Back To The Dark Ages: Top French Weatherman Fired Over Climate Change Book

From: France 24, 1 November 2015 (h/t to The GWPF)
A popular weatherman announced Saturday evening he has been sacked by leading French news channel France Télévisions for publishing a book which accused top climate change experts of misleading the world about the threat of global warming.

Philippe Verdier, a household name in France for his daily weather reports on the France 2 channel, announced in an online video that he had received a letter of dismissal.

“My book ‘Climate Investigation’ was published one month ago. It got me banned from the air waves,” said the weatherman, who was put “on leave” from the TV station on October 12.

“I received this letter this morning and decided to open it in front of you because it concerns everybody- in the name of freedom of expression and freedom of information.”

His announcement comes four days after France Télévisions chief Delphine Ernotte told French MPs that Verdier had been summoned to a formal interview that could lead to his dismissal. An employee who picked up the phone at France Télévisions on Sunday morning told FRANCE 24 that there were no PRs present to confirm or deny Verdier’s dismissal.

‘Many positive consequences to global warming’
The controversy around Verdier’s claims has likely been heightened by their timing, with his book coming just weeks before the start of a much-anticipated UN climate change summit, known as COP21, to be held in Paris at the end of November.

“I put myself in the path of COP21, which is a bulldozer, and this is the result,” Verdier told RTL radio station in October.
He said he was inspired to write the book after France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius met with TV meteorologists and asked them to highlight climate change issues in their broadcasts.

“I was horrified by this speech,” Verdier told French magazine Les Inrockuptibles last month. In his book, Verdier accuses state-funded climate change scientists of having been “manipulated” and “politicised”, even accusing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of publishing deliberately misleading data.

He also argues that there are “a great many positive consequences to global warming”, such as lower consumption of fuel used for heating and fewer cold-related deaths in winter.

“I am being punished for exercising my freedom of expression,” the weatherman told RTL.

Advertisements

152 thoughts on “Back To The Dark Ages: Top French Weatherman Fired Over Climate Change Book

    • Worse, Greenland will be green again like in the Viking era when Vikings drove SUVs and oil tankers all over the northern hemisphere!

      • In science this would not happend. With Climategate and revealing support of “The Political Agenda” and then this there should no longer be any doubt. This is ideology with its politics, not science?

      • Jon:

        Good question! In the literature of global warming climatology, “science” is polysemic. It means: 1) demonstrable knowledge and 2) the process that is operated by people calling themselves “scientists.” Under meaning 1) climate “science” is not scientific for the claims of the climate models are not falsifiable. Under meaning 2) climate “science” is scientific for it is a process that is operated by people calling themselves “scientists.” That climate “science” is and is not scientific in the literature of global warming climatology violates the law of non-contradiction thus being illogical. That it is illogical can be described as a consequence of an application of the equivocation fallacy that is facilitated by the polysemic nature of “science” in the literature of global warming climatology.

        Several years ago a federal court found that CO2 emissions were an “endangerment.” Had the this court operated under the Daubert standard, this finding could not have been made.Thus, it seems to me that the endangerment finding is illegal

      • A quibble – the court did not find that CO2 was an “endangerment.” What they found was even worse. They upheld an “endangerment finding” that CO2 could be regulated under the law as a pollutant. No definition of pollutant could be stretched to mean a colorless and odorless gas, but courts will stretch meaning to arrive at a politically correct result. The law only allows pollution to be regulated, it is EPA that may determine endangerment.

      • Michael Gersh:
        FYI:
        My reference is to this “Endangerment Finding” ( http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/ ): “…current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.”

    • In that clip, the woman says “Almost every model we’ve built has been outpaced by the reality of warming” (starting at 1:17). We’re promised (?) an ice-free Arctic by 2020. About 2:20 Jones speaks of “all this ice melting”. Why would his job be in any danger because of this? After the global financial crisis, is “Iceland will benefit” going to warm British hearts?

  1. Climate Alarmist’s are getting extreme, in their efforts to silence dissenters. Their global agenda is at risk, and they’re fighting tooth and nail, to stop the truth from getting out! No different than what the Nazi’s did, to silence their population. Horrific.

    • Absolutely right. If they could argue their corner they’d do so and obliterate sceptical arguments…but they can’t. In fact they go out of their way NOT to debate in any way. Wonder why?

      • 1957
        In fairness our Warmist Believer-Brothers have not – yet – rounded up folk, never mind imposed a badge on them.
        Some, I gather, say they would like to do so . . . .
        How much of that is showing off – my rebuttal [I nearly typed ‘s#!u+*!n’, but thought of the connotations] is grislier than yours . . . .?
        A lot, I’m sure.
        All? I don’t know. A worry.

        But – if ever the – ah – less compassionate amongst them were ever given Supreme Power . . .

        And EVERY sceptic [or whatever, realist, sense-sniffer – you name them/us . . .] would do no more than invite Warmists over for coffee, when there’s a foot of snow on the ground.
        Of course.
        Yeah – right.
        But I think realists are a bit less vindictive than the Believerdom.
        Let us try to keep it so.

        Auto

    • Climate Alarmist’s are getting extreme, in their efforts to silence dissenters. Their global agenda is at risk, and they’re fighting tooth and nail, to stop the truth from getting out! No different than what the Nazi’s did, to silence their population. Horrific.

      Almost as horrific as your abuse of apostrophes. Oh the grammanity!

      ;)

    • “(Phew! That was a close one. I guess I can keep my job now?)”

