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

[DIBdaQUIB]

Humanity's impact on the planet through resource extraction/abuse and pollution is a far more immediate threat to us and the planet. It is something we can see and do something about with current technology.

Climate change "IF" caused by human activity is on such a scale, and so complex, it is highly likely we will have killed ourselves off before it has a chance to get to the point where it threatens our existence.

I for one, don't trust mankind to be able to address the problem effectively without f'ing it up even worse anyways.

[Putgolzin]

LOL Come on...that's like saying a masters in sustainable development would make him an authority on bridge engineering because it involves transportation. I have a masters in sustainable development and I'm sure as hell not an authority on climate change lol!

OK, but do you have an educated, researched understanding of it at the very least?

I'm actually asking seriously, hoping someone with more than a "I-studied-climate-change-on-the-Internet-for-like-a-week" opinion can give me an actual idea of the reality and scope of climate change.

Of course, everyone has differing opinions, but do you have enough understanding of it to give me a realistic, basic overview?

[elvis15]

There's a difference between silencing dissent and not giving him a platform to pass on a contrary view.

For instance, my work is in no way related to my hockey opinions so it's not as if I'm representing my opinions as expert and contrary to views by my employer using a public platform when I talk about the Canucks. Now, if I were to represent my opinions on a work related but controversial topic contrary to views of my employer, they would have grounds to suspend or fire me as a part of what I've agreed to within the company ethics policy.

I'd assume this trusted and respected weatherman also has a similar ethics policy with his employer and presenting the very controversial view that climate change is only the product of a war machine meant to keep us in fear would be a massive contravention of that.

Also, for the OP, saying the weatherman 'tells the truth on climate change' in the title of this thread is way off the mark. He's presenting his contrary opinion, which I'd assume has very little basis in truth considering all the evidence we have that there is a legitimate issue.

[Robongo]

Humanity's impact on the planet through resource extraction/abuse and pollution is a far more immediate threat to us and the planet. It is something we can see and do something about with current technology.

Climate change "IF" caused by human activity is on such a scale, and so complex, it is highly likely we will have killed ourselves off before it has a chance to get to the point where it threatens our existence.

I for one, don't trust mankind to be able to address the problem effectively without f'ing it up even worse anyways.

I'm with you, unfortunately geoengineering is already happening whether people want to admit it or not.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Humanity's impact on the planet through resource extraction/abuse and pollution is a far more immediate threat to us and the planet. It is something we can see and do something about with current technology.

Climate change "IF" caused by human activity is on such a scale, and so complex, it is highly likely we will have killed ourselves off before it has a chance to get to the point where it threatens our existence.

I for one, don't trust mankind to be able to address the problem effectively without f'ing it up even worse anyways.

I do. Just look at the technological advances we made already.

Eventually we'll thwart hurricanes with it, and that will inevitably lead to weather control.

I suppose any valid 'conspiracy' would involve this tech already existing, but it's being held back, because money. But denying the actual human-caused climate change is asinine. It's been established decades ago by exxon themselves. There is no "if".

[TOMapleLaughs]

Speaking of Exxon and the oil barons who chose to hide their evidence, how about putting the tab of combating global warming on them? They seem to have some money available.

[DeNiro]

Speaking the "truth"?

Even if there was any "truth" to his baseless claims, why is it such a bad thing for people to accept climate change?

I think every scientist would agree humans need to stop using fossil fuels. I don't think there's one credible scientist who will claim that fossil fuels are the best energy source for us to be using. And the way we farm and raise livestock needs to change drastically.

So if the fear of climate change is what speeds up the process to invest in newer, greener, more efficient energy, I have no problem with it. The problem with action though is that humans will be less likely to do something the more time they think they have. Speed up that timeline and you'll actually see people giving a crap.

[aGENT]

...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 find it odd that people get so fixated on what largely amounts to semantics.

Call it 'saving our environment', hell call it 'potato'ing the potato' for all I care. It should be blatantly obvious what it's about and what it's about is frankly far, FAR more important than what we happen to label it.

[Chalky]

I find it odd that people get so fixated on what largely amounts to semantics.

