France'sTop Weatherman Tells the Truth on Climate Change-Given Forced Holiday

[taxi]

No, only experts on subjects should be experts on subjects. We're just a bunch of talking heads talking shart about stuff we really know little about.

This isn't about me, everyone makes everything so personal here lol.

I still don't see how someone with a respected Master's degree in how human development affects the environment and decades of experience in weather patterns isn't qualified to comment on climatology.

That kind of seems like the exact thing he has expertise on.

[Langdon Algur]

And Bill Nye is a science guy, but people take his word regularly.

If climate change isn't man-made, then going to sometimes drastic lengths using up resources, money, and research into trying to fix something that is debatable whether there is an issue and moreso whether we have any significant control over, seems like a drastic over-reaction to me.

1%??? Is that a scientific conclusion, or was that pulled out of some dark, smelly crevice?

I'm happy to have cleaner options for energy (had solar power for over 5 yrs, and love it), and taking reasonable steps to keep our environment clean, but the extreme position taken by so many climate-change fanatics is going too far. When you have people like Bernie Sanders claiming that climate change is the #1 enemy, it's sad that the hyperbole is lost on so many listeners.

Bill Nye has a Bachelor of Science degree from Cornell University. The impacts of climate change are widely understood and it's not just Bernie Sanders that thinks Climate Change is the largest threat facing the World, it's a large group of well respected Nobel prize winners

http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/#3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/

[taxi]

He's neutered his own claim with that. Climate Change is undeniable. It's literally a proven fact. If you deny climate change then you deny there has ever been an ice age...which we are still technically in one until both polar caps melt. The real issue is whether mankind is accelerating the change. This is where I have to temper my absolute statements. I can't say we are accelerating the process because I am not a climatologist...or even a scientist for that matter. I do know it's a fact we (the global "we") know what is creating greenhouse gasses that are building up in the atmosphere, because we can test it and identify where it comes from. I can't prove CO2 is indeed accelerating the process, but I've seen a lot more scientific evidence leading me towards the belief that it can and is accelerating the process. When people start tossing around the word "conspiracy" I start to tune out. As with all "conspiracies", there is a leap of faith that there are enough people who are willing to be "in on it". Real conspiracies only work when people who dissent start to disappear. For example, the nutter who believes all mass shootings are faked. That would mean every actor would have to remain silent or be silenced in another manner. I can't get down with that. Have there been faked mass shootings? Perhaps, but to suggest 100% either way is basically just passing opinion as fact. There would be a Snowden in the group, there will always be a Snowden, it's human nature (thankfully).

The real stretch to me is that Neil Degrasse Tyson is lying to me. I struggle to believe that.

...one last thing. People need to shut the hell up about saving the planet. The planet will dispatch us long before we destroy it. There will be another mass extinction event eventually (either natural or human caused) and with any luck we will evolve past this sense of self importance during the re-population. Humans are smart, but we are not that important. Sorry.

I think people are putting words into his mouth....

He didn't state that climate change wasn't happening. In fact, his book explicitly states it is happening and goes through the benefits to France of having its climate warmed by a few degrees. His book disputes the contribution of human activity to climate change.

His bigger point is that dissenting views are being strangled by groups of politicians and academics, who are exploiting climate change for their political/career goals and relying on exaggerated evidence. This is quite true. There have been multiple times that pro-climate change advocates have been caught exaggerating information. The fact he was fired merely for a dissenting view is further proof of this.

If you look at the predictions from around 2000 of what the temperature in 2015 should be, it just does not jive. Once again, I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening or that our activities aren't contributing. There is, however, a definite political agenda that is purposely exaggerating what is going on.

[taxi]

Bill Nye has a Bachelor of Science degree from Cornell University. The impacts of climate change are widely understood and it's not just Bernie Sanders that thinks Climate Change is the largest threat facing the World, it's a large group of well respected Nobel prize winners

http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/#3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/

So....

Once again, that's really now how the scientific process works in any way. It consists of testing multiple theories to explain one observable result, and there is no such thing as a "consensus". Even established theories are to be tested and tried as new information and ideas become available. The idea that we establish a "consensus" on climate change and then close the book on that theory for all of time is absurd. Apparently, anyone who proposes an alternate theory deserves to be shouted down or discredited. Sorry, that's just not the way science works. That's politics.

Edit:

Your article also refers to:

Francoise Barré-Sinoussi: Who's expertise is virology.

Peter Agre: A medical doctor

Brian Schmidt: An astronomist

Kailash Satyarthi: an expert in human rights

etc...

Please explain to me how these opinions have more weight than the opinion of Verdier?

[inane]

I still don't see how someone with a respected Master's degree in how human development affects the environment and decades of experience in weather patterns isn't qualified to comment on climatology.

That kind of seems like the exact thing he has expertise on.

Sustainable development has nothing to do with climate directly.

I don't know exactly what his thesis or specific learning was about, but one typically doesn't go into sustainable development if your interest in climate science. They are two totally different fields.

[theminister]

Too bad he doesn't work for the Canadian government.

He'd be sure to be allowed to express his views openly...

[Tortorella's Rant]

Because reducing carbon emissions is so awful.

[taxi]

Sustainable development has nothing to do with climate directly.

I don't know exactly what his thesis or specific learning was about, but one typically doesn't go into sustainable development if your interest in climate science. They are two totally different fields.

What are you talking about? Sustainable development has everything to do with climate. Emissions from human related activities and their effects are a key component of sustainable development. The study of emissions and their effect on the environment certainly isn't new. Issues like the ozone layer and global warming have been front and centre for decades.

This whole argument is a bit of a red herring, anyways. I've already discussed many of the qualifications of these experts on the other side of the debate. Verdier clearly has expertise on the issue. A climatologist is merely someone who analyzes weather patterns. Having a degree in a scientific field related to weather and having a master's in sustainable development, would more than qualify you to do that.

[inane]

What are you talking about? Sustainable development has everything to do with climate. Emissions from human related activities and their effects are a key component of sustainable development. The study of emissions and their effect on the environment certainly isn't new. Issues like the ozone layer and global warming have been front and centre for decades.

This whole argument is a bit of a red herring, anyways. I've already discussed many of the qualifications of these experts on the other side of the debate. Verdier clearly has expertise on the issue. A climatologist is merely someone who analyzes weather patterns. Having a degree in a scientific field related to weather and having a master's in sustainable development, would more than qualify you to do that.

Sustainable development is about sustainable development. It's a field of study borne partly out of the need to address climate change, but a person who specializes in sustainable development does not specialize in climate science.

You're taking to related fields and saying cause you know one, you know the other. Again, it'd be like me claiming to be an expert on road engineering or geothermal systems because roads or geothermal systems are part of sustainable development.

Or it'd be like asking a climate scientist to give his expert opinion on sustainable development...you wouldn't because what the hell does a climate scientist know about sustainable development?

[awalk]

Weathermen DO have a history of being incredible accurate and correct

[Chalky]

I think people are putting words into his mouth....

He didn't state that climate change wasn't happening. In fact, his book explicitly states it is happening and goes through the benefits to France of having its climate warmed by a few degrees. His book disputes the contribution of human activity to climate change.

His bigger point is that dissenting views are being strangled by groups of politicians and academics, who are exploiting climate change for their political/career goals and relying on exaggerated evidence. This is quite true. There have been multiple times that pro-climate change advocates have been caught exaggerating information. The fact he was fired merely for a dissenting view is further proof of this.

If you look at the predictions from around 2000 of what the temperature in 2015 should be, it just does not jive. Once again, I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening or that our activities aren't contributing. There is, however, a definite political agenda that is purposely exaggerating what is going on.

I don't disagree with you at all. My point is more about the dangers of the label "conspiracy". He is muddying the issue and directing people's attention from the real issues. Of course there are political agendas on climate change the same way there are on human migration, technology funded by arms manufacturing and many other arbitrary touchy subjects. I totally disagree with him being fired for his book, but I do disagree with his choice of wording on air, and I think it valid to have some consequence. It is my opinion that Pragmatism is the only way to clearly get a message to the masses. We're the masses, no one here is special. I think a lot of people have some inflated sense of intelligence or importance (I don't mean on the forum, I mean in general). That is why I get my back up.

[Langdon Algur]

So....

Once again, that's really now how the scientific process works in any way. It consists of testing multiple theories to explain one observable result, and there is no such thing as a "consensus". Even established theories are to be tested and tried as new information and ideas become available. The idea that we establish a "consensus" on climate change and then close the book on that theory for all of time is absurd. Apparently, anyone who proposes an alternate theory deserves to be shouted down or discredited. Sorry, that's just not the way science works. That's politics.

Edit:

Your article also refers to:

Francoise Barré-Sinoussi: Who's expertise is virology.

Peter Agre: A medical doctor

Brian Schmidt: An astronomist

Kailash Satyarthi: an expert in human rights

etc...

Please explain to me how these opinions have more weight than the opinion of Verdier?

They won a freaking Nobel prize!!

