It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
First of all, the title of this article is of course wrong. Verdier, like many others including many climatologists questions the claims behind Anthropogenic Climate Change. He is not questioning Climate Change. The majority of the AGW camp cannot differentiate Climate Change from AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), and often try to use belittling comments and straw man rhetoric to claim "you are a climate denier".


Philippe Verdier, weather chief at France Télévisions, the country's state broadcaster, reportedly sent on "forced holiday" for releasing book accusing top climatologists of "taking the world hostage" .
...
Mr Verdier claims in the book Climat Investigation (Climate Investigation) that leading climatologists and political leaders have “taken the world hostage” with misleading data.
...
In a promotional video, Mr 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 added: “We are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”

His outspoken views led France 2 to take him off the air starting this Monday. "I received a letter telling me not to come. I'm in shock," he told RTL radio. "This is a direct extension of what I say in my book, namely that any contrary views must be eliminated."

The book has been released at a particularly sensitive moment as Paris is due to host a crucial UN climate change conference in December.
...
According to Mr Verdier, top climate scientists, who often rely on state funding, have been “manipulated and politicised”.

He specifically challenges the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, saying they “blatantly erased” data that went against their overall conclusions, and casts doubt on the accuracy of their climate models.
...
Mr Verdier told France 5: “Making these revelations in the book, which I absolutely have the right to do, can pose problems for my employer given that the government (which funds France 2) is organising COP [the climate change conference]. In fact as soon as you a slightly different discourse on this subject, you are branded a climate sceptic.
...
He said he decided to write the book in June 2014 when Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, summoned the countrys main weather presenters and urged them to mentionclimate chaosin their forecasts.

“I was horrified by this discourse,” Mr Verdier told Les Inrockuptibles magazine. Eight days later, Mr Fabius appeared on the front cover of a magazine posing as a weatherman above the headline: “500 days to save the planet.”

Mr Verdier said: “If a minister decides he is Mr Weatherman, then Mr Weatherman can also express himself on the subject in a lucid manner.

Whats shameful is this pressure placed on us to say that if we dont hurry, itll be the apocalypse, he added, saying thatclimate diplomacy means leaders are seeking to force changes to suit their own political timetables.
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

It is obvious that Climate Change has been politicized, and it is being used to try to push for global laws and legislation meant to control every aspect of people's lives "in the name of the planet".

Meanwhile it is true that in other ways mankind has been causing harm to nature, most often world governments do nothing about the real culprits that have been damaging the environment. Instead AGW which is wrongly being called now just 'Climate Change" is being used to blame mankind, that is the regular people in general, and not the real culprits.




posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




The majority of the AGW camp cannot differentiate Climate Change from AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), and often try to use belittling comments and straw man rhetoric to claim "you are a climate denier".

Talk about straw mans, I have never seen someone say that there isn't natural Climate Change...
If anyone does, I would venture to say they are very mistaken.
Do you know of anyone that actually says that? Or just says that it isn't only natural change that we are seeing.
Of course there is natural, doesn't mean that we can't help it along.

Again one way thought process that denying climate change is not politicized and driven by money but only being in agreement with it is.

How does that work?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

The AGW camp always claim those of us who question Anthropogenic Global Warming are "climate skeptics" or "climate change skeptics", when we don't question "Climate Change". We question Anthropogenic Climate Change. But most of the AGW followers in these forums have shown not to understand the difference.

As for helping it along.

How is mankind helping the Earth get warmer when water vapor accounts for around 97% of the greenhouse effect in Earth's Troposphere?

Water vapor: 97% of 0.74 C = 0.7178C

CO2: 5% of 0.74 = 0.037C

Water vapor on Earth is 99.9% natural.

Not to mention that the Earth began warming in the 1600s even thou parts of the Earth were still under the LIA (little Ice Age).


www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


edit on 15-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Would disagree, what people get called deniers of is the AGW, not natural change.

www.acs.org...

You are right we have a lot of water vapor, and it is amplifing the problem.

And about that graph, yes, the earth has been warming, again doesn't mean we can't be part of the problem.
Notice how it isn't all that gradual?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

How does that work here? Just because you don't agree with the answer doesn't mean it can't be questioned.

How is it different then saying that all this talk of man made needs to stop, is that not an answer that can not be questioned?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
This guy dared to question the new religion. His book might as well be the Satanic Bible.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I want to buy this book, which publisher should i contact!



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

"He added: We are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”

I could not disagree with that in any way. French people are very good at knowing who they are and not given to taking sides politically when politicos rabbit. What's not so clear is this 500 days, and the climate chaos meme. Were they supposed to be connected? which doesn't really make any sense otherwise.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Sremmos80

The AGW camp always claim those of us who question Anthropogenic Global Warming are "climate skeptics" or "climate change skeptics", when we don't question "Climate Change". We question Anthropogenic Climate Change. But most of the AGW followers in these forums have shown not to understand the difference.

As for helping it along.

How is mankind helping the Earth get warmer when water vapor accounts for around 97% of the greenhouse effect in Earth's Troposphere?

Water vapor: 97% of 0.74 C = 0.7178C

CO2: 5% of 0.74 = 0.037C


Water vapor is not 97% of the greenhouse effect. And include more than the troposphere.



Water vapor on Earth is 99.9% natural.


And in short-term equilibrium thanks to weather and exchange with oceans. Remove all the water from atmosphere, and in 2 weeks or so the water settles back to its natural value. Saturate the atmosphere, and the same thing happens.

So, if there is a long-term trend it can't be from water!

Water vapor & clouds influence the climate sensitivity from changes in forcings which change on a long time scale.

There aren't oceans of CO2 and it doesn't rain CO2.

The natural greenhouse effect (water + CO2 and everything else) is estimated to result in 30 K of warming. That's huge. So the natural effect, and the importance of water in this effect, is already included in the computations. It turns out that even a few degrees in climate change globally results in a very large change in human terms. In the Ice Ages, the Earth was 5 degrees colder on average. At that time, there was probably no agriculture possible except for a little bit in Africa. Ice was miles thick in New York. That's a small perturbation on the absolute physical temperature of 290K or so, and yet it is tremendous.

Human civlization is based on a very finely tuned climate. Don't mess with it.



Not to mention that the Earth began warming in the 1600s even thou parts of the Earth were still under the LIA (little Ice Age).


global warming.
edit on 15-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

As for helping it along.

How is mankind helping the Earth get warmer when water vapor accounts for around 97% of the greenhouse effect in Earth's Troposphere?

Water vapor: 97% of 0.74 C = 0.7178C

CO2: 5% of 0.74 = 0.037C

Water vapor on Earth is 99.9% natural.


Oh for gods sake here we go again. A classic example of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In this case you can multiple two numbers together. What do we have to do ? state you should please read the goddam science? No that won't work, we've tried that ad nauseum. Do I write it down here, hmm let's try. It's more the one tabloid paragraph long by the way so try and keep up :

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   

According to L’Express magazine, unions at France Television called for Mr Verdier to be fired, but that Delphine Ernotte, the broadcaster’s chief executive, initially said he should be allowed to stay “in the name of freedom of expression”.


I did a memo on France and their "freedom of expression" when you dont understand your obligations you cannot take part in your rights.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: greencmp

How does that work here? Just because you don't agree with the answer doesn't mean it can't be questioned.

How is it different then saying that all this talk of man made needs to stop, is that not an answer that can not be questioned?


Besides the fact that no actual reparative regimens have been proposed (only taxation regimens and compulsory behavioral preclusions), the observation we are drawing attention to is the apparent purposeful discrediting and professional sanctions which seem to befall anyone who inquires as to the validity of what is presented as fact.

In short, it is those who present dissenting opinions (especially when they are outside of the popular views of the academy) who should be protected from arbitrary professional retaliation to an intellectual disagreement.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.


So what if..in these long processes CO2 was actually much more prevalant in the air, in the past than thought, or rather how less stable is CO2 actually in the ground?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
If people have no effect on the climate, which is laughable with almost 8 billion of us all over the planet, then why are big cities up to 10 degrees warmer at night than surrounding areas?

We are constantly pumping heat into the atmoshpere with our machines, even our bodies, and cutting down forests and laying concrete everywhere directly change the climate.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

You can find in these same forums many AGW followers who simply call anyone who questions their religion as 'climate skeptic" or "climate change denier". Just do a search using the search engine on ATS.

As for helping it along. Despite the claim from the AGW camp that "the sun has been quiet for decades" the truth has been the opposite.




Major Magentic Storms 1868-2007
According to the AA* criteria

...
Because of the difference in units of presentation, the values of AA* and Ap* are not the same so that different major magnetic storm onset and end threshold values are used for the two series. However their comparison for the years of overlapping coverage show that relative frequency of occurrence of major storms per year are similar. Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and.or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects. Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.
...

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Then there is the weakening of Earth's magnetic field which began around the 1840s and it has been getting worse recently.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now

Then there is the global increase in volcanic activity.



...
The average rate of big earthquakes — those larger than magnitude 7 — has been 10 per year since 1979, the study reports. That rate rose to 12.5 per year starting in 1992, and then jumped to 16.7 per year starting in 2010 — a 65 percent increase compared to the rate since 1979. This increase accelerated in the first three months of 2014 to more than double the average since 1979, the researchers report.
...

www.livescience.com...

Then there is the fact that the increase in underwater volcanic activity has been melting glaciers in areas like the Arctic.

Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Then there is this.


...
She and her colleagues used magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California for three solar cycles, from the period of 1976 to 2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers — another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations matched closely. Their predictions using the model suggest an interesting longer-term trend beyond the 11-year cycle. It shows that solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s, to conditions last seen during the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715. “Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Sun’s northern and southern hemispheres. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent,” says Zharkova.
...

astronomynow.com...

Or what about the fact that within 100 years the solar system could be well withing a million degree interstellar cloud which is a which will have drastic changes in Earth's climate?

Ribbon at edge of our solar system: Will the Sun enter a million-degree cloud of interstellar gas?

How will mankind "help along to mitigate these events?"



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   


Meanwhile it is true that in other ways mankind has been causing harm to nature, most often world governments do nothing about the real culprits that have been damaging the environment.


Could you give some examples of the real culprits?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

Water vapor is not 97% of the greenhouse effect. And include more than the troposphere.
...


Except that the troposphere is the Earth's atmospheric layer where all surface weather, and climate occurs... in fact it is the atmospheric layer where almost all weather on Earth occurs.


originally posted by: mbkennel
global warming.


Which has been occurring well before the height of the industrial revolution, hence mankind could not be the cause of it.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1

Could you give some examples of the real culprits?


Causing damage to the environment? Fukushima disaster, and the unwillingness of the government of Japan to seal the reactors to save money.

We still have no idea on how bad the impact of this disaster will affect us, and life in the Pacific Ocean.

The bypassing of safety measures in oil rigs "in the name of profits" which has caused spills such as the one from Deepwater Horizon.

The use of corexit by BP to hide the spill of Deepwater Horizon.

Study suggests chemical used in BP oil spill cleanup capable of injuring people and wildlife

In the end all those governments and leaders that have been calling for " a global government to combat climate change" only gave a slap in the wrist of BP, showing their true intention.

And if you think that only oil has caused damage to nature, you need to look at the damage to nature, and the amount of birds killed by large wind farms.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 15-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Seriously, want to talk about people failing to differentiate, your stance seems to be since it has warmed up before humans can't possibly have any hand in it.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join