Not so wonderful Copenhagen
If ever you doubted it, the Copenhagen meeting has given a pretty clear picture of what human nature is really about.
The G77 body represents the world’s developing nations - the majority world that don’t have the option of turning on air conditioners, buying new cars when they don’t like the style of the one they have or, to be honest, eating enough food or buying cheap medicines to save their own lives. These nations have very effectively made their voices heard in Copenhagen - they want the priveleged few of us that represent the western latte crowd to waste less and to use our technology to stop messing up the weather they rely on to get that one meal a day so many survive on.
It’s not an unfair or unsupportable claim - more science has gone into investigating this than just about anything else you rely on from day to day and no one has yet raised any serious objection. We know it’s true - we know that the climate is warming and that it’s happening because people in the west waste too much stuff and have stuck with the “dark satanic mills” of the 19th century instead of putting our minds to better ideas. We know that if we don’t act drastically we will cause suffering in the majority world on a scale we cannot imagine from our loungerooms. Our leaders keep recognising the importance of serious action and telling each other to act; so why does it look as if Copenhagen will deliver nothing of any value?
The answer is both simple and, to us here, too terrifying for our leaders to give us an honest explanation. The short, simple answer is the fact that we think economic power is the ultimate good for us. A strong economy means cheaper groceries, more comfort, more jobs. If a politician convinces us that he’ll give us these things we vote him in and kick out the other bloke.
The problem is that the first thing a strong economy needs is for us to spend a lot of money. If we were all to decide that we were content with what we’ve got and didn’t want to be wasteful, we would cause a recession. A recession is just when people spend less money. That’s why Kevin Rudd gave us all money a year ago, he wanted us to go out and spend on anything at all - don’t worry what it is for Pete’s sake just spend it! If we do what the science or our Bibles tell us we need to do and be less wasteful, our economies will suffer.
The next problem is just as big. To be able to make the crap that we all buy as quickly as possible and make the new stuff once this year’s stuff has broken, we need a lot of energy to run the factories. If you want to eat mangos in winter or buy hamburgers made from 100% Australian beef (shipped to the US where it is turned into mince then shipped back to Oz), you need energy to ship it. We could get the energy from any number of sources, but the fastest way is via fossil fuels. If we decide as a nation to move to renewable energy that won’t kill the world’s poor, it will mean building a whole lot of equipment to replace the existing infrastructure and that means time. Time is a problem because prosperity is a race to get the resources before someone else can - survival of the fittest.
This is where the “emerging economies” like China, India and Brazil come in. Emerging economies are ones that haven’t had the chance to race to economic dominance with fossil fuels as we have and therefore haven’t caused the problem we’re living with at the moment; but now they’d like to. The US says it won’t sign a deal unless China does as well. Why? Because signing it wouldn’t help reduce emissions? Not at all - if the US got on board it would make a massive difference. No, the reason they’re holding back is that if China doesn’t sign, then China gets to do the stuff America has done for decades to stay at the top of the heap and that means there is a very good chance China may take their place. This is why Copenhagen will fail.
In a nutshell, western nations will not take responsibility for causing the problem and act on it because doing so will give economic advantage to emerging economies unless they agree to act as well. The bottom line is that there is a risk things will cost us more. It doesn’t have to be bad; good planning can go a long way but one way or another we will pay more if we do what we should have been doing all along. So we won’t do it. Instead we’ll give air time to predators telling us that the science is in dispute or that it’s all a plot to establish a one-world government.
Western governments will make elegant excuses and propose actions and sums of money that impress us all if we don’t do the maths, but in the end nothing will happen unless we (not our governments) make it clear that we care more about the plight of the world’s poor than about our own pockets; unless we are prepared to carry the burdens of those who will suffer when our economies suffer. This should be bread and butter for Christians; what will it take for us to get our act together?
