French weatherman fired for his disbelief of climate change

[flacaltenn]

Of course you stick with it. You aren't smart enough to know for yourself.

lol.. you think you're smarter than the climate scientists.

no doubt your vast intellect and training gives you that right.

like I said... wacko.

The problem here is that you don't what climate actually SAY about what they know. You're getting INTERPRETATIONS of their work through an active propaganda channel linked to political aims.

For instance -- Bet you think that it's been PROVEN that the Earth climate was perfectly stable for the past 2000 or 10,000 years. Because of all the MIGHTS, COULDs and MAYBEs that you've heard being trumpeted about. But there is ample evidence of warm/cool episodes in man's recent past approaches approaching changes of a couple degrees. ALL BEFORE the industrial revolution..

You can continue the neener -- neener -- OR you can actually study what the climate science has stated. It's no harder than reading Scientific American actually.. Means a LOT of us are more than capable of understanding temperature charts, and proxy data, and the simple ass statistical preparation that goes into most of these "landmark" studies..

no. I know the right hates the idea that it isn't somehow G-d's will.

I figure G-d is pretty ok with men using what they learn to prevent tragedy.

and i'm really tired to the winger politicians listening to the zealots than following the science because it suits them to pander to the far right and enrich oil companies.

That's SO FAR from the expected answer to my post --- that I've got to assume you have ZERO interest in discussing or learning the science --- and just want to brawl.. I suggest that YOU may taking your position more "on faith" -- than any of the credible skeptics on this GW issue.

Taking things "on faith" is what you do when you parrot sound bytes from star scientists or rely SOLELY on phoney consensus concepts for your opinions of a valid scientific debate..

I don't think there's any debate on this subject. the "debate" is fabricated and science is what it is. we can talk "degrees" or what we can do... but dismissal of science? no. there isn't any debate there.

What does the science say Jillian? What is the pending crisis?

 

[Arianrhod]

lol.. you think you're smarter than the climate scientists.

no doubt your vast intellect and training gives you that right.

like I said... wacko.

The problem here is that you don't what climate actually SAY about what they know. You're getting INTERPRETATIONS of their work through an active propaganda channel linked to political aims.

For instance -- Bet you think that it's been PROVEN that the Earth climate was perfectly stable for the past 2000 or 10,000 years. Because of all the MIGHTS, COULDs and MAYBEs that you've heard being trumpeted about. But there is ample evidence of warm/cool episodes in man's recent past approaches approaching changes of a couple degrees. ALL BEFORE the industrial revolution..

You can continue the neener -- neener -- OR you can actually study what the climate science has stated. It's no harder than reading Scientific American actually.. Means a LOT of us are more than capable of understanding temperature charts, and proxy data, and the simple ass statistical preparation that goes into most of these "landmark" studies..

no. I know the right hates the idea that it isn't somehow G-d's will.

I figure G-d is pretty ok with men using what they learn to prevent tragedy.

and i'm really tired to the winger politicians listening to the zealots than following the science because it suits them to pander to the far right and enrich oil companies.

That's SO FAR from the expected answer to my post --- that I've got to assume you have ZERO interest in discussing or learning the science --- and just want to brawl.. I suggest that YOU may taking your position more "on faith" -- than any of the credible skeptics on this GW issue.

Taking things "on faith" is what you do when you parrot sound bytes from star scientists or rely SOLELY on phoney consensus concepts for your opinions of a valid scientific debate..

I don't think there's any debate on this subject. the "debate" is fabricated and science is what it is. we can talk "degrees" or what we can do... but dismissal of science? no. there isn't any debate there.

What does the science say Jillian? What is the pending crisis?

Is there a forum for that? It would make a great standalone thread.

 

[flacaltenn]

The problem here is that you don't what climate actually SAY about what they know. You're getting INTERPRETATIONS of their work through an active propaganda channel linked to political aims.

For instance -- Bet you think that it's been PROVEN that the Earth climate was perfectly stable for the past 2000 or 10,000 years. Because of all the MIGHTS, COULDs and MAYBEs that you've heard being trumpeted about. But there is ample evidence of warm/cool episodes in man's recent past approaches approaching changes of a couple degrees. ALL BEFORE the industrial revolution..

You can continue the neener -- neener -- OR you can actually study what the climate science has stated. It's no harder than reading Scientific American actually.. Means a LOT of us are more than capable of understanding temperature charts, and proxy data, and the simple ass statistical preparation that goes into most of these "landmark" studies..

no. I know the right hates the idea that it isn't somehow G-d's will.

I figure G-d is pretty ok with men using what they learn to prevent tragedy.

and i'm really tired to the winger politicians listening to the zealots than following the science because it suits them to pander to the far right and enrich oil companies.