      Well, Larry, if you also throw in three “Hail Gaias” and stuff $10 in the Greenpeace alms box then you should be good to go.

      P.S. You don’t have to get rid of your car or stop travelling or anything if you’re a true believer. You gain CO2 absolution by public declarations of your CAGW faith.

      • Actually, it depends on the car. Detroit muscle – your still going to burn; But a Prius or Leaf?, ah nirvana is yours.

      • Actually, I wish nirvana on all the members of the escathological cargo cult of the cagw. I understand the meaning these days has changed in the west, but the original Buddhist meaning is “extinguishment” since you were never again to be reborn. So, within the original meaning, I wish them a happy nirvana. Cease to exist and do not come back.

      • Become a leader of the CAGW movement, and even Detroit muscle cars will be forgiven.
        If it’s no big deal to fly all over the world in private jets, why should an SUV or two make any difference?

      • H.R. November 2, 2015 at 8:am

        “You gain CO2 absolution by public declarations of your CAGW faith.”

        Yes, for obvious reasons Thought Controlists value what you *say* over any other characteristic which might contradict their other “values” and judgments. They want to train your mind.

  2. The whole of NASA needs to be fired because they published a report about increased Antarctic ice volume and extent LOL

    • Well – at least the national main-stream media is being compliant in not passing that news to the broad electorate. We don’t want them to find out, would we – especially since they’re still staying up nights worrying about the end of life as we knew it from the “irreversible and imminent collapse of the WAIS.”

      • Gary, you’ve got to admit it would be interesting to see the response of “the broad electorate” to the new though? I’d be tempted to give odds NASA might be soundly panned for breaking faith with the religion.

      • It’s also worth noting that NASA’s funding is controlled by none other than Joe Biden, who believes climate “deniers” should be lined up against a wall and shot for crimes against humanity. Notifying the general population one of the direst predictions of the AGW sect is pure hooey may not be in the best interests of the agency…

      • ” Joe Biden, who believes climate “deniers” should be lined up against a wall and shot for crimes against humanity. ”

        I think that’s over the top rhetoric, you need to back up that claim with a citation. I don’t believe you.

      • ” Joe Biden, who believes climate “deniers” should be lined up against a wall and shot for crimes against humanity. ”

        I think that’s over the top rhetoric, you need to back up that claim with a citation. I don’t believe you.
        —————–

        It was James Hansen not Joe Biden who said in “Global Warming Twenty Years Later” he believed “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

        Under International Law, “High Crimes Against Humanity” are punishable by death.

        Sorry for the unconscious association of Biden, who directs NASA, and Hansen, who reported to the VP of the US as Directory of Goddard. Biden is also a particularly vocal proponent of AGW & Climate Change and has likened those who are skeptical of the theory to people who don’t believe in gravity, though I can’t find a reference to him openly backing Hansen’s call to execute people for it.

    • Agreed, but not for the reasons you suggest :)

      I, for one, have never believed in NASA’s overreach into “Earth Studies” under Hansen; NASA has never had the charter for those activities and if it hadn’t been for the unholy relationship between Hansen and Gore it never would have. NASA needs it’s pee-pee whacked soundly for misappropriation of funds and told to get back to the job described by their charter post haste. I’m certain NOAA will be happy to receive the contents of their ill gotten gains.

      I’ve personally engaged in quite a few joint ventures between NASA and NOAA. Back in the 60’s and 70’s the division of labor and responsibilities were clear; NOAA designed the experiments, collected the data, analyzed it and published the results. NASA operated the aircraft and spacecraft. It worked well. Then came Hansen…

  3. And to boot he is no climate skeptic, he even wants more and faster… His sin? Dare to show the profiteers behind the COP 21

  4. Verdier should set up a stall in the lobby of the convention hotel and have his book on sale there. That would ruffle quite a few feathers.
    Perhaps he and Lord Monckton could get together and plot something disruptive.

  5. He’s an unperson, and was doubleplusungood obviously. What do Meteorologists know about weather and climate anyway?

    • Daniel Schneidermann, a media analyst and critic, who pretends to find and denounce media manipulations for a living, said that Verdier wrote a “non book”.

      Kollaboration spirit still exists in f-rance.

      • Oh, the irony:

        En 2003, (Daniel Schneidermann) critique ouvertement sa direction dans son livre Le Cauchemar médiatique. Suite au livre de Pierre Péan, La Face cachée du Monde, Schneidermann estime que la réaction de son quotidien est mauvaise et que ce dernier n’a pas répondu aux arguments avancés par le journaliste. Dès octobre, il est licencié pour cet affront. Le comportement du journaliste est jugé « attentatoire à l’entreprise pour laquelle il travaille », une « cause réelle et sérieuse » pour sa direction. Il poursuivra celle-ci aux prud’hommes et gagnera son procès en mai 2005, confirmé en appel en mars 2007.

        http://www.ojim.fr/portraits/daniel-schneidermann/

        Schneidermann was working at Le Monde and he criticized the lacking response of the criticism by Péan of the newspaper. Schneidermann was fired by his (private) employer for giving his opinion.

        And now Schneidermann practically sh*t on Verdier.

        LOL

        (Schneidermann won the trial against his former employer, who then “a fait appel” (“appealed”) (*) and won again.)

        (*) un appel is a second trial in France, not an “appeal” (judicial review in the US), which is called “cassation” in France

  6. It is actually good news for “deniers” when public figures are fired for questioning predictions of climate doom made by people with science degrees, on the public dole, who waste the taxpayer’s money playing computer games.

