Pete Ridely: banned

General notice: Pete Ridley is banned.

His last post profiling one of my readers was designed to intimidate:

It sounds about right, considering the nonsense you have posted here. If that is you then “Mindfulness in the midst of chaos” says it all. Next time I’m visiting friends in Brighton I’ll pop along to the Maitreya Kadampa Buddhist Centre in Bexhill on Sea for a chat. Is it still Sea Road?

I will not sanction such behaviour – it is designed to show he can “reach” someone.


I’ll be looking how to permanently block him.

Follow up: all Ridley comments past and future have been tagged as spam (I’ve used is IP).

While I’d prefer not to remove his posts, it seems the quickest way to get rid of him is declare his IP address a source of spam.

Follow up to follow up: I’ve worked out to ban him and have restored his comments. People can be the judge, but the last one crossed a line.

Andy – my sincere apologies.


48 thoughts on “Pete Ridely: banned

  1. john byatt says:

    He troll the blogs 24hrs a day and this is not the first time that he has used “ill drop in and see you” or I will send friends around ” all good natured of course,
    a google search using apt words will give you some idea

  2. john byatt says:

    Ridley in the raw, without his spellcheque and gwammacheck ,

    Pashley, it’ll go down with as big a flop as the “swith out the lights” campaigne by? now who was it – Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Plain Stupid, ?? I forget, it was so unimportant.It’s time all of ytou environmentlaists stopped accepting the projections of unvalidated computer models and asked yurselves “Have I noticed any significant global climate change dutng my time n earth?”. Thjise if you who are a few decades old will have to say “NO!”. “Significant Human-made Global Climate Chnage” is merely a hypothesis, dreamed up by scientists to account for an apparent small increase in mean annual gliobal temperature (less that one degree centigrade) during the past 150 years.CO2 was fingured as the possible culprit only because they could find no other culprit. The reason they couldn’t find another culprit is that they do not understand the processes and drivers of global climates. This is aknowledged by climate scientists, e.g. Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University.Get real guys.Regarsds, Pete Ridley, Humanj-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

  3. rogerthesurf says:

    Pete Ridely, does also mention a lot of facts that make you uncomfortable. Are you sure thats not what makes you want to ban him?

    Maybe you should simply think about the facts that he is showing you and then get off your high horse and do some rethinking.



  4. adelady says:

    No roger. Whether the “facts” advanced by pete do or don’t make us uncomfortable is neither here nor there.

    What does matter is that awful creepy feeling when you see him wheedling his way into someone’s details in an apparently friendly exchange. It is, I can assure you, exactly the feeling that arises when one is stalked by someone in personal life.

    If you want credibility for the views you advance, you do have to be willing to disown such dreadful behaviour from someone you normally agree with.

  5. Glad to see you’ve had enough of him also (although I’m not surprised ol’ roger here was quick to support Pete – the two are equally as sensible as the other). Adelady has a point however – I have no problem revealing my name etc, but Pete does come across strangely persistent for personal info (something that does differ him from roger here, I’ll admit).
    Roger, in more than a year of trolling around, you’ve not updated your site, regardless of the errors brought up (still claiming “god” is behind climate change?) – I’d suggest if facts were so important to you, you would take more effort to keep up-to-date and improve your knowledge base instead of trolling and self-promoting as you do.

    • rogerthesurf says:

      Facts do not need to change. However it would be fair to say that theories not based on fact will need to convolute in order to attempt to appear rational.
      However I do regularly update the links on my site. Maybe you could have a good read there sometime.



      • So your still with the bible bashes on this one; God’s behind the climate?

        That’s a good ol’ fact for you. If anything, there’s very little true facts in science, just a whole heap of information on which we base our conclusions on – and this is very growing and changing how we interoperate the world. As such, “Facts do not need to change” is silly and unscientific. The only others that I know who “have the whole unchangeable, factual truth” are those with doctrine. They don’t need to change their views in light of new evidence, for God told them it’s right – so maybe my opening line makes more sense now…

        Even the IPCC reports evolve, improve and become more accurate over time – something that doctrine (and most likely your site / opinion) can never do.



        not a plug to my site.

  6. Ross Brisbane says:

    Pete Ridley is a serial offender. His picketing and hen pecking for personal detail is a strong tendency from him. He comes across as a cyberspace stalker.

    He cannot handle disagreement without personal attack.