That's SO FAR from the expected answer to my post --- that I've got to assume you have ZERO interest in discussing or learning the science --- and just want to brawl.. I suggest that YOU may taking your position more "on faith" -- than any of the credible skeptics on this GW issue.

Taking things "on faith" is what you do when you parrot sound bytes from star scientists or rely SOLELY on phoney consensus concepts for your opinions of a valid scientific debate..

I don't think there's any debate on this subject. the "debate" is fabricated and science is what it is. we can talk "degrees" or what we can do... but dismissal of science? no. there isn't any debate there.

What does the science say Jillian? What is the pending crisis?

Is there a forum for that? It would make a great standalone thread.

I didn't bring the topic of God or deniers or "there's no debate" .. Just stating the obvious that REGARDLESS of the propaganda you've been pumped full --- the science is STILL CHANGING.. And the phoney consensus based on ONE CRAP activist "poll" -- never existed.

Series of polls by Bray and von Storch where climate scientists asked climate scientists REAL QUESTIONS. You'll see the opinions on the IMPORTANT points are all over map.. Including their opinions about the failings of their own profession. Stuff like that? Not denier literature. It's just been buried in the screaming and shouting.

I prefer less screaming and shouting and more LEARNING and active discussion. In fact --- the next Prez ought to host a series of publicly televised debates between CC scientists IN THE WhiteHouse. And demonstrate how BADLY the media has handled this issue..

 

[Sun Devil 92]

oh! he agrees the planet the globe has warmed up

Mr Verdier writes: “We are undoubtedly on a plateau in terms of warming

,,,

The book was criticised by French newspaper Le Monde as full of “errors”. “The models used to predict the average rise in temperatures on the surface of the globe have proved to be rather reliable, with the gap between observations and predictions quite small,” it countered.​

Le Monde obviously hasn't LOOKED at the increasing gap between the model predictions and reality. It's laughable. And they would LOSE on that assertion in a heartbeat..

Sliming the messengers is a POLITICAL tactic. And the GINORMOUS amount of propaganda on the coming GW disasters does constitute a war on open discussion and the truths. As evidenced by the IGNORANCE of Le Monde in making that statement. .

Of course they have....through the eyes of an alarmist.

you mean he goes with the actual scientists and not religious zealots who think G-d wouldn't give us something that can be destroyed....

here's a hint... the earth will still be here. it just won't be inhabitable. but the oil companies will get rich.

wackos.

Not to bright, are you ? Why am I asking you ? This has been confirmed.

The political element of AGW has been well documented.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

France's top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change

the new religion, that you are forced to join

a meteorologist is supposed to be a scientist.

i'd have fired him, too, for going against 98% of all climate scientists.

that takes a special kind of stupid.

*shrug*

Of course you would.

Then you'd take your Brownshirts to the cleaners to be cleaned and pressed.

quiet, loony toon.

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

― Neil deGrasse Tyson

I'll stick with what the smart people have to say. your preferring to follow the wingers and idiots is your own business.

Of course you stick with it. You aren't smart enough to know for yourself.

lol.. you think you're smarter than the climate scientists.

no doubt your vast intellect and training gives you that right.

like I said... wacko.

Vast intellect = Climate scientist ???

Wow....

You are funny.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Of course you stick with it. You aren't smart enough to know for yourself.

lol.. you think you're smarter than the climate scientists.

no doubt your vast intellect and training gives you that right.

like I said... wacko.

The problem here is that you don't what climate actually SAY about what they know. You're getting INTERPRETATIONS of their work through an active propaganda channel linked to political aims.

For instance -- Bet you think that it's been PROVEN that the Earth climate was perfectly stable for the past 2000 or 10,000 years. Because of all the MIGHTS, COULDs and MAYBEs that you've heard being trumpeted about. But there is ample evidence of warm/cool episodes in man's recent past approaches approaching changes of a couple degrees. ALL BEFORE the industrial revolution..

You can continue the neener -- neener -- OR you can actually study what the climate science has stated. It's no harder than reading Scientific American actually.. Means a LOT of us are more than capable of understanding temperature charts, and proxy data, and the simple ass statistical preparation that goes into most of these "landmark" studies..

no. I know the right hates the idea that it isn't somehow G-d's will.

I figure G-d is pretty ok with men using what they learn to prevent tragedy.

and i'm really tired to the winger politicians listening to the zealots than following the science because it suits them to pander to the far right and enrich oil companies.

That's SO FAR from the expected answer to my post --- that I've got to assume you have ZERO interest in discussing or learning the science --- and just want to brawl.. I suggest that YOU may taking your position more "on faith" -- than any of the credible skeptics on this GW issue.

Taking things "on faith" is what you do when you parrot sound bytes from star scientists or rely SOLELY on phoney consensus concepts for your opinions of a valid scientific debate..

