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

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

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.

regardless you stated Human impact is questionable. That is 100% insane. Not discrediting your post just that statement.

[Chalky]

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.

Had to look up YMMV. If nothing else I learned something today.

I'm really not fixated on the semantics. To clarify the meaning of my rant, I mean to say that humans are more fragile than earth. I just used sensationalized wording and semantics to say it.

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.

I agree with your overall message but I disagree that it is not self-importance that is driving man to over-consume resources, over-pollute and live in denial that we are not "affecting every aspect of nature around us". I think it is precisely self-importance that drives that.

[Mustapha]

regardless you stated Human impact is questionable. That is 100% insane. Not discrediting your post just that statement.

Dib literally just clarified the statement for you...SMH

Obviously humans impact climate change, but they aren't the only factor...so it's reasonable to question the extent of human impact on climate change.

[elvis15]

...

I agree with your overall message but I disagree that it is not self-importance that is driving man to over-consume resources, over-pollute and live in denial that we are not "affecting every aspect of nature around us". I think it is precisely self-importance that drives that.

Actually, your previous post read to me that our self-importance was what was driving our claims of climate change and that we are a significant part of it.

[Chalky]

Actually, your previous post read to me that our self-importance was what was driving our claims of climate change and that we are a significant part of it.

Clearly it did read as such if multiple people called me out on it. It was poor wording and I failed to get my thoughts to words.

...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.

It's sensational, I admit, I'm neither proud or ashamed of my rants. I'll always look from the opposing viewpoint after and concede where it makes sense. The self importance we need to evolve past is to get past the notion that we can do whatever we want, that we somehow dominate the planet. Perhaps it should have read, Instead of saving the planet lets say "save the humans". Or even something less dramatic. Regardless, I'm pretty sure I'm just digging a deeper hole now.

[Alflives]

It seems to me that our climate is improving. We are developing a longer growing season, and the fish we mostly killed off are being replaced by new species for us to exploit. It's all sounding pretty good to this Vancouverite!

[aGENT]

Clearly it did read as such if multiple people called me out on it. It was poor wording and I failed to get my thoughts to words.

It's sensational, I admit, I'm neither proud or ashamed of my rants. I'll always look from the opposing viewpoint after and concede where it makes sense. The self importance we need to evolve past is to get past the notion that we can do whatever we want, that we somehow dominate the planet. Perhaps it should have read, Instead of saving the planet lets say "save the humans". Or even something less dramatic. Regardless, I'm pretty sure I'm just digging a deeper hole now.

I personally like: 'Let's stop $harting where we eat' (..and breath and drink and...)

[DIBdaQUIB]

regardless you stated Human impact is questionable. That is 100% insane. Not discrediting your post just that statement.

As I said, I should have worded it better. Knowing we where I lived used to be under a mile of ice and that tropical trees once thrived in the arctic, climate change is not new. The pollution, species harvesting and habitat destruction are totally on us. Just think we should be focusing resources there which would obviously include reduced use of chemicals. fossil fuels etc.

[DIBdaQUIB]

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

scary! WE put up massive wind turbines and end up decimating bats and migratory bird populations, We put up huge solar panels in the desert and end up frying birds flying nearby and reflecting sun energy back into space.

Now they're talking about solar panels in space beaming sun's energy down to earth. If humans have shown anything, it's that we can screw up anything no matter how good our intentions.

[MadMonk]

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.

Not necessarily. Most of the forecasting is actually done by computer models, and a weatherman is not required to have the physics and mathematics to understand the physics behind global warming/climate change. This is particular true for people in front of the camera as they could just be presenting whatever the meteorologist forecast.

Even if one has meteorology training, though it puts them in a good position to understand climate physics, they could still lack some crucial understanding of the role of co2 in regulating climate, and many components of the climate system is ignored in the context of weather forecasting.

ps. I'm not sure what his background is exactly so this is meant to be a general statement

[alt kilgore]

As I said, I should have worded it better. Knowing we where I lived used to be under a mile of ice and that tropical trees once thrived in the arctic, climate change is not new. The pollution, species harvesting and habitat destruction are totally on us. Just think we should be focusing resources there which would obviously include reduced use of chemicals. fossil fuels etc.

That proposal you make about "focusing our resources" is a great idea...but it won't happen if conservatives and big industries that buy them off are allowed to muddy the waters and drag out our response time. Who knows, if more funding is made available for alternate energy development, and bright scientists are paid to find solutions to better carbon controls, we may beat this. Look at how the world communications and information innovation has evolved just over the last 15 years?

As far as man helping to speed up global warming, I would also say that if 97% of climate scientists say it is true, I'd tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. And to do nothing because, even though our polluting practices are affecting air quality and weather patterns, because one believes that mankind is not DIRECTLY affecting warming, is irresponsible.

Its the same logic as saying "Oh boo hoo all those people that say fresh water is going to become scarcer when its a scientific fact that there is always the same amount of water on the Earth because it can never escape the atmosphere" Now while that may be true, it does not account for the fact that more and more of the Earths water is unfit now for drinking because of pollution, one reason that fracking is such a self-defeating industry.

[Ghostsof1915]

There's a planet in the solar system we don't want to be like. Venus.

Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect. Why do we want to destroy ourselves?

[BanTSN]

"The truth."

It's funny that it varies from person to person, party to party.

I think the real, actual, honest to god truth can be derived from a simple analysis:

"Who has the most to gain from perpetuating their version of the truth?"

Those who deny climate change are those who are profiting from fossil fuel useage, or are uncomfortable with changing to cleaner fuels. A select few ultra-rich people, their employees, their stockholders, their lobbied governments, and people with large vehicles.

Those who don't deny climate change are the rest of the people who aren't profiting from fossil fuel useage. These include most of the people on the planet. They are using fossil fuels in their day to day lives, but they would be fine with not doing so.

Clearly, the wealth divide between the deniers and the non-deniers indicates that the deniers have the most to gain from perpetuating their version of the truth. So can you believe their version of the truth? Not really.

[CanadianLoonie]

There's a planet in the solar system we don't want to be like. Venus.

Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect. Why do we want to destroy ourselves?

I think I can confidently say that humans had nothing to do with the greenhouse effect of Venus...