Top French Weatherman FIRED for Writing a Book Critical of Climate Change Dogma

[The Tradition]

A popular weatherman announced Saturday evening he 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.

http://www.france24.com/en/20151101...sacked-over-climate-change-book-verdier-cop21


Heretic.

 

[TexMichFan]

Everybody knows weather and climate change are not the same thing.

 

[cigaretteman]

Well, it's a private company which has the right to fire employees. Why do you feel outrage over this?

 

[The Tradition]

Well, it's a private company which has the right to fire employees. Why do you feel outrage over this?

No, "France 2" is a state-owned, public national television channel.

 

[naturalmwa]

Smart. Just like doctors who trumpet aloe vera's cancer curative powers should have their jobs put in jeopardy.

 

[The Tradition]

Smart. Just like doctors who trumpet aloe vera's cancer curative powers should have their jobs put in jeopardy.

Yes, "shutting people up" is the best way to foster scientific and academic progress.

Can't have any dissenting views while pretending to value intellectual arguments and the free expression of ideas....

 

[rocketclone]

Step out of line and the man come take you away

 

[naturalmwa]

Yes, "shutting people up" is the best way to foster scientific and academic progress.

Can't have any dissenting views while pretending to value intellectual arguments and the free expression of ideas....

That's not how this works. He isn't a researcher. His job is to give accurate information. Now that he is fired from that job he is free to go research.

 

[TexMichFan]

That's not how this works. He isn't a researcher. His job is to give accurate information. Now that he is fired from that job he is free to go research.

So you are saying he was fired not for what he did on the job but for what he believed off the job.

 

[The Tradition]

I don't care if that's not how this works. You shouldn't be fired for writing a book.

 

[naturalmwa]

So you are saying he was fired not for what he did on the job but for what he believed off the job.

Maybe, I'm not likely to research him much, but if so how is that not valid? People often get fired for things they do outside of the office. Especially when what they do outside of the office conflicts with their official duties.

 

[naturalmwa]

I don't care if that's not how this works. You shouldn't be fired for writing a book.

I suspect you haven't thought this through. There are many examples where an employee might publish literature that would warrant employment termination.

 

[The Tradition]

I suspect you haven't thought this through. There are many examples where an employee might publish literature that would warrant employment termination.

I've thought it through just fine. If anything should be protected from the whims of the employer, it should be the employee's freedom of off-duty speech.

 

[The Tradition]

Maybe, I'm not likely to research him much, but if so how is that not valid? People often get fired for things they do outside of the office. Especially when what they do outside of the office conflicts with their official duties.

How can it conflict with his official duties when the High Priests of the Church of Global Warming have repeatedly told us that weather does not equal climate?

 

[pablow]

Maybe, I'm not likely to research him much, but if so how is that not valid? People often get fired for things they do outside of the office. Especially when what they do outside of the office conflicts with their official duties.

50 years ago you might have been fired for things you did "outside the office." You know better than most how these conformist mobs operate and I'm surprised you approve the tactic.

 

[22*43*51]

Socialists gon censure.

 

[naturalmwa]

I've thought it through just fine. If anything should be protected from the whims of the employer, it should be the employee's freedom of off-duty speech.

I don't believe you have. In another thread you said employers should have the right to hire who they like. Now you want to argue that free speech rights extend to this relationship? Your positions are at odds, I suspect because of the topic and your bias about climate change.

It should be clear that if an employer is selling expertise in a field and they hire people to report the best expertise in that field, they should have a right to terminate those who declare the experts are fools and tell the public the produce the employer is selling is bunk. You couldn't keep your job at your nursing home if you published a book telling the public your employer was harming patients when all the evidence said they were actually doing right by them.

 

[naturalmwa]

50 years ago you might have been fired for things you did "outside the office." You know better than most how these conformist mobs operate and I'm surprised you approve the tactic.

What do you mean 50 years ago? You can today. You think there should be a right that you can ridicule your employer's product in public for profit and keep your job? I bet you don't really think that. I think your bias on this topic is showing.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Everybody knows weather and climate change are not the same thing.

Proven by all of those dire predictions ten years ago that climate change was going to cause more Katrinas and Midwest tornados

 

[The Tradition]

No, my position is not at odds at all. In the other thread, I was talking about who the government allows me to hire. Hardly the same thing.

Look at it this way, as much as I hate unions (and that hatred burns with the heat of a thousand suns), I absolutely agree that they have the right to assembly, the right of association, and the right of free speech in their unionization efforts.

We're either a free country or we're not. Your employer should have to respect the rights and liberties that our Constitution guarantees us.

 

[The Tradition]

What do you mean 50 years ago? You can today. You think there should be a right that you can ridicule your employer's product in public for profit and keep your job? I bet you don't really think that. I think your bias on this topic is showing.

You can't fire someone for being a homosexual today. The EEOC has already taken the position that such an adverse action is a form of sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[The Tradition]

You think there should be a right that you can ridicule your employer's product in public for profit and keep your job? I bet you don't really think that. I think your bias on this topic is showing.

If the employee is engaged in defamation against the employer, then that's a different story. That has always been a valid limit on freedom of speech.

 

[mstp1992]

No, my position is not at odds at all. In the other thread, I was talking about who the government allows me to hire. Hardly the same thing.

Look at it this way, as much as I hate unions (and that hatred burns with the heat of a thousand suns), I absolutely agree that they have the right to assembly, the right of association, and the right of free speech in their unionization efforts.

We're either a free country or we're not. Your employer should have to respect the rights and liberties that our Constitution guarantees us.

But, didn't this take place in France? I don't know what the employment laws are in France, but presumably the station's legal team sought this out before firing the employee.

 

[naturalmwa]

No, my position is not at odds at all. In the other thread, I was talking about who the government allows me to hire. Hardly the same thing.

Look at it this way, as much as I hate unions (and that hatred burns with the heat of a thousand suns), I absolutely agree that they have the right to assembly, the right of association, and the right of free speech in their unionization efforts.

We're either a free country or we're not. Your employer should have to respect the rights and liberties that our Constitution guarantees us.

Wow. Think this through. Really think on it. Just go through the amendments and imagine if your boss had to follow all the rules we intended for our government.

Never talk to us about how you're anti regulation again. You didn't think this through at all, because you're in a deep hole.

 

[The Tradition]

But, didn't this take place in France? I don't know what the employment laws are in France, but presumably the station's legal team sought this out before firing the employee.

Yes, it happened in France. But it demonstrates that there's a worldwide effort to silence deniers, and that should give all of us a chill down our collective spines.

 

[Lone Clone]

Smart. Just like doctors who trumpet aloe vera's cancer curative powers should have their jobs put in jeopardy.

Why not just excommunicate them, or better yet, burn them at the stake? It worked before, for awhile.

 

[The Tradition]

Wow. Think this through. Really think on it. Just go through the amendments and imagine if your boss had to follow all the rules we intended for our government.

Never talk to us about how you're anti regulation again. You didn't think this through at all, because you're in a deep hole.

No, this isn't about the rules for how government operates, this is about the individual rights which we are guaranteed. Once I am off the clock, I have no duty to my employer. That's my time, and none of my employer's business. Anything else means we really haven't abolished slavery.

 

[naturalmwa]

You can't fire someone for being a homosexual today. The EEOC has already taken the position that such an adverse action is a form of sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You are wrong, you absolutely can in about 30 states. But we're not talking about immutable characteristics here. We are talking about an employee trashing his company's product and you thinking the government should force the company to keep paying that employee. If you can't fire a guy for opposing the company public ally and for profit, what can you fire them for?

 

[naturalmwa]

If the employee is engaged in defamation against the employer, then that's a different story. That has always been a valid limit on freedom of speech.

That's what he is doing. The employer hired him to give out scientific valid information and he is saying science is bunk. He has devalued his usefulness to the employer.

 

[The Tradition]

You are wrong, you absolutely can in about 30 states.

Hello, McFly?

Federal law > State law

 

[The Tradition]

That's what he is doing. The employer hired him to give out scientific valid information and he is saying science is bunk. He has devalued his usefulness to the employer.

His views on climate change have no bearing on the accuracy or scientific validity of his weather forecasts.

Climate does not equal weather. Remember?

 

[IMCC965]

Maybe, I'm not likely to research him much, but if so how is that not valid? People often get fired for things they do outside of the office. Especially when what they do outside of the office conflicts with their official duties.

Like you libs say, weather is different than climate. No confliction whatsoever, therefore, he should keep hi job.

 

[naturalmwa]

Why not just excommunicate them, or better yet, burn them at the stake? It worked before, for awhile.

Sure, stripping them of any licenses would be valid too. When a professional gives out information that isn't true and supported by that profession they should be removed from practicing that profession. If you made up quotes in your news stories, you should not be a journalist.

 

[The Tradition]

We are talking about an employee trashing his company's product and you thinking the government should force the company to keep paying that employee. If you can't fire a guy for opposing the company public ally and for profit, what can you fire them for?

As previously discussed, if he's making statements about the products that are (1) not true and (2) intended to harm the company, that's not free speech, that is defamation.

Are you even reading any of my responses?

 

[YellowSnow51]

Maybe, I'm not likely to research him much, but if so how is that not valid? People often get fired for things they do outside of the office. Especially when what they do outside of the office conflicts with their official duties.

He's the weatherman, right? He knows more about the weather than the HR people, right? So, because a principal wants 2+2 to equal 5, you're fine with him firing a math teacher for posting "2+2=4" in an article he writes.

I suppose you are OK with him getting fired by HR for telling people it's going to rain after he uses his scientific knowledge to assess the radar, because HR believes it's always Sunny is Paris.

This is the side of logic you have chosen, nat. I'm sure you and ciggy will be fine with companies firing people for attending pro-gay marriage rallies too, right? That is what this is tantamount to.

 

[The Tradition]

Sure, stripping them of any licenses would be valid too. When a professional gives out information that isn't true and supported by that profession they should be removed from practicing that profession. If you made up quotes in your news stories, you should not be a journalist.

If the doctor simply writes a book praising some alternative medicine, he should not lose his license. That's ridiculous.

Now, if he tells patients that they don't need chemo and should instead just eat saw palmetto supplements, that would be something for the medical board to get involved with.

 

[mstp1992]

Yes, it happened in France. But it demonstrates that there's a worldwide effort to silence deniers, and that should give all of us a chill down our collective spines.

Nope, doesn't do anything to my spine.

My guess is that publishing the book probably went against clauses within his contract such that the ability to adequately perform his job (accurately predicting/reporting the weather) might be of concern. I'm not saying that's the case, but let's say 80% of the viewers have a certain belief about climate change and this meteorologist has a known view that is counter to the majority of its viewers. I could see where the perceived integrity of the meteorologist might come into question for the viewers, potentially losing viewership and anything that results from that scenario (e.g., ad revenue perhaps?).

Just a guess on my part without any conclusions one way or the other.

 

[YellowSnow51]

Sure, stripping them of any licenses would be valid too. When a professional gives out information that isn't true and supported by that profession they should be removed from practicing that profession. If you made up quotes in your news stories, you should not be a journalist.

Galileo, Freud, Copernicus, and the guy who threw the first forward pass, would all be on the list of "People who should be fired". You know...the same side as flat earthers.

 

[naturalmwa]

No, this isn't about the rules for how government operates, this is about the individual rights which we are guaranteed. Once I am off the clock, I have no duty to my employer. That's my time, and none of my employer's business. Anything else means we really haven't abolished slavery.

So now you don't know how the constitution works. The 4th amendment protects you from the government rummaging through your desk. It doesn't stop your employer from doing that. The first amendment means you can't be arrested for saying climate change is bunk. It doesn't mean the weather channel can't view this as disqualifying in your ability to deliver scientifically backed information.

 

[iammrhawkeyes]

You are wrong, you absolutely can in about 30 states. But we're not talking about immutable characteristics here. We are talking about an employee trashing his company's product and you thinking the government should force the company to keep paying that employee. If you can't fire a guy for opposing the company public ally and for profit, what can you fire them for?

How did he trash the company's product? Did it affect his weather reporting?