionate prices for essential items, from those wishing to hide their inefficiencies or downright malfeasance, and from those who gain unfair advantages. That's why I am left of centre and don't recognize your definition of "liberal". Sorry about that.
Jan 2, 2017 at 1:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll
VV. Thank you so much for repeating some of my core beliefs. You no doubt would defend the sale of toys that can blind?
@June 30, 2017 at 7:03 AM | Unregistered Commenter Russell Seitz
No wonder this anonymoid has identity problems :
I see from your comment that you don’t suffer from this at all. No less than seven ‘I’s and four personal pronouns in that diatribe about – well – yourself. But apart from that and your shameless self-promotion, all you seem to be able to do is caste aspersions on everyone else’s comment.
Kleinefeldmaus. Am confused, are you attacking me for using the pronoun "I" seven times? Was only trying to explain to Ravishing Rattie why I am left-of-centre on many matters. Presumaby RS quoted it to demonstrate just how right-of-center he is.
Mr Seitz: I assume you are referring to me with the moniker “Rattie.” Another example, I fear, of a failing in communication – whether in clarity of writing, or interpretation of it (witness the oncoming spat between Minty and KFM – get your popcorn, now!), is moot – as it is not clear what you refer to by the “I Don’t Geddit mantra.”
Your implication is that I do not understand the argument, whereas I am sure that I DO understand it. As you are the only one suggesting that I do not, I can only presume that you are wrong – after all, you have constantly avoided my simple questions, thus highlighting your own potential fallibility. Another presumption is that it is you who does not understand, as you are unable or unwilling to answer the questions. I have quite clearly pointed out that, having trawled the internet exhaustively for quite some time, I have yet to find any empirical evidence to support the hypotheses that you cling to; you assure me that it does exist, so I merely ask you to show me this evidence. That you have persistently ignored the questions, it is fair to surmise that such evidence does not actually exist.
The ultimate conclusion, of course, is that this is strong evidence that you are lying; whether about the existence of the evidence or about your knowledge of where it is, is irrelevant. With you having provided such evidence of your own untrustworthiness, is it any wonder that few people trust you?
Jun 30, 2017 at 9:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll
Ha ha Supertoroll
My bad! I see now that VV was quoting from your comments - from somewhere!
Never mind Super - water now under the 'Bishops' bridge! Please accept my apologies - must be short of cheese today - maybe Ratty has eaten it all!
cheers
KFM
Ravishing Rattie. I hope the popcorn didn't go to waste!
Seitz. Once again Ravishing Rattie (Radical Rodent to you) asks for evidence you claim exists. She has repeatedly called your bluff. Put us all out of our misery and provide, or are you indeed bluffless?
Jul 1, 2017 at 11:48 AM | Supertroll
He won't answer, because he can't. Climate Science requires unquestioned faith, in something that does not exist
Answering questions isn't included in the Saul Alinsky 13 Rules for Radicals
re agitating, rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities and personalizing attack.
@bitter&twisted
More than 20 days have passed. You should have heard back from the ESRC by now.
Why is this perpetually infantile ratbot bent on proving AI can achieve brain death before sentience.?
Its best bet at education would be to pinch the K to 5 science textbook of Bart Simpson's avatar , and tear out pages to provide Krusty's chimp with cigarette papers.