    “Climate change” has little to do with science — the “science” has been bought and paid for by governments who want a “crisis” to “fight” … through the expansion of government power.
    .
    To show they are really nice people inside, in spite of their quest for power to tell everyone else how to live, leftists have created a completely artificial “crisis” no one can see or feel (the climate is better than it has been in at least 500 years**) that will hurt no one.

    Leftists know a “crisis” does not have to be real to scare people.

    You just need enough people to believe in it !

    They learned their strategy to control people from religious leaders who control people by promising punishment or rewards after their death, based on how they have led their lives — I think their claims are nonsense too (I am an equal-opportunity offender, who doesn’t believe in fairy tales)

    Some people in the world believe in free speech.

    Not leftists … but others do.

    Public exhibitions by leftists stifling free speech make it more obvious how often leftists lie*** and how the ONLY way they can defend their lies is by character attacks, and other ways of stifling dissent … such as firing a well known weatherman.

    FOOTNOTES:
    ** Todays climate is slightly warmer, and we have more CO2 in the air than at any time in the past 500 years — that is good news for humans and green plants — give me more of that !

    *** The primary lies are the bogus ‘97% of scientists agree’ survey, and the Mann hockey stick chart.

    Climate change blog for non-scientists
    No ads
    No money for me
    A public service
    And I even have links to climate centerfolds,
    showing how to dress to compensate for global warming,
    for those who prefer pictures !

    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

    • Richard Greene:

      A distinction should be made between “projection” and “prediction” for the latter is a kind of proposition but not the former. That a prediction is a kind of proposition ties a model that makes predictions to logic. That a projectio” is not a kind of proposition divorces a model that makes projections from logic. Governmental attempts at regulating our climate are based entirely upon “projections.”

      • The politicians use climate projections as climate predictions.

        “predictions” are what ordinary people think they are hearing.

        Not that the terminology really matters: After 40 years of inaccurate projections it’s obvious climate modelers don’t understand the physics of climate change.

        Climate models are not data.
        With no data, there is no science.
        So climate modelers are climate astrologists, not scientists.

        It’s actually a Global Climate Model simulation(s) projecting the future average temperature.

        As if anyone should care about the average temperature.

        The projection(s) are used by politicians as predictions of doom to scare people … because scared people are more easily controlled.

        The IPCC Summary Report is a political document where the summary can be changed without regard for the back-up (which always gets released with a long delay so no one can check the Summary when it is first published heh, heh) … and then scientists are pressured to re-write the backup.

        Not that it matters, no one in the press will ever read beyond the IPCC press releases.

      • Richard Greene:

        Thank you for taking the time to respond. I agree with you when you say that “the politicians use climate projections as climate predictions” and that “predictions” are what ordinary people think they are hearing. Rather than join the politicians and ordinary people in error we should insist that both groups join us in observing the important distinction between a “prediction” and a “projection” for a model that makes “predictions” is bound by logic in drawing conclusions from arguments while a model that makes “projections” is not. If we fail to do so, the forces for good are sure to lose the policy debate under unopposed applications of the equivocation fallacy by the forces for evil.

    • Germany is the biggest pusher of global warming but lo and behold, the average German now is facing annihilation with over a million illegal aliens from the Middle East pouring in.

    • Actually a number of leftists do believe in free speech. Remember the mantra: Not evil, just wrong. The majority of liberals genuinely believe in what they say they do, with a goal of helping others. The ideas might not work, but that doesn’t make them evil. Our biggest allies in this are journalists. They almost universally believe what they preach, and they are the most appalled by quelching of free speech

      However, I will agree with you on one case. The hard crushing of dissent is probably the most foolish thing the alarmists can do, especially against a man of undeniable credentials. A man crying in the wilderness is a madman. A man who is shot down for speaking out had something to say worth silencing. We can very much use the Streisand effect to our purposes. I just wish it had not come at such personal cost to M. Verdier

      • I accept the idea that people don’t usually check “scientific” “findings” (= hyped conclusions of advocacy pieces written in vaguely sciency language) and believe the conclusions.

        I accept the idea that people don’t want to invest time to analyse (ostensively) subtle issues (which are actually understandable by a 10 years old, but there is web of lies (fog of war?) which makes it harder to establish the relevant facts).

        I don’t accept the idea that people accept

        – widely contracting verdicts (minimize exposure to allergens, maximize exposure to allergens, baby on back-front-side, flu vaccine cannot possibly cause autoimmune disorders, flu vaccine sometimes causes debilitating autoimmune disorders…)

        – different or crazy “epistemology” (disease after a vaccine is not a side effect of a vaccine, correlation is not causation, decrease of an disease in population after mass vaccination is a success of the vaccine, correlation is causation because well because – or else you will have variole!!! do you want to have variole?) (ever noticed that vaccinophiles usually use threats of non delivery of essential medical treatments as arguments? how come they don’t get DSM-ed? vaccinophiles are bullies, at best)

        – different analysis of the exact same data (the pause is explained, by Atlantic ocean, by Pacific ocean, oops there is no pause)

        – homosexuallity is DSM material, oops, is not (where is the new data? if there is none, the whole classification was fraudulent from the get go)

        and still accept the conclusions as sciency.

        See something, say something.

        See contradicting claims, say there is an issue.

        See unsubstantiated claim, say you want evidence.

