Bad Science Bait & Switch Climate Change Climate Chaos Delay and Deny Disturbing Trends Global Warming No Pressure Non-Science Peace not War Political Nightmare Science Rules Social Change Unqualified Opinion Vote Loser

Pete Ridley : Three Strikes

In a spirit of complete transparency, I share with you an e-mail from Peter Ridley CEng MIEE (see below), a moving, rambling feast of what some would call complete irrelevancies.

Pete, if you’ve got something to share that’s positive, productive and progressive, then please do so. However, this recent e-mail from you (see below) ticks none of those boxes and I shall not waste my time by replying to your e-mail or taking it seriously.

You have three more strikes and then you’re out, unless you stick to the subject of this web log in your communications to me.

This web log is about keeping the Climate stable – it’s about the problems already being caused by Global Warming and about efforts to address those.

Yes, it’s also about hearing different views, and about working out what to accept and ignore.

Most of the comments made here by Climate Change sceptic-deniers are pure entertainment for those who know what’s really going on.

It’s rare to read something that’s free from irrational argument from Climate Change sceptic-deniers.

I’m sure you wouldn’t want to have your efforts become ridiculed, so please start being serious about the science of Climate Change instead of complaining about perceived political bias.

Climate Change is not a polarised political argument as you seem to think judging by your web log. Policy thinkers and workaday politicians of all stripes and none are engaged on a common agenda to tackle the root causes of excess Carbon Dioxide emissions.

The reason that politicians and diplomatic missions take part in the United Nations process on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the reviewing of the IPCC reports, is because the environmental and economic impacts of global warming are likely to have serious consequences.

It’s lazy to dismiss all politicians as selfish, money-grabbing and power-hungry without a moral duty to the truth. There are many politicians who are genuine, upright and want what’s best.

You must be able to work this out – it can’t be that every last Member of Parliament is on the take or working for backhanders, as some commentators continue to insist, can it ?

And what about Climate Change Science ? How could people survive unchallenged in academia if they cut-and-paste or fabricate ? Upholding the good reputation of the academic institutions is why I will not enter into general discussion about my course of study on this web log, so please don’t press me on that issue any further. Surely you could have worked this out ? You’re smart enough.

Please drop the conspiracy theories and start thinking logically about the Science of Climate Change and the implications it holds.

Slightly tangentially, I am currently reading a book by Gwynne Dyer called “Climate Wars”. Although I don’t like some of the attitudes and some of the views of some of the people he mentions in the field of national and international security, at least they take Climate Change scenarios seriously, and are willing to try to navigate the future in the best way.

You would earn my respect if you could do the same.

from Peter Ridley
to Jo Abbess
date Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Jo, please excuse me for contacting you by E-mail uininvited but I wanted to respond privately to one of the comments on your “The Messia: With us …” thread.

Ref. the comment bt “Stormboy” on October 18th at 03:13, the original comment was posted by the real Stormboy (AKA Phil – who runs the evangelical Bloodwoodtree blog at on 14th February at 08:23:48AM following months of exchanges between us on Australian Senator Steve Fielding’s blog. Despite repeated requests Phil was unprepared to reveal any evidence of having demonstrated scientific expertise regarding global climate processes and drivers, e.g. through peer-reviewed papers. Phil had said that he used a false name because of previous threats against him and his family.

Towards the end of our public exchanges Phil persistently called me a con man, which I did not appreciate, coming as it did from someone who I considered was cowering behind a false name, so I decided to try to track him down. I was astounded that I was able to find out, in only four hours on the Internet using Google, who he was, where he worked, his E-Mil address and details of family and friends. This was from information that he had put into the public domain. One source of much of this information was Facebook, which brought home to me the importance of heeding repeated police warnings of the dangers of the Internet. I immediately warned members of my family about taking great care on Facebook. I also contacted Phil, through Facebook, by E-mail and on his own blog, about how easy it had been to track him down but in the process frightened his wife and of course gave Phil a scare too. He didn’t know what kind of a person I am and was understandably concerned. That was why he posted that comment on Steve Fielding’s blog.

