France's Top Weatherman Suspended Over 'Wrong' Views on Climate Change

All Dissent must be crushed.

J
Philippe Verdier, a popular weatherman on the France 2 television channel, found himself suddenly unemployed after publishing a book entitled Climate Investigation in which he charges the “climate change industry” is “a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”

According to an article written by James Delingpole at the Breitbart news website, “this went down very badly with his employer, which is funded by the French government and is ideologically committed to promoting the global warming scare narrative."

“I don’t think management liked it, let’s be honest,” said Verdier, who received a letter on Monday telling him not to return to work. “I'm in shock," he stated. "This is a direct extension of what I say in my book, namely that any contrary views must be eliminated."

In a promotional video that has since been removed from YouTube, Verdier said: “Every night I address five million French people to talk to you about the wind, the clouds and the sun. And yet there is something important, very important that I haven’t been able to tell you because it’s neither the time nor the place to do so."

He also indicated:

We are hostages to the planetary scandal of global warming -- a war-machine designed to keep us afraid. At its heart, it’s a science manipulated and politicized, of conflict of interest, of corruption, of sexual scandal, then the politics, which serves nothing but their image and their thirst for power.



In addition, he wrote an open letter to French president Francois Hollande attacking upcoming climate talks.

“In two months, France welcomes the COP21, the conference of nations united for the climate,” the weatherman noted. “Your political strategy team has told you that it will all come to nothing, like the 20 before it. Then why continue to pretend to be saving the planet?”

“You, president of the Republic,” Verdier wrote that “you cannot support the ultra-politicized scientists of ... the corporate lobbyists, the NGO [Non-Governmental Organizations], environmental groups, nor the self-proclaimed apostles of the new religion of climate.”

According to the weatherman, top climate scientists -- who often rely on state funding -- have been “manipulated and politicized.” Verdier charges that top climate scientists, who often rely on state funding, have been “manipulated and politicized."

The 330-page book also contains a chapter on the “positive results” of climate change in France, one of the countries predicted to be the least affected by rising temperatures.

“What’s shameful is this pressure placed on us to say that if we don’t hurry, it’ll be the apocalypse,” he added, saying that “climate diplomacy” means leaders “are seeking to force changes to sit their own political timetables.”

Speaking of timing, the book's release comes at a critical time since the nation's capital city is due to host a critical United Nations climate change conference in December.

According to Verdier, top climate scientists, who often rely on state funding, have been “manipulated and politicized.”

He specifically challenges the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, saying the organization uses “blatantly erased” data that went against their overall conclusions and casts doubt on the accuracy of their climate models.

The IPCC has said that temperatures could rise by up to 4.8°C if no action is taken to reduce carbon emissions.

However, France isn't the only nation dealing with a controversy over climate change. In the United Kingdom, judges are proposing making it illegal to utter any statement criticizing global warming.






One of the major proponents of the potential legislation is Philippe Sands, a professor of law at University College, London.

Although his supporters, Sands said, would agree that the scientific evidence for man-made climate change was "overwhelming," there were still "scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals" continuing to deny "the warming of the atmosphere, the melting of the ice and the rising of the seas and that this is all due to our emissions of CO2.”

“The world’s courts, led by the International Court of Justice,” Sands asserted, could play a vital role "in finally scotching these claims.”

"The most important thing the courts could do," he said, was to hold a top-level "finding of fact" to settle these "scientific disputes" once and for all so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed "science" again.

Furthermore, he went on, once "the scientific evidence" thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make "the emissions reductions that are needed," including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.

Just when it seemed that "global warming" had finally fallen off the radar, along come more members of the "Church of Climate Change" to increase the heat on people who disagree with their extreme policies.

- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ran...ong-views-climate-change#sthash.vGi3o6Vi.dpuf
 
Good, he should be sent to jail and then executed. Off with his head.



Ha ha Breibart.....Newsbusters. He was probably fired for simply being a bad weatherman. Anyone who thinks like he does is obviously an idiot.
 
  • By 1978 Exxon’s senior scientists were telling top management that climate change was real, caused by man, and would raise global temperatures by 2-3C this century, which was pretty much spot-on.
  • By the early 1980s they’d validated these findings with shipborne measurements of CO2 (they outfitted a giant tanker with carbon sensors for a research voyage) and with computer models that showed precisely what was coming. As the head of one key lab at Exxon Research wrote to his superiors, there was “unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere”.
  • And by the early 1990s their researchers studying the possibility for new exploration in the Arctic were well aware that human-induced climate change was melting the poles. Indeed, they used that knowledge to plan their strategy, reporting that soon the Beaufort Sea would be ice-free as much as five months a year instead of the historic two. Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” a key Exxon researcher told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact.”
But of course Exxon did dispute that fact. Not inside the company, where they used their knowledge to buy oil leases in the areas they knew would melt, but outside, where they used their political and financial might to make sure no one took climate change seriously.

They helped organise campaigns designed to instil doubt, borrowing tactics and personnel from the tobacco industry’s similar fight. They funded “institutes” devoted to outright climate denial. And at the highest levels they did all they could to spread their lies.

To understand the treachery – the sheer, profound, and I think unparalleled evil – of Exxon, one must remember the timing. Global warming became a public topic in 1988, thanks to Nasa scientist James Hansen – it’s taken a quarter-century and counting for the world to take effective action. If at any point in that journey Exxon – largest oil company on Earth, most profitable enterprise in human history – had said: “Our own research shows that these scientists are right and that we are in a dangerous place,” the faux debate would effectively have ended. That’s all it would have taken; stripped of the cover provided by doubt, humanity would have gotten to work.

Instead, knowingly, they helped organise the most consequential lie in human history, and kept that lie going past the point where we can protect the poles, prevent the acidification of the oceans, or slow sea level rise enough to save the most vulnerable regions and cultures. Businesses misbehave all the time, but VW is the flea to Exxon’s elephant. No corporation has ever done anything this big and this bad.

I’m aware that anger at this point does little good. I’m aware that all clever people will say “of course they did” or “we all use fossil fuels”, as if either claim is meaningful. I’m aware that nothing much will happen to Exxon – I doubt they’ll be tried in court, or their executives sent to jail.

But nonetheless it seems crucial simply to say, for the record, the truth: this company had the singular capacity to change the course of world history for the better and instead it changed that course for the infinitely worse. In its greed Exxon helped — more than any other institution — to kill our planet.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/14/exxons-climate-lie-change-global-warming
 
Good riddance. But it's all about freedom, right? So now he's free to take his deep insights and maybe go work for a weather channel somewhere that shares his views. Oh, wait, there isn't one. So sad.
 
Another good example of why it is a terrible idea for the US to participate in things like the World Court, International Criminal Court or other such exercises in eroding our sovereignty.
Yeah, 'cause you want the US to be a hermit country. Perhaps more along the lines of, say, North Korea? I hear they're also batshit crazy about their military. You would have so much to talk about.
 
I want the US to be a sovereign nation and not subject to the whims of euro elites. Kind of like why the Founders came here in the first place. You probably are more comfortable having decisions made for you by unelected bureaucrats in Belgium.
 
Yeah, 'cause you want the US to be a hermit country. Perhaps more along the lines of, say, North Korea? I hear they're also batshit crazy about their military. You would have so much to talk about.

So you support the proposed legislation from Philippe Sands in the U.K. that the International Court of Justice would make it illegal for any government, corporation, or individual scientist ever to question the agreed "science" again? Anyone who publicly disagrees with AGW should be prosecuted and locked up?

Talk about extreme and batshit crazy.
 
Back
Top