I don't think there's any debate on this subject. the "debate" is fabricated and science is what it is. we can talk "degrees" or what we can do... but dismissal of science? no. there isn't any debate there.

Beyond stupid.

 

[Arianrhod]

I didn't bring the topic of God or deniers or "there's no debate" .. Just stating the obvious that REGARDLESS of the propaganda you've been pumped full --- the science is STILL CHANGING..

Okay, but (A) why are you addressing this post to me? I've said nothing about God and (B) of course the science is changing. But can you show that it's changing so radically that the glaciers have refrozen and CO2 levels are normalizing? I doubt it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I didn't bring the topic of God or deniers or "there's no debate" .. Just stating the obvious that REGARDLESS of the propaganda you've been pumped full --- the science is STILL CHANGING..

Okay, but (A) why are you addressing this post to me? I've said nothing about God and (B) of course the science is changing. But can you show that it's changing so radically that the glaciers have refrozen and CO2 levels are normalizing? I doubt it.

Because this French guy is being lynched for attempting to speak. And that is part of what going on in this thread. La Monde comes out and make TOTALLY bogus claims for the "success of the climate models". A claim so hysterical -- I'd be laughing if I wasn't nauseated by the propaganda and hype. And the attacks on ANYONE who attempts to challenge the GW folklore.. It's really more of a Spanish Inquisition than the debate that OUGHT to be aired..

So when you suggest that we maybe "save or reserve" remarks on what the science actually SAYS -- it kinds of irks me a bit..

 

[Arianrhod]

Because this French guy is being lynched for attempting to speak.

No, he's being fired for violating the terms of his job description. You do know the controversy revolved around the book he published?

 

[northpolarbear]

Didn't know it was in the weatherman job description to believe in climate change.

 

[Arianrhod]

Didn't know it was in the weatherman job description to believe in climate change.

Post it a third time. Maybe it'll magically come true.

He violated the terms of his job description. Period, full stop.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

oh! he agrees the planet the globe has warmed up

Mr Verdier writes: “We are undoubtedly on a plateau in terms of warming

,,,

The book was criticised by French newspaper Le Monde as full of “errors”. “The models used to predict the average rise in temperatures on the surface of the globe have proved to be rather reliable, with the gap between observations and predictions quite small,” it countered.​

Le Monde obviously hasn't LOOKED at the increasing gap between the model predictions and reality. It's laughable. And they would LOSE on that assertion in a heartbeat..

Sliming the messengers is a POLITICAL tactic. And the GINORMOUS amount of propaganda on the coming GW disasters does constitute a war on open discussion and the truths. As evidenced by the IGNORANCE of Le Monde in making that statement. .

Slimming the messenger?

give me a break!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Didn't know it was in the weatherman job description to believe in climate change.

It is in the opinion of climate science deniers

 

[CrusaderFrank]

France's top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change

the new religion, that you are forced to join

AGW Jihadists. Sick, sick anti-science people from the top down

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to Mr Verdier, top climate scientists, who often rely on state funding, have been “manipulated and politicised”.
​

Wow! The French government is part of a conspiracy to "hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear."?

Sounds like the X-Files

^ laughing at

 

[2aguy]

Do not worry……the Weatherman who questioned the collective has been dealt with….he now understands the importance of climate change…here he is at his latest press availability……..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, they say there has been no warming for the last 18 years which is factually correct. Global warming started 14,000 years ago and it has cooled and warmed since then. We are merely enjoying a warming period which, sadly, looks like it is coming to an end.

no one has argued over the warming cycles except those trying to deny human involvement in speeding up and contributing to warming

no one can deny we humans have been polluting the planet; the air, the water and seas, the land and even the atmosphere

to claim we play no part in any warming, any cooling, and anything involving our planet is silly. if the claims are made with the scientific methods and instruments and theoretical minds, I'll go with that. if the claims are made by lonely people on the world wide web with too much time on their hands, I'll take a pass

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

BE afraid. BE very afraid. The government is out to get you

No, just your money, your liberty, and your ability to think and act for yourself. But get you.... No. Not in the traditional sense.

Does GAS (goofy alarmist syndrome) come with age, ideology, genes, nurture or any combination of it all?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's a strong Nazi-like quality to the AGWCult, for example, our own Crick wants to "off" deniers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global Cooling
Global Cooling
Global Cooling
Global Cooming
Global Corming
Global Carming
Global Warming
Global Warming
Global Warming
Global Warming
Global Warming
Global Warmine
Global Warmige
Global Warmnge
Global Warange
Global Wahange
Global Whange
Global Change
Globae Change
Globate Change
Glomate Change
Glimate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change

and nobody noticed!!