I quickly apologised to Phil for frightening his family and since then we have resolved any differences that we had (other than about the causes of global climate change) and have exchanged numerous friendly E-mails. Phil confirmed to me a few days ago, after that comment of his appeared recently on the Greenfudge blog, that he has only posted the comment once, on Senator Fielding’s blog in February.

That comment of Phil’s has been posted repeatedly by another person who hides behind numerous false names. These include Cooloola, Guess Who, Lord Monkton, Phoenix and JA. She has also pretended to be me and fellow sceptics PeggyB and Colin. Now she has started posing as Stormby himself. She is a thoroughly nasty, dishonest, cowardly, bullying Australian from Queensland who has been hurling vile abuse at any sceptic who upset her on Senator Fielding’s blog. Now that it has closed (he’s no longer a Senator) she is looking for anywhere else to spit her invective. I’ve tried very hard to track her down and expose her but could only get as close as the Maroochidor/Noosa/Cooloola area of Queensland.

If you are interested you can pick up those repeats by Googling “he spent four hours on the net hunting down my last name”. The ones on Steve Fieldings blog are cached versions.

Best regards, Pete

10 replies on “Pete Ridley : Three Strikes”

Well, Jo, you certainly have shown the kind of person you are with this article.

I started my E-mail to you with “I wanted to respond privately to one of the comments on your “The Messia: With us …” thread.”

Not only do you fail to understand the processes and drivers of global climates. you fail to understand the word “privately”.

Jo, you say “This web log is about keeping the Climate stable” but which “climate” are you talking about? Since Alexander von Humbroldt in 1817, scientists have developed the classification of the different global climates in several ways and you could learn a lot about these by reading the excellent students’ text book “Atmosphere, Weather and Climate” by Roger G. Barry and Richard J Chorley ( – NB: http://www. removed). “The Times Concise Atlas of the World – eighth edition” (Note 2) provides a useful description of 12 “Major Climatic Regions and Sub-types” on Page 28 which you should find helpful.

I am not aware that global climates have ever been stable for any extended period during its 4Billion – plus years but if you have evidence to the contrary then please share it. Humans have been very fortunate in that for the past few thousand years the climates experienced in many parts of the globe have not fluctuated so drastically that they couldn’t flourish. Despite both up and down changes in global temperature exceeding the 1C of warming claimed to have happened during the past 150 years, e.g. the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the little Ice Age, there has been no global climate catastrophe. Such changes have never been something about which humans could exert any significant control beyond their very restricted local environments. There is no convincing evidence that this situation has changed. All that humans can do is make provision for adapting to whatever nature throws at us.

Who are these people you refer to “who know what’s really going on”? I hope that you are not fooling yourself into believing that you are one of those mythical individuals.

Where on earth do you get your “Climate Change is not a polarised political argument as you seem to think” from? Most sceptics that I exchange opinions with accept climate change as being a perfectly normal and natural occurrence. What we do not accept is that humans have any significant impact upon it. For myself, I have little argument against much of the work being done with regard to identifying impacts of climate change and providing appropriate strategies for adaptation. As I have said on more than one occasion, what I do not accept is the claim that our continuing use of fossil fuels is going to cause catastrophic global climate change. That is pure speculation.

Haven’t you noticed my frequent references to The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. Look carefully at those words “significant human-made”! That is the part of global climate change hypothesis that those with political, financial and ecological agenda are using in their propaganda.

Please be good enough to point me to where I have said that I “dismiss all politicians as selfish, money-grabbing and power-hungry without a moral duty to the truth”. I don’t recall ever saying such a thing and suggest that you have made this up, but I’ll gladly apologise if I have said it. I’m sure that “There are many politicians who are genuine, upright and want what’s best” but what is “many” and “want what’s best” for whom? You appear to be ignoring the evidence of the MPs’ expenses scandal that blew up thanks to the exposures by The Telegraph. Do you really believe that “many” (or even some) of our MPs were ignorant of what was going on. If you do then you are even more gullible than I thought. Maybe one or two did not abuse the trust placed upon them by the electorate by claiming unreasonable expenses but I find it impossible to accept that they were not aware of what others were doing. Those who were aware or were claiming unreasonably, even for small amounts, lost the right to consider themselves to be “honourable and right honourable). Apart from that, where have I said that I “dismiss all politicians

With regard to your “How could people survive unchallenged in academia if they cut-and-paste or fabricate ?” I say “Follow the money”. If today’s Daily Mail is to be believed, the UK government alone is set to spend £1Billion per year on climate change for the next 4 years (compare with £10M by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in 2001), with local governments another £1Billion. That’s a lot of money to be lost by the climate change industry (which includes academia) through careless talk about the degree of uncertainty underpinning the science.

