French weatherman Verdier 'sacked' for writing skeptic climate change book ahead of UN summit

A famous French weatherman has broadcast the news of his sacking in an online video, saying he was fired for writing a book challenging climate change. It comes just weeks before Paris is set to host a UN conference on the controversial topic.


Philippe Verdier, arguably France's most popular weatherman, is the author of the book 'Climat Investigation' (Climate Investigation), in which he accuses state-funded climate change scientists of having been “manipulated” and “politicized.” He goes on to accuse the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of publishing deliberately misleading data.

Verdier also says that global warming could be a positive thing for France, boosting tourism, reducing energy bills, and improving health.

The weatherman said he was inspired to write the book after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius met with TV meteorologists and asked them to highlight climate change issues in their broadcasts.

“I was horrified by this speech,” Verdier told French magazine Les Inrockuptibles.

The book led to Verdier's suspension last month. He was put “on leave” on October 12 and summoned to a disciplinary hearing two weeks ago.

“My book ‘Climate Investigation’ was published one month ago. It got me banned from the air waves,” the weatherman says in the online video.

“I was horrified by this speech,” Verdier told French magazine Les Inrockuptibles.

The book led to Verdier's suspension last month. He was put “on leave” on October 12 and summoned to a disciplinary hearing two weeks ago.

“My book ‘Climate Investigation’ was published one month ago. It got me banned from the air waves,” the weatherman says in the online video.

Verdier's supporters believe he has fallen victim to French President Francois Hollande's campaign to present a united front before the much anticipated conference. The summit is scheduled to take place in Paris from November 30 to December 11.

More than 15,000 people have signed a petition in support of Verdier, including 10 opposition MPs. The politicians said he had “enriched the debate and helped to make democracy live.”

(RT)

This was very sad, its hard to believe that its 2015 sometimes.  :(

Excellent pitch to sell his book to the gullible skeptics.

I've been wronged by those monsters !!!

____ wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 3:09pm:

Excellent pitch to sell his book to the gullible skeptics. I've been wronged by those monsters !!!

At least you acknowledge that you are monsters. 

He isn't a sceptic, he is a conspiracy theorist.

A sceptic will change their mind once presented with evidence, but the so called climate sceptics rarely do. They just jump to some other argument. Over and over. This isn't what being a sceptic is about.

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 3:18pm:

____ wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 3:09pm: Excellent pitch to sell his book to the gullible skeptics. I've been wronged by those monsters !!! At least you acknowledge that you are monsters.

Claim he's been wronged by the thinking majority, and the skeptics will advertise his book from one end of the web to the other.

Such gullible fools.

so much for French FOS...he should have written a book about Islam and how they have no sense of humour. >:( >:(Charlie Hebdo would be proud.

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 2:20pm:

This was very sad, its hard to believe that its 2015 sometimes.

I agree but find it strange that you often support the same type of unbelievable things.

Kytro wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 3:20pm:

He isn't a sceptic, he is a conspiracy theorist. A sceptic will change their mind once presented with evidence, but the so called climate sceptics rarely do. They just jump to some other argument. Over and over. This isn't what being a sceptic is about.

Even if he is a conspiracy theorist he shouldn't have lost his job, basically he has been silenced by fascists. Also a skeptic will change their mind when presented with evidence, that evidence so far has not been forthcoming, please remember also that propaganda is not evidence.

Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but rather a hypothesis to be tested against observations. In reality, the catastrophic climate hypothesis is based on a series of assumptions about the way the climate system works and is supported neither by theory nor by empirical evidence. Climate activists have predicted for years that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an alarming rise in temperature, reaching levels later this century that would bring widespread global disruption and misery. Atmospheric temperatures, however, have remained flat for the last 15 years or so. Since the predicted catastrophe has not actually occurred, activists have worked hard to substitute the notion of consensus for that of science. The catastrophic climate hypothesis must be true, they argue, since so many prominent people, both scientists and others, support it. Many scientists with opposing views have been unable to get funding or have simply been intimidated into silence. It’s the climate activists’ view that represents the true denial of science, harking back to the Middle Ages when the Church insisted that all questions be resolved not by empirical evidence but by committees of experts reading scripture, with dissenters burned at the stake.