    Pete if your reading this – learn the lesson that you are guest of the blogger.

    Manners are appropriate.

    Coming across with such personal attack is unwarranted and places you within the spectrum of a vexatious personality type.

  7. rogerthesurf says:


    I think you better read my site more carefully instead of cherry picking at a few words of one phrase.

    As for the IPCC, if you can find one fact claimed there you will be doing well.



    • Again, “fact” doesn’t really apply (why is that you have to, time and time again, repeat yourself to deniers??).

      You yourself admitted the content of your site hasn’t changed (but the links have – still carry to link to the economist article about Aussie scientists pulling down trees to convince the world of the “AGW hoax”? lol).

      Also, I said that each report is an improvement on the former, there are no “facts” in it, just very likely conclusions based on scientific evidence. I suggest you have a read of it before writing silly things about “facts”.



      not a plug to my site

  8. Watching the Deniers says:

    Let me clarify something here. Why did Pete get kicked from this blog?

    Pete Ridley compared me to a pedophile:

    “…You’re like a pedophile priest up on the dais calling everyone else an evil sinner. You are worse than any denier because you are a phony. You consume the same fossil fuels as the deniers and are addicted to all the fossil fuel toys. How can you live with being such a hypocrite?”

    He then stalked one my readers.

    Pete tried to post on the blog recently accusing me of “being afraid” of his message.

    Over the last 18 months I have read thousands of words, texts, blog posts etc. by the deniers. Everyone from Lindzen, Monckton, Watts, Bolt, Steve McI, Pielke, Lomborg, Delingpole, Nova, Richard S. Courtney…. and yes, even your site Roger.

    So I have no fear I’ll be exposed to something I don’t know.

    “Really, the climate changed in the past? Really that argument again?”

    In addition to the actual science I’ve read – again thousands of words – I dare say I’m far better read than the majority of sceptics. Actually, more so than the average person. I read at least 10-12 scientific papers a week in addition to blogs, books etc. on climate.

    And guess what Roger – I have nothing but the utmost contempt for what passes as “evidence” in the denier community.

    It is very thin intellectual gruel indeed.

    No, the reason Pete got the boot was because he compared me to someone who abuses children.

    I’ve allowed him and other deniers to post their nonsense freely, and my forums are far more confrontational and heated than blogs such as Skeptical Science, Real Climate etc. Many of the deniers that lurk here have been banned there already.

    I understand this can lower the quality of the debate – and yes pushes some people away.

    But, this blog is a small part of the public debate around climate change. As such it reflects the current polarisation of public opinion. So for me it is a good barometer of what is happening – and is why allow the debate to get a little heated.

    Because it is a tough subject.

    Because climate change does scare people.

    Because people need to work through it.

    Because I want to know what people are thinking on both sides of the debate, as unfiltered and raw as those emotions can be.

    However, even I have my limits.

    Calling me a child abuser is where I draw the line.

    • rogerthesurf says:

      Well I must admit there could be a bit of truth in what he is trying to say, but I do agree that to mention “paedophile” in the same breath is certainly cloise to the top.

      Now talking about this truth and fact thing, I have assembled a brief commentary on the three major ways to prove a hypothesis. In this case the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.

      1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming
      2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2 (In case you dont know it, correlations are never proof.)
      3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?

      Of course any proof among the three above would be acceptable.
      If you are wondering about #3 above, here is a very good site which outlines the scientific method of proving a hypothesis.

      Well think about how much proof there is from those three methods.



  9. rogerthesurf says:

    You are the guys who are claiming that AGW is scientifically proven.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      No we’re not.

      The world’s scientific community is.

      Should you have some startling revelation, please contact the following people:

      If you have something that has overturned such a well established body of science, you really should receive the appropriate recognition.

  10. rogerthesurf says:

    No need to recognise me, recognise the scientific establisment who say its unproven.

    Which part of AGW would you like to see a scientific, peer reviewed, published paper that contradicts it then? There are thousands.

    Here are a few for you to research.

    An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
    – Richard S. Courtney

    An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
    – Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider

    Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
    – David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

    A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
    – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    – Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
    – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
    – Roy Clark

    A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
    – William Kininmonth

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
    (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
    – David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

    A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
    (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
    – Robert C. Balling Jr.

