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

Wow, with a reaction like that you'd think he'd published a cartoon of Mohamed!!!

Just another case of STFU. Even when we are wrong we are right.

Maybe he got off easy.

Judges plan to outlaw climate change 'denial?

as a scientist, I don't necessarily need other scientist to tell me there is an issue with our climate. Just look around you, perma frost is melting, ice caps are shrinking, animals are expanding north into what wasn't there typical domain before. Birds migration patterns have changed, and the one thing I have noticed, bleaching of the corals.

To me, the debate is not IF the climate is changing but how are we going to deal with it. I admit I am skeptical about this being a 'human created' issue, but you can't deny that the world is warming. Our planet is telling us that much. We don't have enough record or good enough models to say, well it's just because of our industrial activity or not. The one thing that should be obvious to us, is the world is actually warming, who cares HOW. It is possible that this is a natural event in an inter-glacial cycle. We just do not know, but we need to start thinking about what if anything, we are going to do about it.

What skeptics are asking is how much. If all you're talking about is nice weather, we're wondering how scared we should be?

Geologic history has shown us warmer. Polar bears have seen warmer. Corals have seen much much warmer. Everything you name has seen warmer and even hotter.

The chicken littles of politics, not science are pulling out their hair and screeching "Doom, Doom, Doom!" in hopes of scaring people with nightmare chimeras of catastrophe. Some of us want to see more evidence of that than a computer program and a press release of the week from the state run media.

Yep, it's a vast left-wing conspiracy.

What skeptics are asking is how much. If all you're talking about is nice weather, we're wondering how scared we should be?

Geologic history has shown us warmer. Polar bears have seen warmer. Corals have seen much much warmer. Everything you name has seen warmer and even hotter.

The chicken littles of politics, not science are pulling out their hair and screeching "Doom, Doom, Doom!" in hopes of scaring people with nightmare chimeras of catastrophe. Some of us want to see more evidence of that than a computer program and a press release of the week from the state run media.


I know they all seen warmer, that didn't have anything to do with my comment...I am pondering what if anything we should or should not be doing about it.

That's cool. Just as long as what you're wanting to do doesn't involve firing, imprisoning, or putting people up against the wall (Yes it happened. Look up Lysenkoism) for disagreeing with your hypothesis.

http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/

interesting read.

Imprisoning or putting people up against the wall? Of course not. But firing? People get fired for incompetence all the time. Climate change denial could be an example of incompetence that could and, in some circumstances should, lead to firing. A highschool teacher, for example, denying climate change in front of a captive audience of impressionable minds should certainly be fired.

What about this then?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... ruths.html

They were teaching An Inconvenient Truth to a 'captive audience' as fact. It was proven false in court. Do the teachers guilty of the offence get fired for that offence retroactively. What about the ones who continue to teach proven falsehoods under the judge's ruling of you can teach one side if you also teach the other? I think that was his ruling. It was something like that.

I notice you use the word the waffle words "could be". Under what circumstances would your firing for global warming skepticism be enforced then? Who would be deciding what was true or false in this case? You?

What about Ross McKitrick then? He's a teacher with a captive audience who's skeptical of AGW catastrophism. Should he be fired under your authoritarian system?

1. No. Teaching "An Inconvenient Truth" is perfectly okay. Likewise, teaching evolution, okay; teaching creationism, not okay.

2. Yes. Me.

3. Depends on what he's teaching, but university isn't highschool. You knew that, right? Sketicism of AGW catastrophism is a different thing from teaching climate change denial.

Wow, things are going to be tough in your new regime of...I don't know, what are we calling it? Authoritarian Libertarianism? Regressive Progressivism?

So it doesn't matter if something like Inconvenient Truth is shown not to be based on fact in a court of law. Your word on what truth is supersedes any objective study of data.

Sounds familiar.

Now let's talk about why a citizenry needs to be armed.

And nobody denies climate changes. Those who have lost or been denied jobs, or just been pressured to keep quiet on the risk of losing employment don't deny the climate changes.

They aren't convinced arbitrary, authoritarian, collectivist action is necessary in response to a dodgy hypothesis based on computer model predictions that have never shown themselves to be accurate. They're skeptic. They're waiting to see this real world, data driven evidence of imminent catastrophe that has yet to be presented.

Just making shit up, eh? The court ruled there were errors in the film. It wasn't "shown not to be base on fact". Exaggerate much? You understand that the film has to elements: what has happened and what might happen as a result? The film nails #1 and does a fair job of hypothesizing about #2.


Or we could stick to one of your crazy notions at a time.


More loonie conspiracies. And you're not denying climate change anymore? Incremental acquiescence, huh?