Soren wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 4:40pm:

Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but rather a hypothesis to be tested against observations. In reality, the catastrophic climate hypothesis is based on a series of assumptions about the way the climate system works and is supported neither by theory nor by empirical evidence. Climate activists have predicted for years that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an alarming rise in temperature, reaching levels later this century that would bring widespread global disruption and misery. Atmospheric temperatures, however, have remained flat for the last 15 years or so. Since the predicted catastrophe has not actually occurred, activists have worked hard to substitute the notion of consensus for that of science. The catastrophic climate hypothesis must be true, they argue, since so many prominent people, both scientists and others, support it. Many scientists with opposing views have been unable to get funding or have simply been intimidated into silence. It’s the climate activists’ view that represents the true denial of science, harking back to the Middle Ages when the Church insisted that all questions be resolved not by empirical evidence but by committees of experts reading scripture, with dissenters burned at the stake.

Love it, well said.

Soren wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 4:40pm:

Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but rather a hypothesis to be tested against observations. In reality, the catastrophic climate hypothesis is based on a series of assumptions about the way the climate system works and is supported neither by theory nor by empirical evidence. Climate activists have predicted for years that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an alarming rise in temperature, reaching levels later this century that would bring widespread global disruption and misery. Atmospheric temperatures, however, have remained flat for the last 15 years or so. Since the predicted catastrophe has not actually occurred, activists have worked hard to substitute the notion of consensus for that of science. The catastrophic climate hypothesis must be true, they argue, since so many prominent people, both scientists and others, support it. Many scientists with opposing views have been unable to get funding or have simply been intimidated into silence. It’s the climate activists’ view that represents the true denial of science, harking back to the Middle Ages when the Church insisted that all questions be resolved not by empirical evidence but by committees of experts reading scripture, with dissenters burned at the stake.

Written by

Bruce Everett
Bruce M. Everett teaches energy economics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.  After six years in the US Dept of Energy in the 1970's, he spent most of his career at ExxonMobil in various executive positions in the international oil, coal, natural gas and electricity businesses, retiring in 2002.


ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge


Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

____ wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 4:51pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:40pm: Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but rather a hypothesis to be tested against observations. In reality, the catastrophic climate hypothesis is based on a series of assumptions about the way the climate system works and is supported neither by theory nor by empirical evidence. Climate activists have predicted for years that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an alarming rise in temperature, reaching levels later this century that would bring widespread global disruption and misery. Atmospheric temperatures, however, have remained flat for the last 15 years or so. Since the predicted catastrophe has not actually occurred, activists have worked hard to substitute the notion of consensus for that of science. The catastrophic climate hypothesis must be true, they argue, since so many prominent people, both scientists and others, support it. Many scientists with opposing views have been unable to get funding or have simply been intimidated into silence. It’s the climate activists’ view that represents the true denial of science, harking back to the Middle Ages when the Church insisted that all questions be resolved not by empirical evidence but by committees of experts reading scripture, with dissenters burned at the stake. Written by Bruce Everett Bruce M. Everett teaches energy economics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.  After six years in the US Dept of Energy in the 1970's, he spent most of his career at ExxonMobil in various executive positions in the international oil, coal, natural gas and electricity businesses, retiring in 2002. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

You would be a more impressive debater if you targeted the message instead of the messenger. But naturally, being a Green and climate hysteric, your only recourse is to personal attacks since the message itself is UNASSAILABLE.

