Watch: French president calls U.S. climate scientists to move to France to escape Trump
On Monday, France elected former Socialist Party member Emmanuel Macron to be the nation’s next president, pushing Macron’s past promise to offer a home to all climate change scientists in America to the forefront of the ongoing debate over global warming.
Macron, who has been described by many European and American news outlets as a “centrist,” is a noted believer in the theory humans are primarily responsible for climate change. In February, Macron posted a video on his Facebook page in which he invited all U.S. climate researchers to France to escape the Trump administration.
“I do know how your new president now has decided to jeopardize your budget, your initiatives, as he is extremely skeptical of climate change,” Macron said in the video. “I have no doubt about climate change, and how committed we have to be regarding this issue.”
Macron said to U.S. scientists France will be their “new homeland.”
“I want all those who today embody innovation and excellence in the United States to hear what we say: From now on, from next May, you will have a new homeland, France,” Macron said.
Since Macron’s victory, the video has received massive attention. As of Sunday morning, it had been viewed more than 19.4 million times and shared more than 200,000 times.
Many climate change scientists have expressed their displeasure at President Donald Trump’s plans to roll back climate-change-related regulations and policies imposed by the Obama administration.
In April, thousands of protesters gathered in Washington, D.C., and in cities across the United States in opposition to Trump’s skepticism about man-caused climate change. One of the primary leaders of the march, pop scientist Bill Nye, who is not a climate expert, repeatedly called out politicians and Trump for rejecting what he believes to be settled science.
“Today, we have a great many lawmakers, not just here, but around the world, deliberately ignoring and actively surpassing science,” Nye said. “Their inclination is misguided, and in no one’s best interest.”
Some climate change skeptics are hoping Nye and other climate alarmists take up Macron on his offer to allow climate change researchers to move to France. In an article for the popular climate change website Watts Up With That?, Eric Worrall wrote, “Speculation is mounting about whether President Macron will keep his promise to take all our climate scientists, and offer them a new home in France. … President Macron,
…Warmist Katharine Hayhoe: Don’t call skeptics ‘deniers’ – More accurate to call them ‘climate dismissives’
Should We Call Climate-Change Deniers “Dismissives” Instead?
A renowned scientist proposes an alternative to a contested word.
NPR’s Rachel Martin had a fascinating interview on Tuesday with Katharine Hayhoe, a renowned climate scientist and evangelical Christian, in which they discussed the toxic nature of the world “climate denier”—a word that environmental reporters, including me, use all the time to describe people who don’t accept the scientific consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous. Hayhoe argued that calling people deniers is “a good way to end the conversation,” and that it’s actually more accurate to use the word “climate dismissive.”
Hayhoe’s terminology comes from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, which last year published a report on how Americans view the threat of global warming. It concluded that America was divided into six categories: alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful, and dismissive, the latter being people “who do not believe global warming is real and are likely to believe in various conspiracy theories about the issue.”
I’ve struggled with whether to use word “denier,” especially because of the common accusation that it’s meant to invoke Holocaust deniers. That’s not accurate, as Peter Dykstra explained at Scientific American: The word refers to a type of psychological defense mechanism first conceived by Sigmund and Anna Freud, where “an unpleasant reality is ignored, and a realistic interpretation of potentially threatening events is replaced by a benign but inaccurate one.” That’s why I think of “denier” is the most accurate term for people who ignore, misrepresent, or generally discredit the field of climate science—whether it’s because they don’t like the proposed solutions, or because they just can’t accept reality.
But another compelling reason to use “denier” is that the alternative terminology is inadequate. I won’t use the word “skeptic” because it distorts the meaning of skepticism within science. Climate scientists are skeptical by profession, and yet, a vast majority of them concluded that global warming is
Dem Congressional Candidate Says Climate Skeptics Should Commit Suicide Via Car Exhaust
By Onan Coca and Jeff Dunetz
Rob Quist is the Democratic Party candidate for Montana’s at-large seat in Congress left vacant by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke… Quist, who among his other talent is a folk singer popular at nudist resorts in the great state of Montana has an interesting way of trying to win over voters… he suggests that if they aren’t sure about climate change they should try… killing themselves yep he believes they should lock themselves in their garage with their cars on and see what happens.
Now the Democratic candidate promises on campaign website that he will bring the “values of rural Montana” with him to Congress if elected. What is not certain is he talking about nudist camps being the values of rural Montana or is he talking about suicide.
On a televised debate, Quist was given the last chance to comment on climate change when he made his strange recommendation.
“This is something that the entire world needs to address,” Quist said. “If any those of you that feel like this is not a problem, I challenge you to go into your car in your garage, start your car, and see what happens there.”
Quist doesn’t seem to understand the difference between carbon monoxide (which is the chemical emission from your car) and carbon dioxide (which is the supposed problem gas in the climate change fear mongering scenario). Perhaps his brain is fried from looking at all of those nudist senior citizens. However, what makes this even worse is that carbon dioxide is essential to life on earth. In fact, the more carbon dioxide, the healthier our planet becomes and while yes, it could technically warm the earth… that warming could actually solve more problems for our planet than it creates
#
Related:
Fox News reports on 7 shots fired at skeptical climate scientists’ building – ‘Animosity in the climate wars’
Watch Fox News video here: https://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2017/05/03/53361/fnc-specialreport-20170503-johnchristyshots
Media Matters Reports (edited for accuracy): On the May 2 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier, host Bret Baier introduced a segment on the shooting as evidence that “animosity in the climate change wars is hitting new lows.” During the segment, correspondent Doug McKelway reported that Christy “got seven bullet holes in his office windows” and made reference to Christy’s skepticism of computer model climate predictions.
Baier’s report comes after Breitbart.com, National Review, and numerous climate skeptics called for further investigation.
From the May 2 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier:
BRET BAIER (HOST): We are awaiting a decision from President [Donald] Trump on whether the U.S. will continue to participate in a worldwide global warming treaty that he criticized during the campaign. Correspondent Doug McKelway tells us tonight the animosity in the climate change wars is hitting new lows.
DOUG MCKELWAY: In 1991, climate skeptic John Christy got NASA’s medal for exceptional scientific achievement. Last week, he got seven bullet holes in his office windows during the March for Science weekend at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Police think it was random. Christy thinks he was targeted. Christy measures actual earth temperatures from satellite data. He is skeptical of computer model predictions of warming and government remedies to fix it.…
Liberal Writers Say Asking Questions Is the New Climate Change ‘Denial’
…NY Times Columnist Finds Out What Happens When You Question the Global Warming Narrative
…In Bret Stephens’ debut column for the New York Times, the Pulitzer prize-winning author cautioned global warming activists to maybe perhaps not claim “total certainty” about the science behind their proposed policies.
Using the Clinton campaign’s reliance on data versus traditional campaigning as an example of certainty leading to a disastrous loss, he turned to topic of global warming. He said the right words to lead off (emphasis mine):
“…while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the NorthernHemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming…
What he added next had heads exploding:
“…much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities.
It should be obvious to scientists or anyone who even took a science class in school that projections of how climate change will affect us 20 years from now are just that – projections. And projections are rarely, if ever, 100 percent correct. Still, global warming activists claim absolute certainty.
Stephens quoted a Times reporter who covered climate issues, who said that while the science activists relied on was scrupulous, the “boosters” themselves weren’t – using hyperbole to effect policy changes (a fancy way of saying “scare tactics”).
“Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.”
Nowhere did he dismiss global warming concerns or say he personally didn’t believe in it; he simply offered a strategy that might help others win people to their point of view.
Climate Bullies Take to the Streets for ‘People’s Climate March’
by JULIE KELLY April 27, 2017 4:00 AM @JULIE_KELLY
Most Americans are unaware of the vicious campaign waged by climate activists against people who do not recite the strictest tenets of the manmade-climate-change creed. The People’s Climate March is Saturday, April 29, and it will be the third iteration of an anti-Trump rally just this month. (April has been busy for the perpetually agitated.)
It is a day when lefties accomplish little more than exposing their planet-sized hypocrisy on the environment: Eco-celebs such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo will walk arm-in-arm to lament the Earth’s destruction by greedy fossil-fuel companies, and then they will jet off to their next fossil-fuel-powered movie set to make millions.
Jerry Brown, Andrew Cuomo, and other politicians will lecture us about the dangers of CO2 as they close zero-emission nuclear plants in their own states. Millennials will snap selfies on cellphones that operate off an electric grid powered by natural gas made abundantly available by the fracking they will protest. According to its website, here is the point of the People’s Climate March: On the 100th Day of the Trump Administration, we will be in the streets of Washington D.C. to show the world and our leaders that we will resist attacks on our people, our communities and our planet.
Now set aside for a moment the comical idea that angry anti-Trumpers, who have been in attack mode since November 8, are themselves under attack. This statement reveals the height of hypocrisy from the climate crowd; they are the bullies attacking anyone who dares to question climate science or who doubts whether human activity is causing climate change. Most Americans are unaware of the vicious campaign — including character assassination, political witch-hunts, and media propaganda — waged by climate activists against people who do not recite the strictest tenets of the manmade-climate-change creed. When the New York Times announced a few weeks ago that it had hired Bret Stephens, a former Wall Street Journal columnist, the climate cult went insane. (Stephens has been critical of climate-change dogma.)
Joe Romm, the editor of Climate Progress, and others demanded that the Times fire Stephens. Hundreds of people threatened to cancel their subscriptions to protest the hiring of a so-called climate denier, including leading climate scientist Ken Caldeira who accused Stephens of having a “reckless disregard for well-established scientific facts.” Michael Mann, a climate scientist from Penn …
Update: 7 Shots Fired: ‘The FBI needs to get involved’ – Possible Ecoterror Attack at Skeptical Climatologists
April 26th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Ecoterrorism. Eco-terrorism is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as “the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against people or property by an environmentally oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.” -Wikipedia
It appears that at least some people are beginning to take the shots fired into the side of our building a little more seriously.
By way of clarification, the March for Science here on Saturday did not pass right by our building, but started farther down our street. (As I’ve said before, the shots would not have been fired during the march. The expensive “boutique” FN Five-seven [5.7 mm] gun used has a loud report — everyone would have noticed.)
Also, there seems to be some disagreement whether all shots hit John Christy’s floor (4th floor of the NSSTC). UAH Chief of Staff Ray Garner has been quoted in this AL.com story that a few shots hit the third floor. I did not see those when surveying the outside; each floor has about 5 ft of window at the top, and 3 ft of siding below the window. Some of the bullets hit the siding below the window. Below the 4th floor would then be 5 feet of window on the third floor, and no third floor windows were hit that I could tell.
But it doesn’t really matter. The bullets all hit near John Christy’s office.
University of Alabama in Huntsville climate scientist Dr. John Christy looks at a bullet hole in the window of the office next to his at the university. Seven shots were fired at the building over the weekend of April 22-23, and Christy believes his floor was targeted. (Lee Roop/[email protected])
In fact, these details miss the big picture of this event. Even if: (1) the bullets had hit the other end of the building, (2) on the first floor, (3) it didn’t happen on Earth Day weekend, and (4) there was no March for Science that weekend, I would still consider 7 shots fired into our building a probable act of ecoterrorism.
I am not surprised this happened at all.
For the last 25 years our science has been viewed as standing in the way of efforts to institute a carbon tax or otherwise reduce carbon
Climate Activists Are Taking Over Your Local Weather Forecast – Propaganda now being fed into weather forecasting
Bullets Shatter Windows Next To A Prominent Global Warming Skeptic’s Office
Shots were fired at the fourth floor of a science and technology center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville sometime over the weekend, hitting windows adjacent to climatologist John Christy’s office.
No one was hurt, and university police have characterized the event as a “random shooting,” UAH spokesman Ray Garner told WHNT News. Police found “seven spent Belgian 5.7 millimeter bullet casings along Sparkman Drive” near the National Space Science and Technology Center, WHNT reported.
“My office was not hit, but the one next door and then further north had bullet impacts on the windows,” Christy told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Appears to be a drive-by from the trajectories from the street parallel to the building,” Christy added.
Three bullets hit windows, while four hit the side of the National Space Science and Technology Center. An incident report was filed after building staff discovered shards of glass Monday morning.…