As for the rest of your comment, I'm not saying there shouldn't be other theories but some scienetic principles are more widely understood and accepted than others (Ie: gravity). The vast majority of leading scientist agree that Antrophogentic Climate Change

is happening and climate records and obervable events seem to support this 'theory'. The fact is even if we can't be 100% sure climate is being caused by humanity don't we owe it to ourselves and future generations to error on the side of caution here. Instead of asking why are we taking action on climate change when it may be be human caused, we should be asking what happens if climate change is being caused by humans and we don't take any action?

[taxi]

I don't disagree with you at all. My point is more about the dangers of the label "conspiracy". He is muddying the issue and directing people's attention from the real issues. Of course there are political agendas on climate change the same way there are on human migration, technology funded by arms manufacturing and many other arbitrary touchy subjects. I totally disagree with him being fired for his book, but I do disagree with his choice of wording on air, and I think it valid to have some consequence. It is my opinion that Pragmatism is the only way to clearly get a message to the masses. We're the masses, no one here is special. I think a lot of people have some inflated sense of intelligence or importance (I don't mean on the forum, I mean in general). That is why I get my back up.

Firstly, I'm going to say that decreasing carbon emissions and our dependency on fossil fuels can do nothing but good.

However, there are certainly a group of people who are exploiting the issue for their own interests. For example Al Gore and all these "carbon taxes". It's something we should be constantly on guard for.

We shouldn't shut the door on debate of any scientific issue, and that includes climate change.

[Langdon Algur]

Firstly, I'm going to say that decreasing carbon emissions and our dependency on fossil fuels can do nothing but good.

However, there are certainly a group of people who are exploiting the issue for their own interests. For example Al Gore and all these "carbon taxes". It's something we should be constantly on guard for.

We shouldn't shut the door on debate of any scientific issue, and that includes climate change.

So Al Gore is "exploiting the issue" issue because he made a movie on Climate Change and made some money from it, but Philippe Verdier isn't "exploiting the issue" but being exploited becase he wrote a book on climate change and is hoping to make some money from it? Hmmmm????

[canuktravella]

ya sun is in solar maximum output for next few yrs then down to a minimum next thung we know the government will be pushing global freezing its all a bunch of bs. Our carbon use is not driving global warming i feel bad for this guy at least he called them out on bs

[Kragar]

Bill Nye has a Bachelor of Science degree from Cornell University. The impacts of climate change are widely understood and it's not just Bernie Sanders that thinks Climate Change is the largest threat facing the World, it's a large group of well respected Nobel prize winners

http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/#3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/

a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering. Checking out his wikipedia page, since he graduated, he had never had anything to do with climate research until about 30 years after graduating in the late 70s. There's nothing in there to suggest that he has any specific training on the subject, and despite Global Warming being a hot topic even back in the 80's, it appears only recently that he joined the climate-change crowd.

Good on him for his efforts to bring science to the public and encourage children to appreciate science. But he is far from an expert in the field. This author here has more authority on the subject than the Science Guy.

[Chalky]

Firstly, I'm going to say that decreasing carbon emissions and our dependency on fossil fuels can do nothing but good.

However, there are certainly a group of people who are exploiting the issue for their own interests. For example Al Gore and all these "carbon taxes". It's something we should be constantly on guard for.

We shouldn't shut the door on debate of any scientific issue, and that includes climate change.

Al Gore's sensationalism should not dictate belief or policy any more than Donald Trump's. There will always be people who will exploit any given issue for their own agenda. There will always be people who will take more than their share regardless if it leaves someone hungry. There will always be people will dominate others because they have the will to do so. It is why Anarchism doesn't work. The majority will always need to decipher which is which and who is who. Dwelling on the vocal minority only empowers them.

[TOMapleLaughs]

ya sun is in solar maximum output for next few yrs then down to a minimum next thung we know the government will be pushing global freezing its all a bunch of bs. Our carbon use is not driving global warming i feel bad for this guy at least he called them out on bs

It's sad that people believe this. However, Exxon's own research confirmed fossil fuel-driven global warming in the 70's, so we're pretty much beyond the admittance stage. Now it's down to what we're going to do about it.

Not to mention that aside from global warming, there's the pollution aspect. I think we'd be better off without all the smog and oil spills. You won't find many who disagree.

[Mustapha]

Wrong. 98% of climate scientists agree it is driven by human activity.

Yeah well 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest Complete and despite brushing twice a day I still get cavities.

ARGUMENT REFUTED

[inane]

Yeah well 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest Complete and despite brushing twice a day I still get cavities.

ARGUMENT REFUTED

i chuckled