Ref. your “You would earn my respect if you could do the same.” I can do no better than quote your reponse to one of my comments on your “The Messiah .. “ thread “I DON’T NEED OR RELY ON YOUR GOOD OPINION” (sorry if I appear to be shouting but it’s a cut-&-paste of yours).

BTW, I’m a patient man so am happy to wait until you have satisfied yourself that you owe me an apology for disclosing in this article of yours the full contents of the “Private & Confidential” E-mail that I sent you.

Pete Ridley, you should have known better, anyone who has read Jo Abbess blog, and her ‘contributions’ to other sites would understand that she is the last person to keep something confidential, she is the epitome of self-aggrandisement.

The funny thing is Mr Ridley, by her publishing your e-mail she comes out of this very badly, whilst your opinion is well thought out and delivered.

Hi Joseph (from the Netherlands), thanks for that. I had been commenting recently on the Watching the Deniers blog run by another staunch environmentast bigot called Mike who, like Jo and Snapple, knows nothing about clmate science. I tried to get him to look carefully at the excellent analyses of the “greenhouse effect” posted by Roger Taguchi on Judith Curry’s thread “Physics of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” ( but I was banned ( on the pretext that I had posted an insulting comment likening Mike to a paedophile. I had not sent any sch comment and Mike never posted it but claimed to quote from it and what he claimed that I had said was very nasty. I sugested that he compare the gravatars against my previous comments with the one against the comment that he claimed I had sent. He has never done so and claims that he doesn’t have time because of work preseeures. Despite those pressures he can still find time to post further threads and comments. Perhaps he just doesn’t lke me posting the truth on his blog.
Jo’s opinion is not important other than that she is in a position to indoctrinate vulnerable younsters with her religious and climate change dogma. I am currently trying to exchange ideas with one Snapple, another teacher who knows nothing about science yet expreses her opinions about religion and climate cange in the same dogmatic manner as Jo. Chris Mooney has an interesting thread “The Coming Classroom Climate Conflict” ( which you may find of interest. I have just been thee to pick up his URL and notice that dear Ian Forrester, who has one of the nastiest tongues of anyone I have come across in the blogosphere, has just added some of his poisonous lies. Ian claims to be a scientist and does seem to know a bit about biochemistry but knows nothing at all about the processes and drivers of global climates and throws his vindictive at anyone who dares to challenge th CACC doctrine.

Never mind, time will prove idiots like Ian to be talkng nonsense.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

John Byatt {Cooloola}

apart from being total nonsense Joseph ?

go to “Watching the Deniers” ,

Pete Ridley should know better. It’s been a long-established principle that one can’t impose an agreement of confidentiality onto another person without THAT person’s agreement.

Unless and until a person AGREES to keep something confidential, he or she has NO duty to keep what you say confidential.

And while we’re on the subject of Pete Ridley, the reason for his jihad against global warming scientists is that he believes they are part of the worldwide conspiracy of Jewish bankers led by the Rothschilds, who began the global warming “hoax” in a plot to rule the world.

Here’s one of his posts pushing this crackpot theory of the British National Party and other Neo-Nazi groups:

This is the Neo-Nazi rant that he’s pushing:

Even more revolting is the letter that Pete Ridley linked to and quotes from in his defense of the Neo-Nazi Holocaust denier David E. Michael on Judith Curry’s “Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon” website:

It’s mindboggling that Ridley would defend the notorious Neo-Nazi with that letter — the letter in which Michael pledged his support for the Islamic terrorist jihad against the United States. “We should be fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with our Islamic friends,” he says, and signs it, “Death to America!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.