        It is not limited to climate. The biomed field is as obviously corrupt, and yet many climate realist from the “right”, “pro-business” (more like pro-mafia) will defend medical pseudoscience.

        The “pro trade”, “conservatives”, “libertarians” will be credible on climate when they’ll say something about the patently obvious (to any 8 years old) failures and of Big Medicine (no, attacks on Big Pharma but not on medical doctors score no points – without doctors Big Pharma is like Big Magical Beans: expensive stuff nobody will buy) (and Big Patients is a thing too: too many people are willing to be not-guinea pigs, but medical rats (nobody cares what happened to rats who died after being vaccinated))

        Get people off their comfort zone. Tell them they are less than “guinea pigs”.

        Then they’ll appear principled.

        Risk infuriating everyone (conservatives, liberals, libertarians). Track sceptics who mock homeopathy and stay quite about unproven vaccines (or who don’t even know how vaccines are evaluated).

        Make no unholy pacts. You don’t need Joseph to beat Adolf. You are not fighting with tanks, but with words.

        Your ennemis are your strength. More inepts opponents makes you stronger.

        And no, there is not a thing in my comment which is off topic here. This is about Resistance.

        Warning: applying real skepticism will get you libeled (“troll”, “conspiracy somethin”) then banned from 97% of forums – established fact.

        Small children are afraid of the world, want their parents (mostly the mother) to protect them.

        Many academics are terrified of Nature, want their “peers” (sometimes people in completely distinct fields with different methods), the “community” to protect them.

        Don’t expect them to easily abandon their “peers”, it’s like a mother.

      • I don’t see many “journalists” speaking out against the suppression of free speech.
        When I look around the world, what I see are liberals pushing for the banning of any speech that upsets them. From “speech codes” that ban any conservative ideas at colleges, to professors giving failing grades to anyone who fails to parrot the party line, to individuals being fired because they supported the wrong ballot initiative or spoke out in favor of politically incorrect ideas.
        I do not seen liberals fighting against any of these things. What I do see are liberals who demand more of them.

      • simple-touriste: I’m pretty sure I disagree with you. But for the life of me, I can’t figure out what you said.

      • @MarkW
        Have you noticed the pseudo-scientific “consensus” claims of biomedicine?
        Have you spoken out?

        Are you afraid of being labeled conspiracy theorist, antivax, anti-science?
        Are you afraid of being banned by “skeptic” websites for speaking out?

        It is also almost impossible to not be banned by most “rationalist” and “skeptic” forums for being rational and skeptical.

      • “See something, say something.”

        IOW, someone has to react, speak out, and that person sometimes needs to be you.

        Free healthcare isn’t free, it’s socialised. It doesn’t work when everybody refuses to pay for it. State spending tends to grow faster when people believe that “rich” people (people even more wealthy than the local “poor”) will pay for these.

        Science doesn’t work when nobody verifies findings and tries to replicate experiments. But everybody counts on other to replicate findings.

        The system doesn’t work when it runs out of “others” to check stuff and keep people honest. Then there is no penalty for cheating because nobody gets caught.

        In the end, the findings become so lame and patently contradicting that the general public, with zero specialised knowledge, see through the web of “scientific findings” (= plain lies + sciency talking points). The more the failings are plain to see, the more the providers of “scientific findings” (= paid communicator = respected con artist) make definitive (claiming zero uncertainty) and precise statements.

        The price of speaking out is insults or bans in “science” blogs, “rational” blogs, “skeptics” blogs (a trivial price as these websites are usually very unhealthy). And your “pro-science” (pro-“consensus”) “atheists” (ostensibly anti-faith types with a faith in “consensus”) friends might look down on you (like some religious types look down on the “meaningless” life of non-believers).

    • Richard Greene,

      “They learned their strategy to control people from religious leaders who control people by promising punishment or rewards after their death, based on how they have led their lives — I think their claims are nonsense too (I am an equal-opportunity offender, who doesn’t believe in fairy tales)”

      I wouldn’t be too sure about that not believing in fairly tales part, if I were you. It seems to me that you actually believe that “religious leaders” can only be people who really believe what some Religion teaches/preaches, and that is just a fairy tale to me.

      The “trick” of this intentionally fostered (I believe) fairy tale depends on the “tricked” not thinking through the ramifications of belief in a God who requires/demands that believers acknowledge their belief. Consider please;

      If a man tells me he does not believe in such a God, I see no logical reason to doubt him, because if he did believe in such a God, he would be risking “damnation” in some sense, in his own mind.

      If a man tells me he does believe in such a God, I see no such logical reason not to doubt him, for if he is lying, he risks no such damnation in his own mind.

      The opposite “logic” seems to dominate many atheists approach to this matter, and they ascribe belief without critical thought, to any who ever claimed to be believers, and then accuse the “Religion” of having led to this and that terrible thing, when the truth might be just the opposite;non-believers doing terrible things.

      I think the “trick” works because many atheists are gullible, in the sense that they think they have somehow immunized themselves from self-deception, through “incantations”; like “I don’t believe in fairy tales”.

      You can’t possibly know they’re all fairy tales, because you have no God who could verify that belief, I/you say. It’s just your imagination therefore, by definition.

  7. Brave man.
    Whether anyone agrees with his views …or not, he stood up for his right to free speech.
    Taking his job and career for free speech is the same as the assassination of Charlie Hebdo staff.
    We are certainly in the Dark Ages mandated by the elite queens and kings..
    .
    Someday, people will remember power comes from the individual and is gifted to the gov.
    The gov does NOT grant to us.

    • sort of. Except Verdier wasn’t shot whereas Chinese tank guys (the civilian and the soldier that didn’t simply disposed of him) disappeared forever …

  8. Long live the principles of the French Revolution, eh France? Or as you French say, “Vive le Revolution!”.

    • Which principles of la Révolution?
      Cutting heads?
      Killing of scientists?
      Attempted genocide?

      • @simple-touriste. Associating French Revolution principles with Mr. Verdier’s situation was probably premature. Please see my reply to richardscourtney below. Thanks.

  9. Thanks, Anthony.
    Yes, back to the dark and cold ages of energy poverty is where the alarmists want to send the planet Earth and all its carbon-based creatures.
    They consider Mr. Verdier a heretic, he’s lucky to have escaped burning alive, so far.
    This climate madness is very destructive, when will it end?

  10. Just to be clear, “Free speech” does not mean “no consequences.” While I abhor the result of the publishing of his book, probably even in France an employer can axe an employee if he fails to tow the company line.

    • Nonsense.

      Freedom of speech means just that: no such consequences.

      There is no “company line”.

      IT IS PUBLIC TELEVISION. THE REAL EMPLOYER IS THE PEOPLE.

      (Sorry, I don’t usually SHOUT, but this is TOO MUCH.)

      • @ Touriste, could not agree more, in North Am the PBS has become the mouth piece for the left. as has the BBC in Britain, the CBC and CTV in Canada, ABC in Australia, all on the taxpayers dime, unbelievable

    • I doubt a weatherman was prohibited from writing a book about the weather and climate in his employment contract. I suspect he has good grounds for a lawsuit. If his book is factual and well referenced – not an attack piece on his TV station – he is very likely to win, as well.

      • There is as much certainty that he will win as there is that you cannot run a developed country on solar and wind only.

        This is not a risk the employer is taking, as deluded as they can be, they know they will lose.

        France Télé loses a lot of lawsuits from employees, someone said they pay 20 millions per year for such lawsuits (or something like that, don’t quote me).

        State owned employers are terrible employers, they frequently break the law, and often very plainly (see also La Poste).

      • Not only do they lose a lot of lawsuits, they don’t care. It’s not like they are losing their own money.
        As far as politicians are concerned, there is an infinite amount of taxpayer money out there for them to spend, however they will.

    • Wrt free speech: if someone is offended by it, sue!

      Was this climate skeptic sued, tried and convicted? Nope.

      So, he is silenced by the powers that be. This is tiranny, not justice,

      The next step will be climate inspired roundups of skeptics.
      The signs are already there: it has already been proposed.
      Then the Green Khmer can start to reign without resistance.
      The new Dark Ages will start shortly after that.

      Please let this not come true. See you in Paris to protest at the COP21!

  11. COP-21 hasn’t yet happened and already there’s the fallout dictating adherence to desired results.

    Perhaps the partygoers will more enjoy the obscurity of COP-22 in Marrakech, Morocco.

    On a much more positive note, WUWT is rapidly approaching the quarter billion mark for views.

    • Desired results? COP-21 is all about a redistribution of wealth, based on lame excuses. The excuses have been finalized in backroom deals and only have to be formally endorsed.

  12. As far as I know this channel is not a government outlet, thus they have the perfect right to sack any employee they believe is espousing unpopular views. “Bad for ratings” is all the excuse they need.

      • CD153:

        You say

        So seeing this happen to him is particularly disturbing if the principles of the French Revolution still mean anything in France. Apparently the liberty to speak one’s mind has been trumped by the poiticial expediency of climate alarmism.

        The “liberty to speak one’s mind” never was a principle of the French Revolution. Indeed, it is not easy to “speak one’s mind” after being decapitated by a guillotine operated by the revolutionaries.

        Richard

      • @richardscourtney. After giving it some thought, you are no doubt right Richard. If I recall my world history courses from college correctly, the concept of “liberty” at the time of the revolution was probably referring to freedom from the wealthy French nobility and ruling classes who were foisting excess taxation and misery on the lower classes and creating gross social inequality among the classes. Which is why the wealthy nobility and ruling classes were sent to the guillotine. I was no doubt premature to associate the principles of the French Revolution with Mr. Verdier’s situation.

        Today however, we are supposed to have a more enlightened France where liberty arguably should include respect for human rights, including of course freedom of speech and thought. And that is what makes Mr. Verdier’s treatment tragic.

      • CD153:

        Yes, you put it well and better than my succinct response to your earlier comment.

        It is “tragic” indeed.

        Richard

      • If you wish to learn something about the French Revolution, its causes, and the myriad ‘governments’ which operated during that mad and cruel period, read Simon Schama’s ‘Citizens’.

        Like the current climate alarmism, that cataclysmic event has a great many lessons for us all about the madness of crowds and the calamities attendant on extremism, fanaticism, propaganda, and self-deception.

    • this channel IS a government outlet. It is supposed to “respect democratic principles recognized by the constitution” (which include free speech, of course) and “ensure honesty, independence et pluralism of information, and also pluralist expression of various ways of thinking”.
      This of course do NOT allow sacking for dissenting opinion expressed outside.

      They indeed could sack the weatherman for any excuse. They just (wrongly) assumed that they could do it in plain light.

    • “Bad for ratings”
      In the world of topsy turvy arguing the ratings would be negatively affected may be a provable false argument. Because of the extra publicity of the book ratings could easily increase had Verdier remained as weather broadcaster, being controversial is always good for ratings.

