French weatherman fired for his disbelief of climate change

[jillian]

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*

 

[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.​

I am sure they figured that out on their own.

What cave do you live in.

 

[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.

 

[westwall]

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*

I suggest you look up how that myth of the 97% was created before you trot down that road Jillian.

 

[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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

Now, now. Give him a chance to prove his credentials as a scientist. He's obviously got a post-grad degree in "BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT'S WHY!"

This should be entertaining.

 

[northpolarbear]

You get fired for what you think or believe? Don't they have rights in France?

 

[jillian]

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*

I suggest you look up how that myth of the 97% was created before you trot down that road Jillian.

I know certain people like to think that.

i'd suggest the troll was the person who thinks it's tyranny for someone to get fired for rejecting a basis part of his job.

you know, like a muslim who refuses to sell pork at the pork store where he got a job.... because mohammed...

or the clerk who won't do her job and follow the directives of the court... well, because jesus....

I have no problem with him believing what he wants...

but he doesn't get to reject the basic science required by his job.

and according to Scientific American, the consensus is above 97%.

How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

which hasn't moved the political needle one iota because of people like the o/p and their representatives in congress.

 

[Arianrhod]

You get fired for what you think or believe?

No. You get fired for publishing a book that's in violation of your job description.

 

[jillian]

You get fired for what you think or believe? Don't they have rights in France?

you can "think or believe" what you want.

you just might not be able to do your job based on those "thoughts" and "beliefs".... because I, an an employer, have the right to have an employee a) represent my company's position properly; and b) represent the consensus of responsible scientists.

and that, my friend, is how it works in the real world...

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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..

 

[jillian]

You get fired for what you think or believe?

No. You get fired for publishing a book that's in violation of your job description.

bingo, baby!

 

[jillian]

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.

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 rather than following the science because it suits them to pander to the far right and enrich oil companies.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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..

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

 

[bodecea]

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

the new religion, that you are forced to join

They don't have the right to fire him?