gcthomas
New member
Ten seconds on Google/Wikipedia reveals his bio as a journalist and TV weather presenter.
(Don't tell me that warming denier site 'climatedepot.com' is misrepresenting the guy's credentials for a headline! Tell me it ain't so!)
Gore likens 'global warming' skeptics to racists, supporters of apartheid and homopho
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Ten seconds on Google/Wikipedia reveals his bio as a journalist and TV weather presenter.
(Don't tell me that warming denier site 'climatedepot.com' is misrepresenting the guy's credentials for a headline! Tell me it ain't so!)
brewmama
New member
Can you back that up? I don't find anything of the kind.
I did find this:
"Philippe Verdier gets a Master II in Sustainable Development at the University of Paris-Dauphine [2] where he wrote a dissertation on the topic of climate change and the role of media"
I find him believable. Why don't you? And this is certainly not an isolated case. It's what cagwistas do.
"“I am simply someone who became convinced that the claims of certainty about the cause of the warming and the effect of the warming were tremendously and irresponsibly overblown,” he said in an exclusive interview Tuesday with The College Fix. “I am not someone who says there wasn’t warming and it doesn’t have an effect, I just cannot figure out why so many people believe that it is a catastrophic threat to our society and to Africa.”
For this belief – based in a decade’s worth of statistical research and analysis on climate change data – Rossiter was recently terminated as an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive Washington D.C. think tank."
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18034/
"News that Lennart Bengtsson, the respected former director of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, had joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), sent shockwaves through the climate research community. GWPF is most notable for its skepticism about climate change and its efforts to undermine the position of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The tremors his decision sent through the scientific community shocked Bengtsson.
The scientist said colleagues placed so much pressure on him after joining GWPF that he withdrew from the group out of fear for his own health. Bengtsson added that his treatment had been reminiscent of the persecution of suspected Communists in the United States during the era of McCarthyism in the 1950s."
http://www.spiegel.de/international...urrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html
gcthomas
New member
Sheesh. His dissertation was a media studies analysis of how the media covered climate change. It is not a science research paper.
Try here, if the first few hits of Google are beyond you:
Wikipedia:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Verdier
| Philippe Verdier, né le 23 mai 1968 à Neuilly-sur-Seine (Hauts-de-Seine)1, est un journaliste français de radio et de télévision, spécialisé dans la météorologie. |
You don't have to speak French to understand the part in bold.
Or perhaps his own vanity website, translated?
| Philippe Verdier, born May 23, 1968 in Neuilly-sur-Seine (Hauts-de-Seine), is a journalist-presenter weather. Graduated with a Masters II in Sustainable Development at the University of Paris-Dauphine, it is since 2011, weather presenter on France 2 and head of France Télévisions weather service. TV In 1994 he presents the weather in voiceover on The Fifth (Today France 5). In 1995, he became a journalist on the Weather Channel in full creation. He stayed there thirteen years and became the only journalist-permanent. In 2006, he joined BFMTV booming when it becomes weather presenter of the morning and head of the weather service. In 2011, he was called on France 2. In 2012, he became head of the Weather Service, where he began to make visual changes. In early 2014, it successfully launched the new offer weather France Télévisions with her friend Florence Klein (France 3). This redesign weather of France 2 and France 3 led to a modernization of processes and a 30% saving on providing weather data. |
Climatedepot.com most certainly misrepresented the journalists scientific non-credentials, if you believed that he was a scientist based on their coverage, don't you think?
brewmama
New member
Why do you think a degree in Sustainable Development is journalistic? As a cagwista I realize you deny the obvious, but come on. Have you read his book? What in it do you disagree with? Do you think it's OK that he be fired for speaking out against the political agenda of Global Warming?
gcthomas
New member
Look here: http://www.developpement-durable.dauphine.fr/en/courses/faculty-members.html
There are no scientists on the faculty.
Maybe less media studies and more sociology, but little practical difference.
brewmama
New member
So? My point stands that it is not journalistic. Why do you pick and choose so carefully who you will listen to? Bill Nye is not a scientist, yet is frequently used in CAGW arguments, as are many non-scientists (activists) used in the IPCC reports. Meanwhile actual scientists who speak out against CAGW are maligned and ignored by the likes of you, such as Patrick Moore, Lennert Bengtssen, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, William Happer, John Christy, etc, etc, ETC.
gcthomas
New member
Wikipedia is not a source to be used. Anyone can edit it.lain:
That's why I used it to find the guy's home page. Didn't you see that I quoted a big chunk of what he had written himself as supporting evidence? Or didn't you read that far?
gcthomas
New member
I didn't say the Masters was journalistic, so we agree there. It was a media study regarding climate change and was not remotely scientific given the title.
And Bill Nye has a Bachelor of Science degree, so you are wrong there as well. Not that I'd ever use a TV personality as a source. That is what you did, though, quoting a weather presenter as evidence.
brewmama
New member
But it's in mechanical engineering, not a pure science. But if that is what we are going to go by, then since I have a BS degree in chemistry, obviously everyone should listen to me.
When did I quote him? Do you mean mentioning his book? Have you read it? What are your disagreements with it? How about all the other questions I have asked you that have not been answered?
Great scene from a classic movie!
gcthomas
New member
Why don't you pick the best two arguments from this journalist/weather man's book, and I'll respond.
