The online French L’Express here reports how climate science skepticism is gaining momentum in France: “COP 21: the climate skeptics are heating up the Web.”
L’Express writes that the recent rise in French skepticism has been especially fuelled by former France 2 television meteorologist Philippe Verdier. who was sacked weeks ago by France 2 television for challenging global warming science and the “ultra–politicized the IPCC scientists (1)” in his recently released book.
According to L’Express, Verdier has become a sort of a “martyr of freedom of expression” who echos the “Je suis Charlie” response in the wake of the radical Islamist terrorist attack on free speech newspaper Charlie Hebdo earlier this year.
Verdier is perceived as the latest high-profile newcomer to the French climate skepticism scene, following in the footsteps of renowned skeptic like Claude Allègre and Vincent Courtillot.
The French daily writes that there has been more talk about Philippe Verdier in the French gazettes than there is of the regular climate scientists. L’Express describes the success of Verdier’s online petition for his reinstatement at France 2, which saw some 20,000 signatures.
L’Express sees climate skepticism as a sign of a re-awakening neo-liberalism and independent thinking, fueled by American think tanks like the Heartland or Marshall Institute, and now helped along by the newly minted French “comité d’organisation du Collectif des climatoréalistes” (Organizing Committee of the Committee for the Organization of the Collective of Climate Realists) started by Jean-Pierre Bardinet just weeks ago.
It’s becoming clear that the skeptics, who have been dismissed repeatedly by mainstream media over the past two decades, have been a far more formidable force than the climate warming alarmists dare to admit. Frustration among the alarmists is reaching new high levels, and it is showing.
L’Express quotes Le Monde science journalist Stéphane Foucart, who recently opined on climate skeptics, who he writes are made up of “a small network of people who deny the reality of the current global warming or its anthropogenic origin“:
In 1979 in an editorial the New York Times predicted the dangers of global warming. It was still possible to take action. Today we are driving into a wall while honking. The climate skeptics have caused us to lose time we will never be able get back.”
Failure in Paris would indeed be a massive, unrecoverable blow to the warmist agenda, and would certainly be crippled if not totally disabled by it. Already the sharp tones tell us there’s a sense of worry spreading across the French capital.
18 responses to “French L’Express On Huge Impact by Climate Skeptics…”Have Caused Us To Lose Time We Will Never Get Back”!”
“The climate skeptics have caused us to lose time we will never be able get back.”
Wamunist drama queens. I thought this was all about a few deg C warming (that have yet to materialize)? Earth was far warmer in the past, had far more CO2, and was teeming with life. Where’s the problem with warming in the first place.
“Failure in Paris would indeed be a massive, unrecoverable blow to the warmist agenda, and would certainly be crippled if not totally disabled by it. Already the sharp tones tell us there’s a sense of worry spreading across the French capital.”
I get a really different impression. The draft does even include a 1.5°C target (which is basically impossible to reach).
Everybody seems very< much focused on getting a solution. The result will be too little(as always), but hope about failure in Paris seems to be a little bit to early.
With 2400 new coal-fired power plants in the works worldwide, sod, it isn’t that we are ‘hoping’ for failure, it is that we KNOW COP21 is a FAILure.
“I get a really different impression. The draft does even include a 1.5°C target (which is basically impossible to reach). ”
You warmunists are not very imaginative, are you. All you have to do to control the greenhouse effect according to the theory you believe is to control humidity, not CO2. As according to your favorite theory 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor.
Start by paving over all wetlands, and burn down the Amazons, and turn it into a parking lot.
The future of humanity is at stake! So don’t hesitate. Did I mention that asphalt is a great way to sequester carbon? Bi-winning!
Obviously a giant parking lot will be way colder than the Amazons (according to your favorite theory), as the air above it contains less of the evil greenhouse gas H2O (given that all evaporation is properly prevented by good drainage).
This is why GHGs have no net thermal effect:
and this is how solar variations account for observed climate changes:
Can anyone point us to a scientific paper that states the “normal” “global” temperature for our planet and why we would have reached this “normal” temperature around 1950 (pre-industry)?
“My God. Imagine all the other real and pressing problems that could have been alleviated with that kind of money. This is just irresponsible.”
Not to mention utterly reprehensible. The harm their policies would (nd is already beginning to) cause, especially to the world’s poor, is nothing short of evil.
A world with increased CO2, warming or not, is NOT a bad thing…
Sceptics will win because the more people start to examine the matter the more they become sceptics. Very, very few start as sceptics and become alarmists.
So, as all their predictions and scare headlines lose credibility, the hysterical and/or gullible are now claiming that debate should be censored and only their views heard. They don’t realise that the last attempt with Philippe Verdier meant more sceptics.
win? win what?
a skeptic is never wrong…i don’t reject the idea there will be some climate change caused by man or that it is actullay happening , i reject the idea of any “scientifical” certainty about it…
so, even there is a climate change, that changes nothing from my point of view about my skepticism…
Quantification of man made climate change is a theory not Thruth.
we have nothing to prove!!!!
we can’t be proven wrong!
we are demanding evidences of warmists claims.
Don’t forget the Societe de Calcul Mathematique SA and their White Paper http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf
Philippe Verdier found a new job at Russia Today.
The COP meeting in Paris has actually been helpful in discussions with ‘fence-sitters’, those that have not made up their minds about man-made global warming. Basically I ask the rhetorical question:
“You are telling me that all world’s leaders are going to hammer out a deal that allowes them to scale up, scale down or alter manufacturing and agriculture in a way that allows them to control the global temperature to a 1.5 to 2.0 degree maximum and keep it that way?. They can’t even balance the books.”
“Sceptics will win…” – Graeme No.3
I agree that we’ll win the debate (and probably already have), but the politicians could care less what we think. If they can convince us, fine. If they can’t, then who cares what we think! We may yet lose the war, even though a majority of citizens come to realize that we have all the facts on our side.
There i$ far too much at $take for greedy power hungry pol$ to yield to mere con$tituent$.
“… fueled by American think tanks like the Heartland or Marshall Institute,”
That tells me the writer hasn’t a clue about what has been going on in the USA.
They just make stuff up.
“The climate skeptics have caused us to lose time we will never be able get back.”
Indeed. When the cold arrives a lot of people will still have enough energy resources to realise they’ve been had and will be VERY angry.
Actually, all the hair-pulling and moaning & groaning that comes from the man-made global warming activists when they complain that COP 21 isn’t going far enough etc etc and that it’s not enough to alter the climate blah blah blah…it’s too late, we are doomed… it is working in my favour without even declaring that I am skeptical about the claims. My response:
“Well then, why bother?”
Remember when Gordon Brown told us a few years ago that there was 100 days or something like that to save the world lest we all become inundated with rising oceans and baked with heat etc etc.
Well, have not needed to buy a pair of Wellies or a parasol yet.
Gordon Brown used the number 50.
I think he meant “days to write a treaty” or something. His remarks were in October and the party in Copenhagen was set for December. Usually the phrase “tipping point” or “point of no return” or “no going back” or some such thing is used when one of these folks wants to be really scary.
Here is a comment on such remarks:
The no return date was 2014.
L’Express … living in a mixed up world of make believe!
No need to say anything more.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2015/12/06/french-lexpress-on-huge-impact-by-climate-skeptics-have-caused-us… […]