You are wrong, he is right.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 5:51pm:

____ wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:51pm: Soren wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:40pm: Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but rather a hypothesis to be tested against observations. In reality, the catastrophic climate hypothesis is based on a series of assumptions about the way the climate system works and is supported neither by theory nor by empirical evidence. Climate activists have predicted for years that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an alarming rise in temperature, reaching levels later this century that would bring widespread global disruption and misery. Atmospheric temperatures, however, have remained flat for the last 15 years or so. Since the predicted catastrophe has not actually occurred, activists have worked hard to substitute the notion of consensus for that of science. The catastrophic climate hypothesis must be true, they argue, since so many prominent people, both scientists and others, support it. Many scientists with opposing views have been unable to get funding or have simply been intimidated into silence. It’s the climate activists’ view that represents the true denial of science, harking back to the Middle Ages when the Church insisted that all questions be resolved not by empirical evidence but by committees of experts reading scripture, with dissenters burned at the stake. Written by Bruce Everett Bruce M. Everett teaches energy economics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.  After six years in the US Dept of Energy in the 1970's, he spent most of his career at ExxonMobil in various executive positions in the international oil, coal, natural gas and electricity businesses, retiring in 2002. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers You would be a more impressive debater if you targeted the message instead of the messenger. But naturally, being a Green and climate hysteric, your only recourse is to personal attacks since the message itself is UNASSAILABLE. You are wrong, he is right.

ExxonMobil, a company that vehemently asserts that it does not hate your children, has been caught in a big fat enormous lie, and politicians want the corporation to pay.

Over the weekend, Congress members asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate ExxonMobil to see whether the company violated federal laws that mandate that it disclose risks — in this case, risks that pertain to climate change.

Four members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by California Democrat Ted Lieu, penned a letter to the SEC alleging that Exxon “may have omitted or misrepresented material information in its official filings”:

Sen. Bernie Sanders and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley also demanded a federal investigation of the company this week. Essentially, politicians want to know whether Exxon helped fund climate change denialism after its own scientists confirmed that climate change is real.

http://gawker.com/exxon-mobil-may-be-investigated-for-willfully-funding-c-1740166008

____ wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 6:14pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 5:51pm: ____ wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:51pm: Soren wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:40pm: Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but rather a hypothesis to be tested against observations. In reality, the catastrophic climate hypothesis is based on a series of assumptions about the way the climate system works and is supported neither by theory nor by empirical evidence. Climate activists have predicted for years that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an alarming rise in temperature, reaching levels later this century that would bring widespread global disruption and misery. Atmospheric temperatures, however, have remained flat for the last 15 years or so. Since the predicted catastrophe has not actually occurred, activists have worked hard to substitute the notion of consensus for that of science. The catastrophic climate hypothesis must be true, they argue, since so many prominent people, both scientists and others, support it. Many scientists with opposing views have been unable to get funding or have simply been intimidated into silence. It’s the climate activists’ view that represents the true denial of science, harking back to the Middle Ages when the Church insisted that all questions be resolved not by empirical evidence but by committees of experts reading scripture, with dissenters burned at the stake. Written by Bruce Everett Bruce M. Everett teaches energy economics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.  After six years in the US Dept of Energy in the 1970's, he spent most of his career at ExxonMobil in various executive positions in the international oil, coal, natural gas and electricity businesses, retiring in 2002. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers You would be a more impressive debater if you targeted the message instead of the messenger. But naturally, being a Green and climate hysteric, your only recourse is to personal attacks since the message itself is UNASSAILABLE. You are wrong, he is right. ExxonMobil, a company that vehemently asserts that it does not hate your children, has been caught in a big fat enormous lie, and politicians want the corporation to pay. Over the weekend, Congress members asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate ExxonMobil to see whether the company violated federal laws that mandate that it disclose risks — in this case, risks that pertain to climate change. Four members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by California Democrat Ted Lieu, penned a letter to the SEC alleging that Exxon “may have omitted or misrepresented material information in its official filings”: Sen. Bernie Sanders and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley also demanded a federal investigation of the company this week. Essentially, politicians want to know whether Exxon helped fund climate change denialism after its own scientists confirmed that climate change is real. http://gawker.com/exxon-mobil-may-be-investigated-for-willfully-funding-c-1740166008

And you are STILL wrong and unable to debate the message!

It is an admission of failure on your behalf.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 6:19pm:

____ wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 6:14pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 5:51pm: ____ wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:51pm: Soren wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:40pm: Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but rather a hypothesis to be tested against observations. In reality, the catastrophic climate hypothesis is based on a series of assumptions about the way the climate system works and is supported neither by theory nor by empirical evidence. Climate activists have predicted for years that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an alarming rise in temperature, reaching levels later this century that would bring widespread global disruption and misery. Atmospheric temperatures, however, have remained flat for the last 15 years or so. Since the predicted catastrophe has not actually occurred, activists have worked hard to substitute the notion of consensus for that of science. The catastrophic climate hypothesis must be true, they argue, since so many prominent people, both scientists and others, support it. Many scientists with opposing views have been unable to get funding or have simply been intimidated into silence. It’s the climate activists’ view that represents the true denial of science, harking back to the Middle Ages when the Church insisted that all questions be resolved not by empirical evidence but by committees of experts reading scripture, with dissenters burned at the stake. Written by Bruce Everett Bruce M. Everett teaches energy economics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.  After six years in the US Dept of Energy in the 1970's, he spent most of his career at ExxonMobil in various executive positions in the international oil, coal, natural gas and electricity businesses, retiring in 2002. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers You would be a more impressive debater if you targeted the message instead of the messenger. But naturally, being a Green and climate hysteric, your only recourse is to personal attacks since the message itself is UNASSAILABLE. You are wrong, he is right. ExxonMobil, a company that vehemently asserts that it does not hate your children, has been caught in a big fat enormous lie, and politicians want the corporation to pay. Over the weekend, Congress members asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate ExxonMobil to see whether the company violated federal laws that mandate that it disclose risks — in this case, risks that pertain to climate change. Four members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by California Democrat Ted Lieu, penned a letter to the SEC alleging that Exxon “may have omitted or misrepresented material information in its official filings”: Sen. Bernie Sanders and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley also demanded a federal investigation of the company this week. Essentially, politicians want to know whether Exxon helped fund climate change denialism after its own scientists confirmed that climate change is real. http://gawker.com/exxon-mobil-may-be-investigated-for-willfully-funding-c-1740166008 And you are STILL wrong and unable to debate the message! It is an admission of failure on your behalf.

In early July, The Guardian reported that Exxon Mobil Corp., "the world's biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm's own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial."

Two months later, the online publication InsideClimate News (along with a short film from PBS's Frontline) followed that up with a multi-part series, The Road Not Taken, which was described as an eight-month investigation into the history of:

"Exxon's engagement with the emerging science of climate change. The story spans four decades, and is based on primary sources including internal company files dating back to the late 1970s, interviews with former company employees, and other evidence, much of which is being published here for the first time.
It describes how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed."
In October, the Los Angeles Times, teaming with the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, started publishing its own reporting on the topic, the result of a yearlong research project.

NPR did not report on any of these findings, which has made some listeners unhappy.

Andrew Ratzkin, a listener to the New York City member station WNYC, wrote that the only reporting he heard on the issue was in September,

Yawn climate change has been happening since day dot.

Got anything else ?

::)

And Greens signifies his surrender to truth ONCE AGAIN by rushing off to start another thread after being comprehensively trounced - by himself - in this one.

Predictable, lame and exceedingly ignorant.

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 3:47pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 3:20pm: He isn't a sceptic, he is a conspiracy theorist. A sceptic will change their mind once presented with evidence, but the so called climate sceptics rarely do. They just jump to some other argument. Over and over. This isn't what being a sceptic is about. Even if he is a conspiracy theorist he shouldn't have lost his job, basically he has been silenced by fascists. Also a skeptic will change their mind when presented with evidence, that evidence so far has not been forthcoming, please remember also that propaganda is not evidence.

That's really a matter for his employer and the code of conduct they have.

The evidence on anthropogenic climate change is significant. The controversy surrounding it is almost entirely political, not scientific. There are people with alternative theories in all areas of science, and for the most part they turn out mistaken, but every now then they are not.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 5:51pm:

____ wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:51pm: Soren wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:40pm: Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but rather a hypothesis to be tested against observations. In reality, the catastrophic climate hypothesis is based on a series of assumptions about the way the climate system works and is supported neither by theory nor by empirical evidence. Climate activists have predicted for years that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an alarming rise in temperature, reaching levels later this century that would bring widespread global disruption and misery. Atmospheric temperatures, however, have remained flat for the last 15 years or so. Since the predicted catastrophe has not actually occurred, activists have worked hard to substitute the notion of consensus for that of science. The catastrophic climate hypothesis must be true, they argue, since so many prominent people, both scientists and others, support it. Many scientists with opposing views have been unable to get funding or have simply been intimidated into silence. It’s the climate activists’ view that represents the true denial of science, harking back to the Middle Ages when the Church insisted that all questions be resolved not by empirical evidence but by committees of experts reading scripture, with dissenters burned at the stake. Written by Bruce Everett Bruce M. Everett teaches energy economics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.  After six years in the US Dept of Energy in the 1970's, he spent most of his career at ExxonMobil in various executive positions in the international oil, coal, natural gas and electricity businesses, retiring in 2002. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers You would be a more impressive debater if you targeted the message instead of the messenger. But naturally, being a Green and climate hysteric, your only recourse is to personal attacks since the message itself is UNASSAILABLE. You are wrong, he is right.

That would be your opinion, others would consider an article by someone without much credibility to be suspect.

Kytro wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 7:09pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 3:47pm: Kytro wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 3:20pm: He isn't a sceptic, he is a conspiracy theorist. A sceptic will change their mind once presented with evidence, but the so called climate sceptics rarely do. They just jump to some other argument. Over and over. This isn't what being a sceptic is about. Even if he is a conspiracy theorist he shouldn't have lost his job, basically he has been silenced by fascists. Also a skeptic will change their mind when presented with evidence, that evidence so far has not been forthcoming, please remember also that propaganda is not evidence. That's really a matter for his employer and the code of conduct they have. The evidence on anthropogenic climate change is significant. The controversy surrounding it is almost entirely political, not scientific. There are people with alternative theories in all areas of science, and for the most part they turn out mistaken, but every now then they are not.

The controversy is very much scientific. The so-called 98% consensus turned out to be 3% consensus and the rest just don't know. There is a slew of evidence that discredits ACC and very little that supports it. If politics were actually taken out of it, ACC would be dumped overnight.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 7:11pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 5:51pm: ____ wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:51pm: Soren wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:40pm: Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but rather a hypothesis to be tested against observations. In reality, the catastrophic climate hypothesis is based on a series of assumptions about the way the climate system works and is supported neither by theory nor by empirical evidence. Climate activists have predicted for years that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an alarming rise in temperature, reaching levels later this century that would bring widespread global disruption and misery. Atmospheric temperatures, however, have remained flat for the last 15 years or so. Since the predicted catastrophe has not actually occurred, activists have worked hard to substitute the notion of consensus for that of science. The catastrophic climate hypothesis must be true, they argue, since so many prominent people, both scientists and others, support it. Many scientists with opposing views have been unable to get funding or have simply been intimidated into silence. It’s the climate activists’ view that represents the true denial of science, harking back to the Middle Ages when the Church insisted that all questions be resolved not by empirical evidence but by committees of experts reading scripture, with dissenters burned at the stake. Written by Bruce Everett Bruce M. Everett teaches energy economics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.  After six years in the US Dept of Energy in the 1970's, he spent most of his career at ExxonMobil in various executive positions in the international oil, coal, natural gas and electricity businesses, retiring in 2002. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers You would be a more impressive debater if you targeted the message instead of the messenger. But naturally, being a Green and climate hysteric, your only recourse is to personal attacks since the message itself is UNASSAILABLE. You are wrong, he is right. That would be your opinion, others would consider an article by someone without much credibility to be suspect.

The problem with your definition of 'credibility' is that it extends no further than 'agreeing with you'. That makes your opinion completely worthless. The man is a very, very qualified and experienced expert who if he supported ACC you would support him as well.