:idunno: You can wait outside his front door, too. :granite:
brewmama
New member
That's a cowardly and dishonest avoidance scheme, since I never mentioned his book in the first place until you did. Typical. But I can certainly give examples:
"In it, he also questioned the findings of leading climate scientists, and argued that France actually benefited from a number of advantages linked to a warming climate, such as better weather and improved grape harvests."
Both true. Climate scientists do not share their data and code, and use "homogenized" and manipulated temp data, that always gives a warm bias, and never show us the raw data. The surface temps do not match the satellite temps, which show no warming. Warm weather is much more conducive to better lives, more food, and generally is much better for life than cold periods.
The book claims that scientists, politicians and the environmental lobby had generated a "hype" around climate change that amounted to a "global scandal," and made the French unnecessarily fearful.
True again, the hype is over the top crazy. Scientists actually admit that they have to exaggerate and even lie in order to sway the public and get the political effects they and their benefactors want.
An example of how over the top the hype is
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/02/the-hilarious-legacy-of-last-chances-for-climate-exposed/
gcthomas
New member
You mentioned the man, and this is the only thing he published. What else could you have been referring to?
You are quoting a review of a quote where he accepts that warming is happening? Is that what you meant to do?
Satellite temperatures do show an increasing trend like the surface. If you doubt it, please quote from a recent source to the contrary. (Not a blogger, if you don't mind)
The AntiAGW birigade seem rather excitable and not adverse to a little hype, also.
"Exaggerate and lie"? Really? And you managed that without fabrication or excessive "paraphrasing". :think:
Anthony Watt, the conspiracy theorist who has no degree, let alone a relevant level of climate research experience. Yes - he is full of hype, as well as lots of other stuff. He gets his money from Fox, so it is in his interest to stoke a scientific 'controversy', even when there isn't one. He has conflicting interests and no suitable qualifications, so I'll pass on his assertions for now.
brewmama
New member
These posts.
We have been warming since the end of the little ice age, no one is denying that, but many scientists, with good reason, view that as a positive, not catastrophically negative. You don't even know what the other side is saying, do you?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2015_v6.png
Whatever that is supposed to mean. I'm merely speaking the truth.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/paper_its_ok_to_lie_about_climate_change.html
Obviously you didn't bother to read it, it's all your buddy scientists' fear-mongering predictions and scare tactics that have failed abysmally. Scientists own words, which are usually what is posted at WUWT, but of course you wouldn't know that because you prefer to remain in some insulated bubble, where you have no idea what arguments are made against the weak theories of cagwistas, or how their "evidence" is shown to be bunk.
So basically what you play at is not showing any evidence or counterargument, but merely slandering and mocking anyone who disagrees with your little pet theory. I get it.
Notice how you haven't been hearing much about climate change from the Republicans in the last few years? That's because it has become a real embarrassment to them mostly because of Exxon Mobil.
4-5 years ago Mobil was putting out television ads claiming the scientific data on climate change was flawed. Mobil is now being sued over it by several of these scientist.
Back then the Republicans kept giving one false reason after another why the earth was warming. Their biggest argument was that it was caused by changes in the sun.' So they put it to the test.
IF it were true that warming was caused by 'changes in the sun' then that would mean that the temperatures outside the earth's 'spheres' would also be warmer. Problem is they are actually COOLER. That's because greenhouse gases keep the heat in toward the earth. It doesn't escape as much as it use to.
The world has been studying climate change for almost 20 years now. All of the data acquired by the world's top scientist studying it from satellites, the space shuttle, the ISS, ETC. points to the fact that we ARE impacting the planet.
People can remain in denial for just so long, and then after a while their denial makes them look like an idiot. And this is what has happened to the Republicans over this issue and why they've been silent on the issue lately. They've been lying to Americans about it for two decades fabricating one reason after another why climate change is a hoax and it has finally caught up to them.
A little over one hundred years ago, there were very few smoke stacks. Very few cars and trucks. No jetliners. No asphalt roads or large paved parking lots. And not nearly the amount of rooftops as today. ALL these things create or hold heat. It's really a no brainer that we ARE affecting the planet.
4-5 years ago Mobil was putting out television ads claiming the scientific data on climate change was flawed. Mobil is now being sued over it by several of these scientist.
Back then the Republicans kept giving one false reason after another why the earth was warming. Their biggest argument was that it was caused by changes in the sun.' So they put it to the test.
IF it were true that warming was caused by 'changes in the sun' then that would mean that the temperatures outside the earth's 'spheres' would also be warmer. Problem is they are actually COOLER. That's because greenhouse gases keep the heat in toward the earth. It doesn't escape as much as it use to.
The world has been studying climate change for almost 20 years now. All of the data acquired by the world's top scientist studying it from satellites, the space shuttle, the ISS, ETC. points to the fact that we ARE impacting the planet.
People can remain in denial for just so long, and then after a while their denial makes them look like an idiot. And this is what has happened to the Republicans over this issue and why they've been silent on the issue lately. They've been lying to Americans about it for two decades fabricating one reason after another why climate change is a hoax and it has finally caught up to them.
A little over one hundred years ago, there were very few smoke stacks. Very few cars and trucks. No jetliners. No asphalt roads or large paved parking lots. And not nearly the amount of rooftops as today. ALL these things create or hold heat. It's really a no brainer that we ARE affecting the planet.
Last edited: