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)
Note to Andrew Montford : Is the GWPF really ready for more than two pages per quarter of this guff.?
cc Rosa Monckton
I see that my advice to the Seitzmobile fell upon deaf ears. Projected cleverness rules comprehension.
Oh, dear, Mr Seitz. Once more, you respond with insults rather than a civilised reply to what one would have thought were simple questions. Could it be that I am closer to the truth than you are comfortable with? As a wiser mind than mine has said: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” (George Orwell)
I prefer to revolve around FACTS, not opinions. It is not always pleasant, as nothing hurts quite as much as the truth can.
This person Russell Seitz seems to be suffering from (perhaps) and adult form of ADHD or something similar. This assuming of course that he is indeed an adult.
He seems not to be listening when spoken to,daydreams about irrelevancies and is apparently easily confused.He has obvious difficulty in processing information as quickly and accurately as others on this thread and appears to have trouble understanding anything in detail .He also seems to blurt out inappropriate comments and shows impatience with other people's comments.
All rather sad really.
Geoff are you perhaps confusing El Presidente de la Etats Unis with our Seitz character?
(Must remember to duck!!)
Supertroll
no I think not.
He doesn't tweet.
He quacks - if it quacks like a duck etc.-and you are quite right to duck.
Bad boys bad boys
whatcha gonna do
when they come for you
”Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment.”
@Jul 4, 2017 at 12:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell Seitz
Maybe this is what bugs VV -
Andrew really took it to Michael Mann in 'The Hockey Stick Illusion': Climategate and the Corruption of Science.
and now there's this
Here
Enough to choke on your cornflakes this morning eh VV
More fireworks. Still the glacial speed of the court system leaves us months away from a resolution of the lawsuit.
Why is there no traffic over Michael Mann's contempt of court? For me it is the end of Climate Alarmism, am I missing something?
@ Jul 6 2017 Marton Mason
Maybe they have bigger fish to fry like this?
Here
Kleinefeldmaus. Russell Seitz writing almost normally over on CliScep. Wonders.
Hi Supertroll
that makes a change - I will go over and have a peak
In the meantime I see that (Daily Express) Angela has made a 'pig's ear' of diplomatic relations with the US. My take on it Here
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/
<I>"Oh, dear, Mr Seitz. Once more, you respond with insults rather than a civilised reply to what one would have thought were simple questions."</I>?
I don't recall seeing El Maximo Troller, , or for that matter, El Rattissimo , or the small Antipodean Squeak , on hand the last time I civilly replied to the views on climate Mr. Monckton's grand-daughter Rosa' voiced at Basil's Bar.
And neither does Basil- so please get real , or push off .
Heh Sietz, the argument is between you and Ravishing Rattie, not us. I don't believe I responded at all, civilly or uncivilly, about whatever you wrote about Moncton's relative. Couldn't be bothered.
Mr Seitz: perhaps you would now give civil answers to three civil questions: 1) is there empirical evidence that the slight temperature rise since the little ice age is solely the cause of the slight rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations? 2) is there empirical evidence that the slight rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations has been caused solely by human consumption of fossil fuels?
Finally: if the answer to either or both of those is, “Yes,” will you please direct me to that evidence?
There are supplementary questions, but I will be satisfied with being able to view actual, empirical evidence.
Leaving aside the question of Nick Stern's questionable ethics, an important outcome of the obsession with reducing our use of fossil fuels is the construction of these monsters as seen below.
Many of Scotland’s most important tourist attractions now stand in the shadow of towering wind farms, as developers target every inch of the country for their turbines.
Even Stirling Castle, recaptured by the Scots from the English after the Battle of Bannockburn, has been sacrificed to the green obsession.
It wouldn't be so bad of they generated a decent amount of constant energy but they fail on both counts - intermittency and insufficiency. And Stern seems to go along with all this. A very very bad boy in my book
Wind turbines ruin landscape
@ Radical Rodent July 14,2017
As you undoubted know by now Mr. Seitz doesn't do civil - just snide. But a bit of perspective helps. This picture provides a little of that perspective. Even the snide VV could understand that - but to get him to admit it or even answer you - ha ha. Instead it seems he would rather see the ruination of the landscape than answer your questions.
Ants and termites
The VV Troll Returns
the 'D' word comes to mind but again it could be the 'Th......o' word
The Troll returns
If Rattie has three civii questions to ask, why does he obsessively repeatvthe same one and , sure as a clockwork orange, reject any and all answers to it ?
Doug should look into a new line of work, as parodic success continues to elude him :
Here's the real thing -
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/07/red-teamblue-team-day-1/
Don't need to say anything more VV Russell does it all by himself.
VV troll makes a twit of himself - again
Mr Seitz: the three quite civil questions asked are being repeated as you have yet to answer one of them! You have NOT given me any answers that I might reject. Quite why you find that so confusing is puzzling; unless, of course, you are dissembling, trying desperately to hide the facts that either you do not know of such empirical evidence, even if you are truly convinced that it must exist, somewhere, or that you do know that there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Why you should feel such shame about either or both of those scenarios could be another question.
Come on Mr Seitz, surely you can offer us, the great unwashed, some of your secret knowledge on what empirical evidence the warming industry has for reducing carbon emissions and impoverishing those least able to take it.
If you have none, then perhaps you could just admit to being a peddler of snake oil, a fake.
Foamy (aka Seitz) clearly is unwilling to give away valuable information for free. Perhaps he can be bribed. What's the going rate for answers I wonder?
Yes, he must have a hard life. Surely nobody could actually pay him? I wonder what it's like never to have had a real job.
Play fair Alka Seitzer has had a real job, he is just misguided and seeks approval for his, self assessed, cleverness.
@ supertroll
Yes we know enough about his background to know that he has had a ‘day job’ but true to the form of the ‘true believers’ he won’t engage in debate because they know that they will not be able to win. Their arguments are based upon very flimsy unproven ideas – not even decent hypotheses. But the truly bad thing is that these flimsy ideas have been accepted by policymakers. These in turn have been transformed into actions by governments that have cost the taxpayers dearly not only in money but also in the quality of their lives.
Dear Mr Seitz should be afraid to debate with Rattie because he might be confronted with his own guilt for promoting this scam.
One just needs to listen to Al Gore’s comments in the Ashden Awards ceremony in London in May this year to see how free he thinks he is in dealing with facts. If that is what Mr Seitz bases his ideas upon he has reason to be afraid. Seitz is a blowhard, nothing more.
Al Gore is apparently one of the 'gurus' that Seitz follows.He was recently in Oz spouting his garbage. Here he is in the wilderness - pity he didn't stay there.
Gore-ism at large
1) is there empirical evidence that the slight temperature rise since the little ice age is solely the cause of the slight rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
The answer depends on whether your ice ace rodent forebears embraced your Cromagratian granddad or his Neanderthal l mistesses's principles
If Geoff has the time, I can provide the forum- but it remains cusromary to introduce debaters by their correct names .
What did you syy yours was ?
Presumed Seitz cleverness trumps civility once again. This from someone who has only recently used their complete name, but who chastises others for not using theirs.
Ah. Sorry, Mr Seitz. I had not realised that you did not know what the term “empirical” means – this is not the first time, of late, that I have been rather impulsive in my judgement, assuming others to be brighter than they actually are:
All I ask is defined in definition 1; it requires no clauses – a fact is a fact, irrespective of the point of view. Now, if you can answer any or all of my questions, would you please do so?I am sure that to refer to Geoff as “Geoff” will get you a civil response, as it is his correct name. “Supertroll” only uses that moniker on this site, as most already know who he is, as it is part of his sense of humour (what little that he has, of course, but – hey! – he’s learning…). I did try using a pseudonym, once, but felt so guilty afterwards, I have never done so, again.
Ravishing Rattie Heh you're asking to going back to plain old "radical" if you're not careful.
Seitzman knows exactly who I am because some time ago we corresponded by email quite amicably about his work on frothy water which I admired (but perhaps he's forgotten).
hehehehehe...
@ Supertroll Jul 18, 2017 at 9:45 AM
You say “Presumed Seitz cleverness trumps civility once again.”
Too clever by half – one assumes in saying “Cromaratian’ he means Crimmigration and by “mistesses’ he means mistresses. If he wants to use smartarse retorts he should really get it right otherwise he simply makes a dickhead of himself – but then of course he is a dickhead.
And Mr Seitz it is clear that Geoff was commenting on your reluctance to debate with Rattie – not to debate with himself.