You have an intellectual integrity deficit.

I don't see any need for controversy here, surely we all agree that people should not be sacked because of their beliefs irrespective of if you agree or not.

I don't agree with what this guy is saying but I don't think it is any of his employers business as long as he does his job well.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:49am:

I don't see any need for controversy here, surely we all agree that people should not be sacked because of their beliefs irrespective of if you agree or not. I don't agree with what this guy is saying but I don't think it is any of his employers business as long as he does his job well.

I think most agree with that - but not all. I would say that Greens would support the sacking of 'deniers'. And reading some of the comments and even books by loud-mouthed climate hysterics, some of them even suggest jailing of deniers and others even the removal of democracy to achieve 'climate action'.  These people are to be feared and repudiated by EVERYONE including ACC supporters.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:10am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 6:49am: I don't see any need for controversy here, surely we all agree that people should not be sacked because of their beliefs irrespective of if you agree or not. I don't agree with what this guy is saying but I don't think it is any of his employers business as long as he does his job well. I think most agree with that - but not all. I would say that Greens would support the sacking of 'deniers'. And reading some of the comments and even books by loud-mouthed climate hysterics, some of them even suggest jailing of deniers and others even the removal of democracy to achieve 'climate action'.  These people are to be feared and repudiated by EVERYONE including ACC supporters.

Much like we see with some of the security laws off shore detention etc. Remember these people believe in the worst aspects of global warming with the prospect of a world that can provide food for several billion people less than what we have.

They could argue that these people are fighting in support of a mass genocide.

We currently have a number of laws and legislation aimed at removing peoples rights and freedoms based on a lot less substance. 

Dnarever wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 7:11pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 5:51pm: ____ wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:51pm: Soren wrote on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 4:40pm: Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but rather a hypothesis to be tested against observations. In reality, the catastrophic climate hypothesis is based on a series of assumptions about the way the climate system works and is supported neither by theory nor by empirical evidence. Climate activists have predicted for years that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an alarming rise in temperature, reaching levels later this century that would bring widespread global disruption and misery. Atmospheric temperatures, however, have remained flat for the last 15 years or so. Since the predicted catastrophe has not actually occurred, activists have worked hard to substitute the notion of consensus for that of science. The catastrophic climate hypothesis must be true, they argue, since so many prominent people, both scientists and others, support it. Many scientists with opposing views have been unable to get funding or have simply been intimidated into silence. It’s the climate activists’ view that represents the true denial of science, harking back to the Middle Ages when the Church insisted that all questions be resolved not by empirical evidence but by committees of experts reading scripture, with dissenters burned at the stake. Written by Bruce Everett Bruce M. Everett teaches energy economics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.  After six years in the US Dept of Energy in the 1970's, he spent most of his career at ExxonMobil in various executive positions in the international oil, coal, natural gas and electricity businesses, retiring in 2002. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers You would be a more impressive debater if you targeted the message instead of the messenger. But naturally, being a Green and climate hysteric, your only recourse is to personal attacks since the message itself is UNASSAILABLE. You are wrong, he is right. That would be your opinion, others would consider an article by someone without much credibility to be suspect.

Thank you for confirming that it is never about WHAT is said in the AGW circus, but always and only about WHO speaks.


The politics is settled. The science is not.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:49am:

I don't see any need for controversy here, surely we all agree that people should not be sacked because of their beliefs irrespective of if you agree or not. I don't agree with what this guy is saying but I don't think it is any of his employers business as long as he does his job well.

I disagree
If I wrote a book that criticised my employer I would expect to get fired.

It's ironic that the Neocons have been campaigning to water down unfair dismissal laws yet now complain about them. It's easy to see that they have a political axe to grind.

The guy might have been sacked for not declaring his second job as a writer, or maybe for doing his second job whilst being paid for his first... Just saying.

Nothing a climate change reeducation camp won't fix.  :D

I believe he has been offered employment by a skeptic tank under the tutelage of innocentbystander the bottom dweller.