And there we have it - nice sounding words but commitments that will give us over 3 degrees warming when we needed to limit it to 1.5 degrees to save the Pacific island nations and 2 degrees to give Africa a chance of riding it out. Man’s number - looks good but won’t do the job.
December 19th, 2009 at 8:24 pmHi Phil (AKA Stormboy), that UN COP15 in Copenhagenb sure was a fiasco, wasn’t it! Never mnd, the UN has another scam up its sleeve to help pursue their agenda of:
- redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
- establishment of a framework for global government,
- enhancement of the finances of a privileged few.
This is a developent of the Tobin Tax proposed by Fidel Casto at the UN’s 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. This would provide the UN with a trillion dollars annually.
The new name is The Robin Hood Tax on banks, being touted all around the globe now, using celebrities to help push the propaganda.
If the can’t tax CO2 then use the banks as a tax collector from their customers. Thesepoliticians really are conmen.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
February 12th, 2010 at 9:28 amBTW Phil (AKA Stormboy or *****), why all the secrecy. Your face-book entry links to this blog - see http://www.facebook.com/philip.*****?ref=mf
There you suggesting on your “Assessment of Steve Fielding’s stance on climate change” about being worried about reprisals - and you call me a conman. Tut Tut Phil. Were you trying to con me?
February 12th, 2010 at 9:54 amHi Pete,
I’m always interested in the reasoning behind conspiracy theories like this Copenhagen one. Could you please explain to me why our western governments want to give all their money to the third world when we are dragging the chain over the further 0.3% of our GDP we had promised we were going to give in aid? I’d also really like to see your evidence for the claim that Copenhagen is an attempt to establish a one-world government. Perhaps you could quote the wording for me here where that is stated.
While you’re at it, perhaps you could explain to me why using the tag “Stormboy” on Steve Fielding’s blog is an attempt to con you. I’ve been open about my first name for a long time now; why do you need to hunt down my last name, Facebook account, my parent’s occupation etc to discuss the science of climate change? Not only does it seem to be a dishonest attempt at distracting people from the matter at hand, it also comes across as a little predatory. As you read, I debated climate change on another blog last year and had someone try to track down where I lived. So although “reprisals” is the wrong word (that would suggest that I’ve done the same to you and you’re getting me back), yes, as a father and husband I do value the safety of my family. If using the name Stormboy helps protect them from some of the nutcases you meet on the net then why is that a bad thing?
In that light, my conditions for allowing your comments on this blog are that you behave yourself and refrain from further cyberstalking or publishing details about me on the net. This site is for genuine thinking, not schoolyard arguments so please post answers relevant to the topic. I look forward to your answers.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:23 pmPhil, you claimed in an earlier post to be using a pseudonym because of threats that had been made against you. I was able, in just 4 hours on the Internet, to find out who you are, where you live and work, who your wife and daughter are, etc. etc.etc.
I din’t know about you but that ffrightwns me far mpore than a speculative threat of catastrophic global climate change due to our use of fossil fuels.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
February 12th, 2010 at 9:20 pmHuman nature is a frightening thing Pete. I confronted you on Steve Fielding’s site about your use of personal information to try and attack the credibility of people when you could not answer their questions, suggesting that it was the behaviour of a conman. To prove me wrong you’ve spent four hours hunting down information on me and my family. Wow, you’ve certainly made your point.
February 12th, 2010 at 10:14 pmPhil, maybe your greatest problem in debate is that you “confront” instead of reason. You make assumptions about people based upon pure speculation. When debating with someone whose opinions are different from mine I try to find out as much as I can about them so that I can better understand why their opinions differ from my own. I find it very hard to communicate with someone I don’t understand. That is why during our earlier exchanges to get you to disclose something more about yourself. You never gave me enough to understand you. Finding your evangelical site was helpful and you provided that link before I started exchanges with you on your “Penny Wong” thread, All that told me was that you are extremely religious and to me (an agnostic) that means you are prepared to believe where no proof exists, hence your conviction about human-made global climate change. It also goes some way towards explaining why you accept formal peer review as bestowing validity on scientific papers while rejecting anything that has only had informal review. It also helps explain why you reject any challenge to the DAGWers’ climate change bible, the IPCC reports. Am I correct in thinking that you accept the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. in one or other the Holy Bible of the Christian religion rather than the holy book of the Jewish religion or the sacred text of Islam, the Koran or th Tripitaka of Buddhism.