Call it 'saving our environment', hell call it 'potato'ing the potato' for all I care. It should be blatantly obvious what it's about and what it's about is frankly far, FAR more important than what we happen to label it.

So I shouldn't rant. Got it.

...but if we truly are going to kill ourselves off we should drink water from plastic bottles, burn coal for power, needlessly drive huge trucks and live a disposable lifestyle overusing styrofoam plates with plastic utensils. At least then we will die having experienced the euphoria of living in utter convenience. That's way better than dying from farting ourselves to death like the stoopid dinosaurs.

...sorry, from now on.

[aGENT]

So I shouldn't rant. Got it.

...but if we truly are going to kill ourselves off we should drink water from plastic bottles, burn coal for power, needlessly drive huge trucks and live a disposable lifestyle overusing styrofoam plates with plastic utensils. At least then we will die having experienced the euphoria of living in utter convenience. That's way better than dying from farting ourselves to death like the stoopid dinosaurs.

...sorry, from now on.

You can do whatever you want. I just find it odd and personally, a silly and useless 'argument' to fixate on or rant about. YMMV.

[elvis15]

So I shouldn't rant. Got it.

...but if we truly are going to kill ourselves off we should drink water from plastic bottles, burn coal for power, needlessly drive huge trucks and live a disposable lifestyle overusing styrofoam plates with plastic utensils. At least then we will die having experienced the euphoria of living in utter convenience. That's way better than dying from farting ourselves to death like the stoopid dinosaurs.

...sorry, from now on.

While the earth would eventually recover from anything we could do to it, it might take significant time and be at the cost of mass extinctions or similar. It's not our self-importance, but rather a recognition that we can and are affecting every aspect of nature around us so we should take a little better care.

[inane]

OK, but do you have an educated, researched understanding of it at the very least?

I'm actually asking seriously, hoping someone with more than a "I-studied-climate-change-on-the-Internet-for-like-a-week" opinion can give me an actual idea of the reality and scope of climate change.

Of course, everyone has differing opinions, but do you have enough understanding of it to give me a realistic, basic overview?

Not really, that's why I rely on the overwhelming majority within the scientific community. Like I do for most anything else.

[aGENT]

OK, but do you have an educated, researched understanding of it at the very least?

I'm actually asking seriously, hoping someone with more than a "I-studied-climate-change-on-the-Internet-for-like-a-week" opinion can give me an actual idea of the reality and scope of climate change.

Of course, everyone has differing opinions, but do you have enough understanding of it to give me a realistic, basic overview?

If my memory serves...you're looking for RUPERTKBD.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

Climate change is, and always has been, going on. The Sahara desert was once a garden...Canada's frozen north once supported a tropical forest.

Climate change is undisputable however, human impact is questionable. One volcanic eruption can discharge more particulate into the atmosphere in a matter of days than all of the industrial world does in a year. Forest fires release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere every year and always have. Anything we do will be miniscule compared to what nature itself does.

I am not saying it is okay to spew toxic fumes like we do but the focus should be focusing on addressing our science and efforts instead on cleaning up our garbage, toxic chemical usage, over fishing, deforestation etc. The way we are going, we will kill off our race from these things long before the climate changes enough to rid the planet of humans.

In the end, the challenge in addressing Climate Change, or the other issues above is politics and money (like all things). The poor countries are lining up for cash supposedly help them deal with climate change, blaming the developed world for causing the problem. The developing world refuses to take any steps to address their emissions arguing that it is unfair they should be penalized when the developing world got away with it for so long. The developed industrial world is left with the moral obligation to reduce emissions, whilst paying for the rest of the world's problems at a time when economies are struggling. The climate change movement is largely about the re-distribution of the world's wealth and that is never going to be well received.

Humans impact everything just by breathing and walking. Never mind building billions of cars, cutting down every tree, draining every lake, river and stream, eating everything that moves, synthesizing, mutating, splicing everything under the sun, turning our oceans into floating garbage piles......clearly no human impact here.

[DeNiro]

Humans impact everything just by breathing and walking. Never mind building billions of cars, cutting down every tree, draining every lake, river and stream, eating everything that moves, synthesizing, mutating, splicing everything under the sun, turning our oceans into floating garbage piles......clearly no human impact here.

"Human impact is questionable"

Probably the dumbest thing I've read about climate change, and I've read some pretty dumb stuff.

[Red Light Racicot]

He actually one of France's most well respected meteorologist with a master's degree in sustainable development from a top level international university....but sure write him off as a "weather man". I guess the "scientific consensus" (which buy the way is not a thing. Science by its nature questions things), doesn't include him...

If he a better explanation for what's going on he has to get a peer reviewed scientific paper published, otherwise it's a complete waste of time to even pretend to take him seriously.

Consensus has been challenged and revised as long as we have had an established method, and even the great Newton had ideas that could be improved upon.

[Red Light Racicot]

dp

[Kragar]

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?

So did Obama, but he isn't an expert on the subject, either.

Given that various models put forward over the years have struggles to uphold various theories (warming... no, cooling... no, weirding...), and we aren't suffering from the massive amounts of hurricanes promised after Katrina, does it make sense that we push headstrong into combating climate change, sparing no expense, just in case it might be both A. true, and B. something within our control?

I have no issue with climate change being researched. It's important to us all if there is a real threat. But the way that conflicting research and opinions gets drowned out for the sake of politics is extremely offensive. We know now that the earth is not the center of the solar system. The world isn't flat. The atom isn't the smallest particle. Even the electron is not the smallest particle. Consensus gets overturned all the time. Who's to say that these brilliant minds you reference don't learn something that changes their position? When one side can both legitimately support their own theories and legitimately refute opposing theories, only then will we find ourselves closer to the truth.

We need to let scientists do their thing, and study the matter from all sides, so that they can do their best to understand and react to the issue. Politicizing the issue does not help us find the truth, it in fact can do the opposite. In the meantime, take reasonable steps to reduce our impact on the environment. IMO, there is too much over-reaction being forced on us today.

[Langdon Algur]

So did Obama, but he isn't an expert on the subject, either.

Given that various models put forward over the years have struggles to uphold various theories (warming... no, cooling... no, weirding...), and we aren't suffering from the massive amounts of hurricanes promised after Katrina, does it make sense that we push headstrong into combating climate change, sparing no expense, just in case it might be both A. true, and B. something within our control?

I have no issue with climate change being researched. It's important to us all if there is a real threat. But the way that conflicting research and opinions gets drowned out for the sake of politics is extremely offensive. We know now that the earth is not the center of the solar system. The world isn't flat. The atom isn't the smallest particle. Even the electron is not the smallest particle. Consensus gets overturned all the time. Who's to say that these brilliant minds you reference don't learn something that changes their position? When one side can both legitimately support their own theories and legitimately refute opposing theories, only then will we find ourselves closer to the truth.

We need to let scientists do their thing, and study the matter from all sides, so that they can do their best to understand and react to the issue. Politicizing the issue does not help us find the truth, it in fact can do the opposite. In the meantime, take reasonable steps to reduce our impact on the environment. IMO, there is too much over-reaction being forced on us today.

I agree with nearly everything you said. But it is in one thing to study a matter and another to use a public platform to announce your views without going through proper peer review. I find it ironic that so many on here are upset with this guy being silenced and saying it compromises the scienicific process given that the weatherman himself didn't respect the scienicific process in publishing his views. Instead of publishing his views in a scientific peer reviewed hournal he politicized the issue by annoucing his views on television and through his book. I have to admit I haven't read his book but I'm willing to bet it doesn't reference many peer reviewed sciencific articles.

[DIBdaQUIB]

"Human impact is questionable"

Probably the dumbest thing I've read about climate change, and I've read some pretty dumb stuff.

Humans impact everything just by breathing and walking. Never mind building billions of cars, cutting down every tree, draining every lake, river and stream, eating everything that moves, synthesizing, mutating, splicing everything under the sun, turning our oceans into floating garbage piles......clearly no human impact here.

You two come off as those who look for ways to discredit opposing points of view by looking for slip-

ups to discredit the poster. Did either of you actually read the full post?

I was obviously referring to climate change and should have said "the degree to which humans are affecting it is debatable", though you sound like you have already determined this and just need the rest of the world to catch up to you.

I go on to say how we should be focusing on cleaning up our act on the environment as a better use of our resources.