  13. When his views have found be undeniably correct in future, I hope many people involved in these situations sue them for millions. We must not let religion based agenda on shoddy science dictate peoples lives just for expressing a view different to anybody else. The more environmentalists that know so little about the science get involve in higher positions will only cause it to become worse before it gets any better. There is hardly a better case than this one highlighting if you don’t support alarmist non-scientific views then you will get the sack. When policy agenda with such uncertainty decides the employment of those involved increasingly becomes group-think.

  14. Ruthlessly silencing dissent has always been the recourse of governments when the truth and facts are not on their side. Senator Whitehouse and the RICO20 request to use Federal criminal prosecution is the clearest example in the US.

  15. Apparently, the idea of sacking him comes from a union delegate (syndicat des journalistes?).

    But FO (Force Ouvrière) defended him.

    Many journalists (some not affiliated to France Tele in any way) are pretty vocal about how fine they think this is.

    • I really hope this is making a huge stink in France.
      Maybe it will cause a few people to examine the facts for a change

      • After the “mur des cons” affair, the “syndicat des journalistes” of France 3 attacked the journalist who filmed the “mur des cons”, and Reporters sans frontières (Reporters without borders) refused to defend him.

        I have not detected a strong backlash against RSF.

        French frogs are well cooked.

  16. Philippe Verdier. the puppet, is dead. Long live Philippe Verdier. the free man!!!!
    Philippe Verdier. la marionnette, est mort. Vive Philippe Verdier. l’homme libre!!!!
    (Do the French use the word marionnette as a metaphor like we use puppet? I assume that it’s pretty universal.)
    Anyway, I’m pretty sure that he will have no significant cash flow problems.
    He’s hit the publicity big-time as an independent thinker a.k.a. skeptic.
    Skepticism is going to be a growth industry in the next century. I reckon.
    Mainly because thinking, finding things out for yourself and questioning political narratives and the media – IS SO MUCH MORE FUN – than having bulk chicken feed shoved down your throat, like a french goose.

    • Yep that’s what we have – democrisy.
      It’s a cross between democracy and hypocrisy. :)

    • French election = choosing between officially socialist party and closet socialist party

      All mainstream parties are socialist, New Labour-like, or US Democrats-like. There is no US Republican party in France, except if you define Republican as “no gay marriage” and claiming there are too much taxes and inventing many more.

      NKM (Les républicains), former communication sub-minister, former environnement sub-minister, says climato-sceptics are “connards”. (And Nicolas Sarkozy seems fine with that.)

      Among the well known parties, FN (Front National) is the only climate skeptic party. FN is “extreme-right” (with a folklore of bare skins groups, pro-kollabo groups, and regrets of Pétain), anti-immigration, anti-free trade, “nationalist”, anti-European union, anti-corporations, pro-state planification, De Gaulle worship (yes, this doesn’t go well with Pétain love), socialist party (pro-nation-wide social security), with a love of nationalisation of “strategic assets” (what is not strategic for “nationalists”? candy fabrication perhaps)

      People who fight for their right of choice of a medical insurance (*) are harassed by French Justice (French Justice doesn’t like to apply all European laws (called “directives”) until Europe force it to).

      (*) Europe recognise this right in countries that don’t have a “legal”, ie. national, unique, medical insurance as UK, but European Commission claims this right doesn’t exist

      In French medias, UKIP is “extreme right” and “nationalist”. For French “journalists”: UKIP = FN (pro-free trade = anti-free trade)

  17. I am fairly certain that France Televisions is a state-owned TV station, similar to our BBC, full of holier than thou, finger wagging lefties. I hope he makes a lot of profit from his book, with the Streisand effect behind him that does seem likely.
    I am afraid that this is nothing new, David Bellamy (a household name in the UK in the 70′ 80’s and 90’s) who worked at the BBC presenting wildlife documentaries, suffered the same fate when he also said that AGW was a fiction in the early 00’s.

    • “I am fairly certain …”
      It is indeed. In much worse, even though you would find it hard to believe (“impossible n’est pas français”)

    • Bellamy had the advantage that he was past 70 and could retire. Philippe Verdier has the problem of making a living. Once again we see why most skeptics are near the end of their careers. This really is vile.

  18. As long as alarmists vilify skeptics, then the alarmists can go on with their normal cushy lifestyles and not feel guilty about heating their homes, using electricity, driving cars, flying on planes.

  19. These high profile cases are really helping ordinary people to grasp the process of “consensus formation”.
    In which a group of people prematurely decide that they have the right to impose a consensus view, based on the assumption that it is a majority consensus – and then use that assumption to justify the removal or obstruction or defamation of all people who hold alternative views.
    And by doing this they can to some extent create the impression that there really was some sort of consensus – for what it’s worth.
    It has worked in many areas of science and politics, certainly.
    BUT – if people widely see that the purported consensus has been constructed in this manner, then they will cease to trust it.
    Certainly when they discover that making simple factual statements can put a person in jeopardy, then they will recognize this as a form of persecution. Which it is.
    Free thinking reasonable people are now a persecuted minority.
    Which should be seen to be a shocking state of affairs.
    Of course, it is only the same situation as people living under the Inquisition or under the Third Reich, but this time – it’s global AND it’s in the name of Science.
    There’s a first time for everything.

      • Strictly, I suppose that a consensus is a consensus, however it is formed.
        Watching the burning of heretics in Geneva, a commentator from the time explained that he asked (his father, I think) “why does nobody stand up and speak out against this”.
        He received the reply, “then they would be next for the fire”.
        Or something along those lines.
        I should see if I can find that piece of writing.

  20. I have been following the climate debate for the last few years and saw it gradually deteriorating into a clash of “skeptical reason” vs. mindless fanaticism. But I have never expected it to get that ugly, in France of all places, the nation that is rightly proud of its tradition of “skeptical reason” and regards it as as its intellectual hallmark.
    Jaroslaw Sobieski, Hampton, VA.

    • Quite so! Voltaire must rotate heavily in his grave now! Todays french philosophers and journalists should be deeply ashamed if they don’t defend the freedom of speech anymore!

      Here are some fitting quotes by Voltaire for this scandal:

      “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”

      “Prejudice is an opinion without judgement.”

      “Common sense is not so common.”

      “What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly — that is the first law of nature.”

      And last but not least:

      “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

      (The latter is often misattributed to Voltaire himself but is in reality from his biographer S. G. Tallentyre as a justified illustration of Voltaire’s beliefs.)

  21. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    ‘The media and political class now consider the [climate change industry] they’ve built as so potentially explosive that the naked flame of free speech must be doused. And since the truth hurts most, it will not be protected.’

    *A.Bolt ref.

  22. It’s no wonder he was sacked. How dare he use true science to refute the Scripture of Climate Science. Such heresy is unforgivable.

  23. “He said he was inspired to write the book after France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius met with TV meteorologists and asked them to highlight climate change issues in their broadcasts” Does anyone else wonder more about that meeting? I certainly do and wonder how many such meetings have happened over the past decade or so…..

  24. So much for “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”. Je suis Philippe Verdier, Je suis Charlie Hebdo.

    • France Télévisions is the broadcaster of: France 2, France 3, France 4, France 5, France O (DVB-T channels) and Pluzz (replay TV)

      French audiovisual public sector:

      TV:

      – France Télévisions (5 DVB-T channels)
      – Arte (French/German “cultural” channel) (bilingual DVB-T)
      – “TV 5 Monde” (mostly reruns of France Télé) (sat/cable)
      – “France 24” (continuous information “BBC international” style) (sat/cable)

      radio:

      – Radio-France: FIP, France Bleu, France Culture, France Info, France Inter (or France Sphincter), France Musique, Mouv’ (the radio for the young)…
      – RFI (Radio-France International)

      I may have forgotten some stuff.

      I believe China has a larger public sector TV/radio. So France public sector isn’t so bloated, (compared to the average communist country with >1 billion people).

      • And I forgot LCP/AN (La chaîne parlementaire/Assemblée nationale)-Public sénat which covers the “work” of politicians in the parliament, their empty talking points, and broadcasts the usual anti-capitalist anti-free trade propaganda.

        Actually, there are two separate production teams:
        – LCP/AN
        – Public sénat
        sharing one DVB-T channel.

        Total:
        – LCP/AN-Public sénat: shared DVB-T channel
        – LCP/AN: sat/cable channel
        – Public sénat: sat/cable channel

        So there are I think 6 TV diffusion group: France Télé, TV 5 Monde, France 24, LCP-AN, Public sénat, Arte (with a total of 7 DVB-T channels and 5 sat/cable/DSL only channels)

      • There is the private TF1 (channel 1). Owned by Bouygues, the house builder. Subcontractor of Areva for the building of the EPR (Evolutionary Pressurised Reactor). Avera, owned by CEA, owned by the State.

        Very independant channel … or not.

        The owner of M6 was Suez, the energy and water company.

    • I think a new petition should be started which states the anti freedom of speech in French news media in clear terms. I wish I knew how to do this. I signed the first petition, posted it on my social media and got no responses. Is freedom of speech that passe? (to use a french term)? Somehow the word has got to get out, and I wish I knew how to do it. When will 60 Minutes (USA) do a story on this? – never. I guess “Freedom of Speech” is dead.
      This whole thing is an outrage. I stand with Philippe Verdier.

    • Many people applaud loudly. Even journalists. Especially journalists.

      Pretty much everyone misrepresents Verdier’s position.

      The mainstream press doesn’t react much, except the conservative-backward-liberal-progressive-rightish-leftish-traditional-ecoloon (does anyone understand the official line of this newspaper?) “Le Figaro”.

      The “man of the street” is more worried about the tax increases – up to 15000% for unconstructed terrains.

  25. What if Northern Europe is very cold this winter as a result of the El Niño and then stays cold in 2016 as the ADO shifts combined with decreased solar output. The entire AGW premise is based on the recent CO2 rise co-incident with rising temps from the last LIA. If temps fall then CO2 phobia might wane and CO2 appropriation rise.

  26. I guess there is no weatherman union in France. If the farmers union said the same thing in a book release there would be no firing of anyone.

  27. I don’t think his job contract prohibited publication or prescribed content or ordained preliminary censorship by the employer.

    If so, he should go to court and a legal defense fund has to be be established ASAP to cover expenses.

      • Berényi writes “It’s called Minitrue.”

        In another time, when I felt more secure, I would laugh at them with you Berényi, but nowadays the laughter sticks in my throat and sours my stomach.

  28. From: France 24, 1 November 2015 (h/t to The GWPF)

    A popular weatherman announced Saturday evening he has been sacked by leading French news channel France Télévisions for publishing a book which accused top climate change experts of misleading the world about the threat of global warming.

    The title of the WUWT post mentions the possibility of going “Back To The Dark Ages”.

    I think a dark age, one that is precipitated by intolerance from AGW hypothesis’s purposeful exaggeration and from the IPCC’s irrational endorsement of pseudo-science, would be a forward to the dark ages of the kind that was outlined in Isaac Asimov’s far in the future based “Foundation” trilogy. I think it won’t be back to a dark ages like occurred from the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

    John

    • And so ends ”Siècle des Lumières” . The French in particular were so proud of it, now they let it pass before their eyes without comment. In their defense, the Germans, Italians, British and Americans are no better.

  29. quote: “„I am being punished for exercising my freedom
    of expression,” the weatherman told RTL.“

    Lol, RTL germany wouldn’t let him say this…

  30. http://www.europe1.fr/medias-tele/le-presentateur-philippe-verdier-evince-par-lelysee-tout-a-fait-possible-2530089

    A la question de savoir si son éviction est la conséquence d’une intervention de l’Elysée, Philippe Verdier répond que “c’est tout à fait possible”. Mais Philippe Verdier martèle son point de vue : “On sait très bien que cette conférence ne va pas aboutir au prolongement du protocole de Kyoto et qu’elle ne sert à rien”.

    If I correctly read this section reported from the interview, Mr. Verdier thinks that the decision may have been iimposed from the top levels of the current government. Correct me if I mis-read it.

    • When asked if his eviction was the result of an intervention of the Elisée (*), Philippe Verdier said “it is absolutely possible”. Philippe Verdier repeats that “We know very well that the conference will not result in the extension of the Kyoto protocol and it serves no real purpose.

      (*) President or presidential team

    • Actually it’s not what HE thinks, it is what the interviewer hints at. With some reasons, as It is common knowledge that such decision needs at least approval from the top levels of the government. It cannot be proven, though, and would most certainly be denied or “no commented”, since officially franceTV is independent.

  31. Is it now time for a mass Anders-Behring-Brievik type effort against this peecee aristo class?

    Probably not yet. I’d say we armchair enthusiasts for slaughtering them all will just have to wait until the hoi polloi discover there’s none of that leftard Marie-Antoinette state cake left — that they’ve finally eaten every last f##king crumb.

    Until then, nous chompons!

    Hey, here’s a Moral Maze* question for you:

    Say you’ve just overheard a bunch of the aforementioned ABB types planning a schedule of quick visits to that state television station, the COP21 summit and a few other similarly worthy venues.

    Do you carry on reading the menu or dash off to the bookies to place a few bets so that when the time comes you can celebrate in style for free? :)

    * Revolting beeboid production.

  32. Expect more of this. Neither the constitution of the EU nor the UN have a bill of rights which in the minds of bureaucrats trumps national constitutions in sticky situations.

  33. Maybe they fired him for being one of those wild-eyed conspiracy theorists. He did say that there was a conspiracy to silence AGW critics. I mean, what other choice did they have, right?

    • Yes, obviously, they needed to fire him to try to silence him for daring to say that critics and skeptics are silenced.

  34. You know the old saying – every cloud has a silver lining.

    One consequence of this atrocity is that many millions of French people will, at the very least, become aware that there is another side to the story. Perhaps a few millions will start to inform themselves. Who knows where it could lead?

  35. “They regarded protest merely as dissent to be suppressed, not as a serious challenge to their validity.” This policy “…left unanswered the cry for reform, ignored all protests, warnings and signs of rising revolt, and ended by breaking apart the unity of Christendom.” – Barbara Tuchman of the pre-reformation Roman Catholic Church in “The March of Folly.”

  36. Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
    Apparently in France, “liberty, equality, fraternity” does not include the liberty to question dominant opinions. Equality does include equal rights of conscience and intellect. And fraternity ends when you question established dogma. Belief in man-caused global warming isn’t science: it’s a cult that demand unquestioning obedience, or you will be punished.

  37. The French TV channels are now on full climate mode. Every journal has a sequence about “climate” (climate is bad weather or the Atlantic eating the shore since at least WWII).

    Last times French media were on full propaganda mode:

    – when Jean-Marie Le Pen (extreme right candidate) reached the final vote of presidential election, all medias were anti-Le Pen; result: better score for Le Pen than the total of far right vote on the first vote, and better percentage.
    – “Référendum sur le projet de Constitution européenne” : all journalists, all editorialists, all experts were for, the French rejected the project.

    I can’t think of an example where such blitzcrieg propaganda worked (with a measured result in term of votes).

  38. I was appalled to hear this news, and signed Jean-Pierre Bardinet’s petition to have Philippe Verdier reinstated. So far as I know that has not happened.

    Just to add a personal note I, too, was fired from a government position in Canada, although they did not call it firing, but closing a position. Why? I declared from Bouguer gravity anomalies, total-field magnetic data, topographic configurations and geological mapping that a significant fault passes directly underneath the nuclear reactors at Pickering, Ontario, just east of Metro Toronto. To add to that the organization which “closed my position” was the nuclear regulatory body, the Atomic Energy Control Board, now known as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I never declared any opposition to nuclear power, and, in fact, support it, but as a geologist I saw a feature, and others as well, that needed to be investigated far more thoroughly than they ever had been. In other words I did the job that I thought a nuclear regulatory employee should do. I feel very badly for Philippe Verdier and hope to hell that he can get that job back, or get an even better one. My apologies to all for the rant.

Comments are closed.