For myself there is no reason to believe that one is more valid than the other. Doesn’t that help to explain for you our differences over climate change?
The reason that I did my intensive search to track you down yesterday was that I was fed up with your repeated accusations that you have made that I am dishonest. I am not a conman and have not made statements that you claim that I have made. This made me very angry and I’m sure that you would have been if I had repeatedly accused you of dishonesty.
What I find much more worrying that our disagreement on human made climate change or religion is that in a matter of 4 hours I was able to track you down over the Internet. I ended up in that short time knowing your full name, what you look like, where you work, who your wife and child are, what they look like, who are their friends and what their religious beliefs are and many of the activities you and they engage in. I started this search because of my anger over your accusations but my findings shocked me. Not anything that I found out about you, but about how easy it was for me to get all the details that I did in such a short time. If I was a vindictive individual I could have confronted you not simply on the Internet in debate but at you home or work in person or by proxy (I have family living very close to you).
I’m pleased to see that you have now removed information from this thread that would allow anyone to track you down as I did. Your claim to have used a pseudonym because of fear of reprisal against you and your loved ones appears to have been genuine. Please be more careful, not just over what you say during Internet debates but also what you and yours put on Facebook. I have told my daughter to be equally careful of what she says there. Lets forget the past, Phil and just have reasoned debate (with understanding) as appropriate.
Best wishes, Pete Ridley
February 13th, 2010 at 3:18 amPPS: I was and still am genuinely interested n how your PhD is going.
February 13th, 2010 at 3:22 amPete, I have spent months trying to reason with you on Steve Fielding’s blog. It was only after you consistently responded to rational questions and responses with increasingly personal and bizarre attacks on my life, my family and my Christianity that I confronted your tactics as dishonest and wrong. I’m sure that in light of that fact you can understand how I now take your request for more personal information on Facebook along with your statements that you have my full name, photos of myself, my family and friends and that you have contacts living very close to me. I have not missed your threat, I understand that you will use this information in the same way as you have consistently used everything else that you have collected about me to try and keep me silent about the need to act on climate change. Now instead of just attempts to discredit me, you are telling me that you also have information on my family and friends at your disposal. Your claim that this sort of knowledge is necessary before you can debate someone is ludicrous - debate is about addressing facts and evidence and the person that presents them is irrelevant. I don’t need photos of the author’s children before I can read a scientific paper.
I gave you your last chance (post 4) to demonstrate that you were sincere about genuine debate by posting “answers relevant to the topic”, but yet again you responded with nothing but a show of power. It appears that you may have done the same to others on Steve Fielding’s blog who have changed their tags because of harassment by someone there. I think I have been naive in thinking that you were merely dishonest; it appears that you have a criminal edge to you and I will be investigating what further action I need to take. You certainly will not be posting again on this blog.
February 13th, 2010 at 8:34 amHi Phil , you are not the first to be stalked by ridley, he has stated that he has now apologised to you for causing your family understandable concern,i hope that is the case.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:04 pmrgds
Thanks Phoenix,
Pete has apologised and we’ve had some valuable talks on the subject in private. I hope that we’ll be able to have some better discussion in the future, but thanks for your concern.
February 28th, 2010 at 5:51 pmPhil, just be wary of what you say to Pheoenix (AKA ****, ****, ****, ****, ****, ****). If you ‘re interested take a look at comments on the blogs of Chris Colose (Note 1) and Senator Fielding (Note 2).
NOTES:
1) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/#comment-2183
2) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/125/P10080/
Best regards, Pete Ridley
March 8th, 2010 at 2:20 amHi Pete,
I replied to his comment as I think it’s only fair that the other witnesses to what’s been happening are aware that you have apologised for scaring my family. I think it was a good thing and I admire that you were able to do it, so I’m prepared to defend your name on that count. It worries me though that you’re back to exposing people’s aliases again. I don’t really care whether he/she is really called Phoenix or anything else. If he/she just wants to talk about you he/she won’t get to keep posting here, but no matter what he/she calls him/herself if the posts are on topic (which in case anyone is wondering is the failure of Copenhagen to meet the science with concrete action) then I’ll post the comments and discuss them.
Attempts to discredit people with irrelevant information are not honest debate and I will edit out the details. Please let’s keep it together.
March 8th, 2010 at 6:34 amPhil, thanks for that, although I have explained previously that the reason I like to find out about those I debate with is so that I can check out if their opinions are worth considering seriously. If they have a record of publishing papers or articles which demonstrate that they have an understanding of the science that they are invoking then I will give greater credence to what they express as an opinion. For that reason I shall continue to try to find out the background of anyone who hides behind a false name (i.e. QUOTE: .. pseudonyme, from Greek pseudnumon, neuter of pseudnumos, falsely named UNQUOTE - Note 1).
Contradictory opinions are rife with regard to global climate processes and drivers simply because of the poor level of understanding that scientists have of those processes and drivers. Much more needs to be learnt within the numerous different scientific disciplines involved before reliable predictions can be made. This is one of the reasons that the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen was such a miserable failure. No concrete solutions can be agreed until there is concrete science that is able to predict what the different global climates will be like in a few decades. Presently all that the UN’s IPCC can do is speculate on the basis of unsound science and implausible scenarios.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
March 11th, 2010 at 1:35 amNote 1) see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pseudonym
March 11th, 2010 at 1:37 amI understand your point Pete, but three facts undermine its credibility to me.
1) You look for people’s opinions rather than science. If I quote you a referenced paper that provides a finding supported by evidence and a transparent methodology that has been independently checked via formal peer review, then my own opinion, qualifications and private life is irrelevant. The paper provides the information.
2) You only apply this approach to people you disagree with. In the many months I’ve been debating/arguing with you on climate science you’ve never yet provided any link or information to your own published papers etc or reason to accept your authority. I have also never seen you ask any of the others agreeing with you but using a pseudonym to stop the practice because it is dishonest. You did provide a link to a web article you wrote on the politics of climate change, but this is significantly less than the many articles I have provided on this site, and you still said that I was hiding.
3) When you have been given personal information you have used it not to find out about the person’s published papers/articles, but to caricaturise them as foolish. You try to make it sound legitimate here, but your track record undermines you and suggests that it is just the old political ploy used by many. “Don’t vote for him, he smoked pot in the 60’s”.
From my first interaction with you, I provided you access to this website with all of its articles, but your response on this website was to tell me to “have the courage to identify yourself properly otherwise you will enjoy no credibility whatsoever in debates about the poorly understood and approaching chaotic science surrounding global climates.” That suggests that your statement above that you just want to see whether people have articles or not is false.
On the subject of climate change, you’ve stated that “contradictory opinions are rife” on climate change and that its because scientists have such a poor level of understanding. Contradictory opinions certainly are rife, but not amongst the scientists that have published their evidence. You focus on the opinions of people rather than the mountains of evidence, so we will continue to go around in circles.
You say that “No concrete solutions can be agreed until there is concrete science that is able to predict what the different global climates will be like in a few decades”; ignoring that every National Institute of Science around the world has agreed that there is sufficient science and that the actions required are perfectly clear.
You have restated your views again Pete, so unless you decide to move things forward by providing some evidence to back your claims and give us reason to believe you over every National Institute of Science, then this is probably the furthest we’ll get.
March 12th, 2010 at 6:45 am