Australian Politics Forum - Sacking the skeptic messenger

bogarde73

Gold Member

Offline

Anti-Global & Contra Mundum

Posts: 18443
Gender: male

Sacking the skeptic messenger
Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 2:11pm

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)

Back to top

Know the enemies of a civil society by their public behaviour, by their fraudulent claim to be liberal-progressive, by their propensity to lie and, above all, by their attachment to authoritarianism.

IP Logged

innocentbystander. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4723 Gender:	Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger Reply #1 - Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 2:20pm This was very sad, its hard to believe that its 2015 sometimes.
Back to top	IP Logged

____ Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 33410 Australia Gender:	Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger Reply #2 - Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 3:09pm Excellent pitch to sell his book to the gullible skeptics. I've been wronged by those monsters !!!
Back to top	IP Logged

innocentbystander. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4723 Gender:	Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger Reply #3 - Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 3:18pm ____ 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Kytro Gold Member Offline Blasphemy: a victimless crime Posts: 3409 Adelaide Gender:	Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger Reply #4 - 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger
Reply #5 - Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 3:22pm

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

____ 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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 88048	Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger Reply #6 - Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 3:32pm 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 59986 Here Gender:	Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger Reply #7 - Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 3:46pm 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

innocentbystander.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4723
Gender: male

Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger
Reply #8 - Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 3:47pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger
Reply #9 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11000
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger
Reply #10 - Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 4:42pm

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.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger
Reply #11 - Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 4:51pm

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-cli...

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger
Reply #12 - Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 5:51pm

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

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-cli...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger
Reply #13 - Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 6:14pm

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

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

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-cli...

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-174016...

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Sacking the skeptic messenger
Reply #14 - Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 6:19pm

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

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

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

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-cli...

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-174016...

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

It is an admission of failure on your behalf.

Back to top

IP Logged