    A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
    – Craig Loehle

    An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
    (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
    – Sherwood B. Idso

    An upper limit to global surface air temperature
    (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
    – Sherwood B. Idso



  11. From first hand experience, Mike, I know you’re right. Take a quick look at Roger’s Alarmist page, which he’s no doubt proud of (but I’d argue is a badge of ignorance) and you’ll see a whole range of individuals try to explain to him some of the basics, but always he moves the goal posts (roger, do you remember the graphic I created for you of the bag of money wearing ear muffs?).
    Graham recently wrote a brilliant post on Roger’s tactics – there’s simply no point reasoning with the unreasonable.
    His second point says it all. I mean, the first point is easily demonstrated in a class room experiment where IR is passed through CO2 gas. However, it’s not enough that we’ve largely reduced CO2 sinks around the globe and pulled many tonnes of anciently captured CO2 and placed it back in the atmosphere within a century (which is also identifiably different to other CO2) – this is only correlation. By his logic, we could refute everything from the previous existence of Gondwanaland to the effectiveness of vaccination – it evidence behind such things could simply be a case of correlation.
    He then goes on to pull out a few “anti-agw” articles (rog – Poptech have over 800+!! Pretty awesome, huh?), to which, my usual response is, “if you really cared about what the science is telling us, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.” (note: both Pielke’s, from my reading, don’t seem to question the reality of AGW – merely the significance). The journal Energy and Environment seem to openly detest the peer-review process, so I’d also be very sceptical of the quality of the articles that it provides. Sherwood B. Idso, Patrick J. Michaels and S. Fred Singer (at least – if not more) have questionable earnings history… I’ll leave it up to you if they’re ethical or not.
    I think Graham said it best, “What [roger] does next is the “clever” bit. He posts his challenge, with commentary to the effect that, because they decline to argue with him, those he challenges are scared of him, can’t refute his arguments, can’t prove their case – that kind of thing – all of which positions him as the white knight of climate scepticism, jousting with the gullible and defeating them at every turn – and their absence from his blog is proof of their defeat! A nice, self-reinforcing delusion in which the more he’s ignored for being an idiot, the more profound his satisfaction. A martyr in the making, created out of his self-immolation.”
    But you’re right, Mike – there’s never going to be evidence enough to convince Roger of anything.



    not a plug to my site

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      .. and mimics the average garden variety creationists in every way. It’s like having a conversation with someone form Answers in Genesis “No, you can’t prove evolution can you, huh! Huh!”

  12. rogerthesurf says:

    You guys should take a step back andlook at yourselves.

    Instead of discussing the facts, all you are ever doing is attacking the person.

    This may make you feel better but it does not carry much weight at all with any sensible reader.

    I am quite sure that if you guys were privy to any actual relevant facts you wouldn’t need to do this, but your reactions definitely do not enhance your evangelical message.



    I suspect that next you will ban me from your site as well. Be interestingto hear your excuse. “Roger demands too much in the way of facts therefore he is not welcome on this site” mmm

    • As usual, you ignore anything that doesn’t fit your ideology.
      Mike’s been quite clear that Pete went too far by insulting him and threatening a reader. And my (albeit long winded) comment simply elaborated on Mike’s point; there’s probably little point entertaining your questions, as your alarmist page bears homage to and Graham illuminates on his post. You’ve asked such questions countlessly and triumph in your selective deafness and yet, when someone explains why there’s simply no point answering your question, with ample evidence to support, you scream “ad hominem!”
      As with the subject of AGW, you’re very good at ignoring what you don’t want to hear.
      You ending paragraph (just after the plug to your site) is yet further example to what Graham discusses – you have quite an inflated ego. That people don’t entertain your questions is not due to you demanding too much “facts” (you rely on this word as pointlessly as Pete holds onto “catastrophe” regardless how many times people explain it’s not scientific), it’s because you don’t listen.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Roger – post away.

      My rules are simple:

      – keep it simple
      – stick to the point
      – be polite

  13. john byatt says:

    1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming

    2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2 (In case you dont know it, correlations are never proof.)


    3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?




  14. john byatt says:

    Roger has been reading Roy
    SS post
    Dr. Spencer also suggested in his blog post that the “null hypothesis” should be that global warming is caused by natural factors. A null hypothesis is basically the default assumption which a scientific study sets out to disprove. It’s true that until recently, global warming (and cooling) has been caused by natural factors. However, even natural climate changes must have a physical mechanism causing them. Scientists have investigated these natural mechanisms (the Sun, volcanoes, the Earth’s orbital cycles, etc.), and they simply cannot explain the global warming over the past century. Spencer’s new hypothesis – that some unknown mechanism is causing cloud cover to change, which in turn is driving global temperatures – is a new idea with very little supporting evidence. Conversely, our understanding that human greenhouse gas emissions are driving global temperatures has a proverbial mountain of supporting evidence.

  15. john byatt says:

    sceptics have been claiming that the globe is cooling, that the ice sheets are not melting and that the temperature data is all a hoax,
    you do realise that in Roy’s appeal to the null hypothesis is a direct contradiction to the above claims , ie if nothing is happening then you do not need a null hypothesis to explain anything,

    at least you proclaim that the observations are correct by your reference to a null hypothesis to explain them, more than most sceptics do

  16. rogerthesurf says:

    Great John.
    You found empirical, statistical and disproval of the null hypothesis?
    Lets see the papers then, I am very eager to read them.

    As a matter of fact I dont know who “Roy SS” is. The criteria for scientific proof comes from my own training and understanding.
    Hopefully every scientist around has the same training and understanding. Fundamental actually.



  17. rogerthesurf says:

    Haha So I am spammed? Chalk up another alarmist who cant stand facts:) Haha

  18. john byatt says:

    Roger i was congratulating you for total acceptance of the observational data that proves that the planet is warming, only someone that accepts that would seek out the null hypothesis, again well done, hopefully you can put any of the conspiracy, tin foil hat brigade that comment on your blog on the right track, Who wrote that neurotic piece on your home page?

  19. And now begins Roger’s self-praising as noted by Graham! How the hell was that spam? All I did was have a chuckle over your inflated sense of superiority. Of course, I know it’s a waste of time, but here’s a simple bench test of IR passing through CO2 (starts 40sec in) and if you honestly think that the observed trend in CO2 concentrations over the past century, coupled with the massive removal of CO2 sinks and expansion of internal combustion engine is all but a coincidence, I’m afraid you’re beyond help.

  20. laurence says:

    “Shine on you self-trained pseudo-scientist!”

    I love it, another one from the “University of East Bumcrack”. 😉
    I think you have him summed up nicely there Moth.

  21. rogerthesurf says:

    I wrote a perectly good comment before and it was apparently spammed. Hard to discuss anything with you guys if it disappears.
    Maybe the owner of this blog can restore my comment so we can continue.



    • Why should he?

      If you’ve done a bang-up job, disproving the theory of AGW, why not submit it to the scientific community instead of griping at a bunch of bloggers and patching Pachauri’s head on a lot of silly pictures? Deep down, I don’t think you really think CO2 concentration levels and the industrial era are merely coincidence. I provided a nice little video showing what happens to IR when it passes through CO2. You seem to only accept the scientific papers that support your ideology and not the results of the peer-review process.

      You said it yourself – you’re a self-trained “scientist”. Now, I’m a real scientist but even I don’t presumed to know more than experts in other fields. I’m happy to be proven wrong in fields closer to home.

      “Maybe the owner of this blog can restore my comment so we can continue.” …watching you indulge in Edvadeology I suspect. I’m bored of it personally.

  22. john byatt says:

    after reading real climate and skeptical science for the past two and a half years I realise just how little that i do know, I question my understanding nearly every day,

    Yer whats with the silly pasting heads thingo roger ? childish and offensive

    I have a lot of admiration for both Gore and Pachauri,

  23. rogerthesurf says:

    well you guys are welcome to continue this conversation on one of my sites, and I point out clearly that I never spam any comment unless you start trying to sell little blue pills and the like.



    • Thanks for demonstrating just how accurately Graham’s post described your behaviour! To repeat;
      “[Roger] posts his challenge, with commentary to the effect that, because they decline to argue with him, those he challenges are scared of him, can’t refute his arguments, can’t prove their case – that kind of thing – all of which positions him as the white knight of climate scepticism, jousting with the gullible and defeating them at every turn – and their absence from his blog is proof of their defeat! A nice, self-reinforcing delusion in which the more he’s ignored for being an idiot, the more profound his satisfaction. A martyr in the making, created out of his self-immolation.”

  24. john byatt says:

    and he can’t even spell smurf

  25. klem says:

    I enjoy posting climate skeptic comments on this blog, it’s fun. But those Ridley comments are not funny, can’t mess around with this person.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: