Revealed: Secret businesses which aimed to exploit vaccine fears

Jan 11, 2011

Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced doctor who claimed a link between MMR and autism, planned secret businesses intended to make huge sums of money, in Britain and America, from his now-discredited allegations.

The Wakefield scheme is exposed today in the second part of a BMJ series of special reports, "Secrets of the scare", by investigative journalist Brian Deer. Last week we revealed the scientific fraud behind the appearance of a link between the and . Now Deer follows the money.

Drawing on investigations and documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the report shows how Wakefield's institution, the Royal Free Medical School in London, supported him as he sought to exploit the MMR scare for financial gain.

It reveals how Wakefield met with medical school managers to discuss a joint business even while the first child to be fully investigated in his research was still in the hospital, and how just days after publication of that research, which triggered the health crisis in 1998, he brought business associates to the Royal Free to continue negotiations.

One business, named after Wakefield's wife, intended to develop Wakefield's own "replacement" vaccines, diagnostic testing kits and other products which only stood any real chance of success if public confidence in MMR was damaged.

Documents reveal the planned shareholdings of Wakefield and his collaborators, and how much Wakefield expected to receive personally. Financial forecasts made available for the first time today show Wakefield and his associates predicting they could make up to £28 million ($43,367,082; €33,290,350) a year from the diagnostic kits alone.

"It is estimated that the initial market for the diagnostic will be litigation driven testing of patients with AE [autistic enterocolitis] from both the UK and the USA," said a 35 page "private and confidential" prospectus obtained by Deer, aimed at raising an initial £700,000 from investors. "It is estimated that by year 3, income from this testing could be about £3,300,000 rising to about £28,000,000 as diagnostic testing in support of therapeutic regimes come on stream."

Deer's investigation also reveals today that Wakefield was offered support to try to replicate his results, gained from just 12 children, with a larger validated study of up to 150 patients, but that he refused to carry out the work, claiming that his academic freedom would be jeopardised. His research claims have never been replicated.

Explore further: Alabama man claims penis mistakenly amputated

Related Stories

Autism study doctor says victim of smears

Jan 06, 2011

The doctor behind a linking childhood autism to a vaccine that has been branded a fraud by the British Medical Journal said he was the victim of a smear campaign by drug manufacturers. ...

Autism-vaccine study was 'fraud' says journal (Update)

Jan 05, 2011

A 1998 study that linked childhood autism to a vaccine was branded an "elaborate fraud" by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Thursday, but its lead author said he was the victim of a smear campaign by drug manufacturers. ...

Will autism fraud report be a vaccine booster?

Jan 06, 2011

(AP) -- This week more shame was heaped upon the discredited British researcher whose work gave rise to the childhood-vaccines-cause-autism movement, as a prominent medical journal published a report that the man had faked his data. But will ...

Britain bans doctor who linked autism to vaccine

May 24, 2010

(AP) -- Britain's top medical group banned a doctor who was the first to publish peer-reviewed research suggesting a connection between a common vaccine and autism from practicing in the country, finding ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 115

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (26) Jan 11, 2011
Life in prison for that man. What a horrific person to target the fears of parents and put children in undue jeopardy.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (29) Jan 11, 2011
Wakefield is a scientist. Scientists can always be trusted to reveal the truth with no regard to financial reward.
At least that is what AGWites expect us to believe.

Could the UKs health care system played a role in that they can't make a reasonable living as a MD?
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (20) Jan 11, 2011
Wakefield is a scientist. Scientists can always be trusted to reveal the truth with no regard to financial reward.
At least that is what AGWites expect us to believe.

Could the UKs health care system played a role in that they can't make a reasonable living as a MD?


Mangyhole emissions from mangynowrintintin, exactly on time and off topic.

Go to sleep, moron.

Wakefield is just one more example of a scumbag devotee of mangynowrintintin's sacred "free market", who honors no god except Mammon, and hews to no ethics beyond the avid pursuit of profit.

Quantum_Conundrum
Jan 11, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (23) Jan 11, 2011
Wakefield is just one more example of a scumbag ...

But he was a SCIENTIST.
Jotaf
4.8 / 5 (21) Jan 11, 2011
ryggesogn2: What do you mean by that, "he was a scientist"? Are you really making a sweeping generalization based on a sample of 1? Can you take a statistics course please?

His reported results could never be replicated, no matter how much others tried. As soon as the first follow-up independent work was published scientists began to be skeptical. It was the public opinion (who wouldn't be irrational and paranoid when it comes to his own children?) and the media (lets make a fuss to get the ratings up!) who were in error.
trekgeek1
4.8 / 5 (23) Jan 11, 2011


How about life in prison for abortionists and the 28% of American women who are murderers of their own children? And what about the men who often forced the woman to this, or were willing participants?

They are all murderers, just as guilty as this ass who slaughtered 6 people and wounded 14 others.


Or the bronze age bullies who force women to carry clusters of cells because their religious texts say that it's a baby. Perhaps you should work on standardizing a definition of what a child is based on medical science. Personally, I don't think a cluster of cells is a child, and your story book isn't going to sway me. Let me know when science has definitive definitions. Even then, in cases of rape and incest, I'd still favor scraping them like a fisherman's knuckle, rather than stripping human beings of their biological rights. I'd love to see you explain yourself to a raped women, so she could spit in your face.
Cave_Man
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 12, 2011
Life in prison for that man. What a horrific person to target the fears of parents and put children in undue jeopardy.


How about life in prison for abortionists and the 28% of American women who are murderers of their own children? And what about the men who often forced the woman to this, or were willing participants?

They are all murderers, just as guilty as this ass who slaughtered 6 people and wounded 14 others.


Whats funny about people like you is you pull stuff like this out of your butt but you would probably hit a dog with your car and forget about it a week later.

....Oh, and masturbation is genocide right?
kevinrtrs
1.1 / 5 (27) Jan 12, 2011
you would probably hit a dog with your car and forget about it a week later.

....Oh, and masturbation is genocide right?

Not sure how you came to your analogies Caveman, but there is a difference: Abortion is PLANNED, knocking a dog is usually an accident. only if it was a planned, deliberate act could you equate the two.
As for masturbation - Jesus said whosoever looks on a woman with lust commits adultery.[Same applies to woman lusting after a man. Same sex stuff is by itself off the scale].
The point is that polluting the mind with lust is sin. Now since masturbation is definitely not an act devoid of vivid imagination and lust, it too is sin. Genocide doesn't even enter the picture.

Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (17) Jan 12, 2011
Wakefield is just one more example of a scumbag ...

But he was a SCIENTIST.

No, he used to be, then he decided he was more interested in profit than truth. He became a Marjon.
The point is that polluting the mind with lust is sin. Now since masturbation is definitely not an act devoid of vivid imagination and lust, it too is sin.
So you believe in thought crime. That's totalitarian. Nice god you have there. Very Kim Jong Il.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (20) Jan 12, 2011
ryggesogn2: What do you mean by that, "he was a scientist"? Are you really making a sweeping generalization based on a sample of 1? Can you take a statistics course please?

We are told that we must believe all scientists who believe AGW because they are ...scientists.
The AGWites trot out surveys of scientists (any scientist) who believes AGW and uses that as justification to do all sorts of govt mischief.
Al Gore added to his millions with his carbon credit trading scheme. How many scientists joined in his profits?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 12, 2011
We are told that we must believe all scientists who believe AGW because they are ...scientists.
No. That would be an argument from authority.

Your supposed to trust peer reviewed and unconflicting research only. And then if any only if it is current.

The AGWites trot out surveys of scientists (any scientist) who believes AGW
Actually the only real survey I've seen often recommended as authoritative is the fraudulent one conducted by Frederick Seitz on the topic and that was the 32,000 anti-agcc survey.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2011
Hey, since this is the thread where we are all posting our own off-topic agendas today, I'd like to bring up my proposal that the US Constitution should give American workers the Right to 20 weeks of paid vacation per year. It would be the biggest job creation act in a century, since companies would need to hire double the workers to do the same jobs. We could see unemployment numbers go negative (is it possible to have negative unemployment?), since most people would need to have two jobs to cover the huge increase in the price of goods and services.

Since everyone else is using circular reasoning, I figured I would too. :)

In re the article above: I just see this as another example of the lengths people will go to when millions of profit are at stake. For every one of these that we catch, I wonder how many we don't?
geokstr
1 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2011
Actually the only real survey I've seen often recommended as authoritative is the fraudulent one conducted by Frederick Seitz on the topic and that was the 32,000 anti-agcc survey.

Cite to the evidence that the "32,000 anti-agcc survey" was "fraudulent", please?

All I've seen contradicting this "fraud" was a claim that one scientist who was on the list said he didn't sign it (and there are lots of scientists with the same name) and others who say that not all the signers are climate scientists, even though many thousands are.
geokstr
1 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2011
...in cases of rape and incest...

Oh, please, that "rape and incest" canard was old a generation ago. Most of those opposed to abortion on demand are quite willing to accept them in the cases of rape, incest, and "life of the mother" (not the phony "psychological health of the mother, which is just a way to get around any restrictions whatsoever.)

Stats published by pro-abortion groups show that less than 5% of all abortions are due to "rape, incest and the health of the mother, even including the "psychological" BS. The rest are totally for the convenience of the mother; i.e., she didn't love the father anymore, she was too scared to carry to term, she wasn't ready financially, she thought it might hurt her "career", ad nauseum.

Those same stats also show that a majority couldn't be bothered with birth control, or were apparently too stupid to know that putting the condom on that banana, like they are taught in third grade, wouldn't stop them from getting pregnant.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2011
Cite to the evidence that the "32,000 anti-agcc survey" was "fraudulent", please?

All I've seen contradicting this "fraud" was a claim that one scientist who was on the list said he didn't sign it (and there are lots of scientists with the same name) and others who say that not all the signers are climate scientists, even though many thousands are.
Well the fact that even you admitted that there were not 32,000 scientists on the petition itself shows fraud.

Here's a video breakdown on "Dr. Seitz and his 32,000 list".
http:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ

It's all sourced and it's short, about 10 minutes in total.
geokstr
1 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2011
...I'd like to bring up my proposal that the US Constitution should give American workers the Right to 20 weeks of paid vacation per year.

Well, for one thing, that wouldn't work with government employees, because they already get 26 weeks vacation, plus a month of paid sick days, and 53 federal holidays every year, including Cabbage Patch Doll Day, National Buggy Whip Remembrance Day, and St Karl of Marx' Birthday (formerly DWEM (Dead White European Male) Presidents Day), all of which can be carried over and cashed in in the last year before retirement, along with a ton of overtime and promotions granted specificially for the purpose of making their pension three times their highest year's base salary. At age 52 no less, with dollar one health, dental and vision coverage for the rest of their lives.
Egnite
1 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2011
Exploit vaccine fears? That's just conspiracy nonsense!
geokstr
1.1 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2011
Well the fact that even you admitted that there were not 32,000 scientists on the petition itself shows fraud.

Please stop making up what you want others to think I said, and show me where I said that any of the 32,000 were "not scientists". I said they were not "CLIMATE scientists" but were instead from other legitimate disciplines like biology, chemistry, etc.

However, many thousands ARE climate scientists, computer scientists (and "modeling" is a big part of the whole AGW religion), meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, etc, whose disciplines are intimately involved with "climate", no matter how you want to re-define it to fit your narrative.

Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2011
Please stop making up what you want others to think I said, and show me where I said that any of the 32,000 were "not scientists".
When you said:
and others who say that not all the signers are climate scientists, even though many thousands are.
You were also saying that there were non-scientists on the petition.
However, many thousands ARE climate scientists, computer scientists (and "modeling" is a big part of the whole AGW religion), meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, etc, whose disciplines are intimately involved with "climate", no matter how you want to re-define it to fit your narrative.

Watch the vid and tell me what you think of that petition afterwards.
Well, for one thing, that wouldn't work with government employees, because they already get 26 weeks vacation
Not all government employees work in Congress.
stealthc
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2011
blah blah, thumping the offshoot-religion book made by the parent religion as a means to control and manipulate the masses....blah blah.

My point, god wouldn't have proven health benefits from sex if we weren't meant to have it. In fact, reproduction should be sinful to you people. Don't hump the ladies that urge is primitive and lustful. Masturbate instead, this way you aren't burdening anyone with your sexual desires. Eat bland nutrient paste for every meal for the rest of your life, lower your co2 exhale.

The point is that polluting the mind with lust is sin. Now since masturbation is definitely not an act devoid of vivid imagination and lust, it too is sin. Genocide doesn't even enter the picture.


Imagination is optional, once you've played with yourself for a while you don't really have to think or have any. There is no lust involved here, sex has been proven to have positive benefits (health-wise) in monogamous relationships, prove to me that hands count too.
stealthc
5 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2011
and now you know how I feel when I read your post.
Eric_B
5 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2011
MASTURBATION IS MURDER!!!

Since people get life in prison for murder, do the math, they should get HALF of their life in prison for wasting the Lord's Gift of Seed, which is HALF a zygote!

Munkey-Shpankers MUST PAY for their SINS!
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2011
Since people get life in prison for murder, do the math, they should get HALF of their life in prison for wasting the Lord's Gift of Seed, which is HALF a zygote!
Actually, zygotes. You'd have to get half a life sentence for each sperm cell, which would be millions per incidence.

Effectively it's half a genocide, which means we have to half hang you to death. So all those auto-erotic asphyxiators are actually doing the UN's job.
Eric_B
5 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2011
Poor David Carradine...

"Do you not see the seed which you have spilled at your feet? Focus grasshopper..."
geokstr
1 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2011
When you said:
and others who say that not all the signers are climate scientists, even though many thousands are.

You were also saying that there were non-scientists on the petition.

What the hell are you talking about? The "others" are the spinners who are claiming that not all the signers are "climate scientists". The signers had to name their degrees. Did you read the breakdown of the degrees, and see how many thousands were relevant to climate research?

No? Why am I not surprised? Oh, that's right, you have a short video by an AGW True Believer that "proves" it's all just a fraud.

You do realize that not all "scientists" can be classified as "climate scientists", but can still be "scientists" with degrees in science and who work in scientific fields? And some "scientists" who are not technically "climate scientists" are scientists whose work is still integral to "climate science", like computer scientists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, etc, etc?

Jimee
1 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2011
Let's all insult our government's workers and do away with all honorable work rules so that Walmart and the other corporations can squeeze all of us down to $1500 a year so they can make even more money!
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2011
Did you read the breakdown of the degrees, and see how many thousands were relevant to climate research?
Yeah actually I did read it. There were pre-law students, economics professors, medical doctors, lots of non-scientists, a bunch of fakes, and a lot of veterinarians. You didn't watch the vid.

"The vast majority of people on there had a Bachelor's of science. If you think that makes anyone an expert in anything call one when you have...lung cancer."
geokstr
1 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2011
You say you read the page "Qualifications of Signers", and can still make that totally phony statement? You got that from the video, right? Because if you say you actually read that page, I have to reluctantly call you a liar. (Too bad, I had actually thought you were someone with whom I could rationally debate.)

31,000 signatures with 9,000 Phds
"3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related..."
"935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods"
"5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids"

I see no lawyers, economists, or fakes. All this BS comes from your "video". Somebody here is making sh*t up, and I'll bet it was your video.
geokstr
1 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2011
That's what makes AGW nothing more than a religion.

There is dogma, the questioning of which is heresy. There can be no doubt or uncertainty about it, the debate is over, no criticism is tolerated, and skeptics will have their reputations smeared and their careers destroyed.

It explains everything, it cannot be falsified, everyone who doubts is stupid, or a shill, or a fraud.

Well, you are losing in the realm of public opinion, and rightfully so. A reasoned, honest, honorable approach to this issue might have resulted in a different outcome, but your rigid religion has brought this upon itself, even if it is correct.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2011
Let's all insult our government's workers and do away with all honorable work rules so that Walmart and the other corporations can squeeze all of us down to $1500 a year so they can make even more money!

How will they make more money?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2011
31,000 signatures with 9,000 Phds
Those are _claimed_ Phds. Signatures were never verified; for all we know they're all phony.

And besides, that still leaves plenty of room for the ~16,000 BS or "equivalent" degrees, and other nonsense.
I see no lawyers, economists, or fakes.
You wouldn't actually be expecting a propaganda site to undercut its own marketing by honestly publishing data that contradicts its own claims... would you??
Skepticus_Rex
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2011
If the abovementioned petition is fraudulent in part it's no worse than the initial list of scientists who signed an IPCC-related statement on climate.

Anyone else recall the CRU email enjoining the collectors of signatures not to check or ask for credentials of potential signers and to "just get the names because no one is going to check or care who has a Ph.D."?

I remember reading it. How soon people forget...
panorama
5 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2011
The point is that polluting the mind with lust is sin. Now since masturbation is definitely not an act devoid of vivid imagination and lust, it too is sin. Genocide doesn't even enter the picture.

I think about my ghod smiting sinners when I rub one out, does that count as lust?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2011
You say you read the page "Qualifications of Signers", and can still make that totally phony statement? You got that from the video, right? Because if you say you actually read that page, I have to reluctantly call you a liar. (Too bad, I had actually thought you were someone with whom I could rationally debate.)

31,000 signatures with 9,000 Phds
"3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related..."
"935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods"
"5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids"

I see no lawyers, economists, or fakes. All this BS comes from your "video". Somebody here is making sh*t up, and I'll bet it was your video.

So you haven't watched it, nor read any of the sources sited within, nor done any of the minimum research necessary to be educated on both sides of the topic. It is sad. It appears you don't want to debate whatsoever. You'd rather assume correctness.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2011
As I've said before, I don't need to use a whacko crazy politically compromised source like Seitz or his petition. He and his petition are as irrelevant as Al Gore's opinion. There are plenty of good sources if people want to read up and form their own educated opinion on that subject. This article isn't even about climate change though, so I have no idea why you guys started this argument here. Listening to Seitz is like listening to Limbaugh; it's good for a laugh if you know the truth. The same goes for Al Gore's fantasy and Micheal Mann's perversions. The extremists on both sides make so many false and exagerated claims that it's impossible to address them all. I prefer to go to the real sources and use my own brain to form MY opinion. I may not agree with Pink_Elephant, but I respect him because he seems to have done some reading before he made up his mind. Most people don't do that. Most (meaning nearly all) people.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2011
orm MY opinion.

Science is not about opinion. It is about a theory that can be supported with data.
AGW is a theory that cannot be supported with data, which is one reason the name has been changed to GCC.
But the politicians and taxpayers are expected to agree with the OPINIONS of scientists simply because they claim to be 'objective' scientists.
I can personally attest to one 'scientist' from Harvard, Anderson, who is less than objective.
Regarding main issue of an MD trying to make money, ALL scientists are not a skeptical and objective as one would hope.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2011
AGW is a theory that cannot be supported with data, which is one reason the name has been changed to GCC.
No, the revision of the theory was made to account for observations that were poorly explained. Then again, one wouldn't expect you to be accurate or realistic on this topic anyway.
J-n
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2011
Those same stats also show that a majority couldn't be bothered with birth control, or were apparently too stupid to know that putting the condom on that banana, like they are taught in third grade, wouldn't stop them from getting pregnant.


Too bad the "religious" are anti-birth control as well. As well as Anti-Sex Education. If the "Religious" had their way those women and men would never hear about condoms and other forms of birth control in school.

geokstr
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2011
...the revision of the theory was made to account for observations that were poorly explained

He didn't say that the "theory" was revised, he said the "name" was revised, and he is absolutely correct.

It's gone from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" to "Global Climate Disruption" to "Climate Chaos" in just the last several year, not to account for "observations that were poorly explained" but to cover up the last 15 years of no warming and to overcome the PR problem this whole religion has been having with the general public, who continue to leave the church in droves.

I suppose you believe that that is why the general public is running from the Obama administration and its agenda, only because they've just done a poor job of explaining it to the rubes, who are just too stupid to understand otherwise.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2011
He didn't say that the "theory" was revised, he said the "name" was revised, and he is absolutely correct.
No, he isn't, and neither are you. You two can repeat this sounding board all day long to try to dissuade people of the facts, until you can produce an observation or create a testable situation that shows the theory is wrong, then the theory remains.

I look forward to your published paper on the topic.
geokstr
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2011
Too bad the "religious" are anti-birth control as well. As well as Anti-Sex Education. If the "Religious" had their way those women and men would never hear about condoms and other forms of birth control in school."

Bull crap. The religious hierarchies perhaps, but I doubt if you would find that the general religious population would have any problem with sex education or contraceptives, unless you believe that the pharmas are making tens of billions just selling them to the atheists.

They might have a problem though, with giving out condoms as early as third grade, and teaching the banana tricks in early grade school, and having cross-dressing days, and a lot of what passes for "sex education" these days.

Funny but when I went to grade school in the 1950's, there was no sex education and no contraceptives, and yet, there were very few teen pregnancies, hardly any STDs, and almost no abortions, back alley or otherwise. Thanks liberals, for making it soooooooo much better.

geokstr
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2011
I look forward to your published paper on the topic.

No you don't, because even if I did, your side would have someone create a 10-minute video smearing me and my family, and boycotting the journal that published it. That is the way leftists roll, after all.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2011
No you don't, because even if I did, your side would have someone create a 10-minute video smearing me and my family, and boycotting the journal that published it. That is the way leftists roll, after all.
When challenged for an intelligent rebuttal to the theory you provide an ad hom, a few generalizations thrown in for good measure, no evidence or facts...

You never disappoint jokester.
and yet, there were very few teen pregnancies, hardly any STDs, and almost no abortions, back alley or otherwise. Thanks liberals, for making it soooooooo much better.
Demonstrably false. Complete bullshit buddy.

To be continued shortly.
geokstr
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2011
So you haven't watched it, nor read any of the sources sited within, nor done any of the minimum research necessary to be educated on both sides of the topic...

And you LIED about having seen "law school students and economists and non-scientists" on the the Petition site. You also LIED about the types of degrees represented, because you LIED about having even looked at the site. All you were going on was your video. Even wikipedia, a known biased pro-AGW site is not as critical as you about the Petition Project.

I didn't watch your video. But I didn't lie about it either.

Whatever respect I had for you or your opinions is gone. It is difficult to get that back when you are caught red-handed being dishonest.

Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2011
Cont from above:

Ok, so in the 50's teen pregnancy was 50% higher than it is today. The only difference here is the old habit of forced marriage. What is on the increase is non-marital childbearing, and that's happening in all age groups as women have gained comparitive equality in pay in the work place (still some work to do on that one but it's close, ladies).

Women are not needing men as much. This is one of the reasons why the anti-abortion rhetoric is getting louder. Men are wanting more control over women as manufacturing jobs are vanishing and service jobs are increasing. This means you no longer need to be physically strong to earn a good days wage.

As for STDs did you know incidences of syphillis were about 1000% higher in the 50's? In the 90's alone, infections of syph dropped 90%. The only difference here is now you're hearing about STDs rather than having them hushed up. This educates the populace and lessens the spread through education.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2011
You also LIED about the types of degrees represented
Oh really? I said there were a majority of bachelors of science, some masters, some phd's, and some MDs and DVMs, or as I said Veterinarians.
because you LIED about having even looked at the site.
Which site?
All you were going on was your video.
And the statements made by the NAS, AAS, the Court records of Seitz being investigated over fraud on the ordeal, and multiple other resources that you're probably not going to even look at.
Even wikipedia, a known biased pro-AGW site is not as critical as you about the Petition Project.
From wikipedia:

The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees.

So that's primarily Bachelor's of Science. That's one place I didn't lie, and look at that, a lot of veterinarians.
I didn't watch your video. But I didn't lie about it either.
Then how are you so sure of what's in it?
ennui27
5 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2011
[qWell, for one thing, that wouldn't work with government employees, because they already get 26 weeks vacation, plus a month of paid sick days, and 53 federal holidays every year, including Cabbage Patch Doll Day, National Buggy Whip Remembrance Day, and St Karl of Marx' Birthday (formerly DWEM (Dead White European Male) Presidents Day), all of which can be carried over and cashed in in the last year before retirement, along with a ton of overtime and promotions granted specificially for the purpose of making their pension three times their highest year's base salary. At age 52 no less, with dollar one health, dental and vision coverage for the rest of their lives.

What governnent are you talking about and who are the workers? I am a government worker and a survey done by the government itself notes that I am compensated at a rate that is 20% of the usual rate.
ormondotvos
5 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2011
Ah, yes, public opinion is swinging towards the idea that everything will be OK as soon as the corporations have a chance to invent something to fix it.

Overpopulation is fixable? When we have numnuts advocating bigger and bigger families because godsezso? Public opinion is the most massive roadblock to human happiness, because (LISTEN UP) the easiest way to get rich and powerful is to spew carefully crafted lies.

I really don't think climate scientists wish climate change on us. I fail to see the mechanisms where corporations are working to avoid climate change. Actually, they're hiring (proven) shills to be clever and obstructive to rational thought on the Internet forums. Like this one.

Have you seen the ad from adbusters with the little girl with a noose almost tight around her neck, standing on a melting iceberg?
GSwift7
3 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2011
Actually the only real survey I've seen often recommended as authoritative is the fraudulent one conducted by Frederick Seitz


Well, there's the IPCC claim that the majority of contributors to the assessment reports agree with the IPCC's summary for policy makers. Actually, most of the contributors have at least a small problem with at least a small part of the policy maker documents. As with most things in life, it's not 100%-0%; it's not black and white. The 'concensus' is not a solid brick wall as some people make it sound. Most climate scientists disagree with each other about some small part in the very least. If you look at projections, there are a wide range of potential results of doubled co2 for example. Some say 1.5 c and others say 7 c temp increase in 90 years. Each group has different views. That isn't a concensus, and such a wide range of opinion means that the theory behind the estimate isn't as strong as it needs to be... yet.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2011
Well, there's the IPCC claim that the majority of contributors to the assessment reports agree with the IPCC's summary for policy makers. Actually, most of the contributors have at least a small problem with at least a small part of the policy maker documents.
I'm not sure that's correct. I think the IPCC statement is that the majority have no issue with the full report for the IPCC Climate Report and many had problems with the summary for policy makers.

As to why there's such a wide range on simulations, that's because of two reasons.
1) we're comparign simulation from the 50's all the way through to the present. I expect a wide variety of results based on the hardware on which the model was run alone.

2) when the IPCC document came out, in 97, the various feedback mechanisms were not well understood. That is almost an entirely different landscape now a days. Most models now agree with significance, and most forcing have a strong body of support in their weighting now.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2011
Now both of the points I bring up in my prior post were main vectors of skepticism against AGCC. I know because I was one of the skeptics. You can probably still look up my older posts on this site to that effect. Almost all of the skeptic arguments against CO2 induced climate change are political or journalistic fantasy, but some were legitimate. A lot of the criticisms sent forward by men like FOX news meterologist Anthony Watts were of the former type, just fantasy. Lindzen had a few good criticisms but failed to publish papers on the topics with which he took issue in a timely fashion, and as such his criticisms would appear in the news, then a few months later there would be an authoritative paper on the very topic. It was like he was just shooting over the wall to see what hit.

This behavior was used as a marketting tool by people at odds over our money. People like Enron and Al Gore, Shell Oil and Frederick Seitz. They all tried to play us, don't let them win.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2011
So to sum up the prior two posts if you see an article anywhere, including this site, in regards to global warming identify the source of that article, then the source of that source, and so on back until you reach an authoritative and current research paper. Then read the paper and read the first article you started with and compare them. Otherwise all you're doing is forwarding someone else's opinion and probably looking like an asshole when you do it.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2011
Science is not about opinion. It is about a theory that can be supported with data.
AGW is a theory that cannot be supported with data,


That gets into word games. I could call a theory a scientific opinion and then we could question what the term 'scientific' means.

I'm a cautious skeptic, so bearing that in mind here's my take:

From what I have read from official (non-biased) sources; The data supports GW. Some data suggests that AGW is part of the GW. Other data suggests natural GW is happening too. And a third portion of data is inconclusive or incomplete to the extent that more time, more work or more technology is needed before conclusions can be drawn. I have to qualify my statement with the following though: What I just said is grossly oversimplified and overgeneralized. The terms AGW theory and natural GW theory are very broad and actually cover a multitude of different AGW and NGW theories. Some are stronger than others. Many related fields overlap here.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2011
And a third portion of data is inconclusive or incomplete to the extent that more time, more work or more technology is needed before conclusions can be drawn.

But it justifies the hysteria in the media, including physorg.com?
It justifies state control of a gas all living things exhale?
It justifies increase govt control of the world economy?
GSwift7
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
@ SH:

Those were very good posts and quite accurate. I especially like the part where you suggest that people reading an article about science track down the sources before they buy into what they read. I have started doing exactly that, and have found that almost everything we are told contains a good measure of BS piled on top of the truth, sometimes to the point where you can't even see the truth any more. Cetain fields are worse than others in that regard though. I've noticed the biggest culprits on this site being in the areas of: climate change, materials, quantum computing, condensed matter, and of course Psychology. It seems like they always leave out some important detail or have a set of blinders on when they write articles about that stuff. They have wild headlines and long-shot predictions designed to attract readers who are easily led to the fantasy of 'space-age technological wonder'. I'd call it the 'Popular Mechanic Effect' if I had to name it.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
But it justifies the hysteria in the media, including physorg.com?


Obviously not.

It justifies state control of a gas all living things exhale?


AGW doesn't justify it, but economics and demographics do. It makes sense to be more efficient, cleaner and sustainable.

justifies increase govt control of the world economy?


I'm not sure what that means. If you are talking about the Chinese government taking over the world economy then I'm not sure what we can do about it or what that has to do with AGW. If you read any of my posts, you KNOW I'm against cap and trade. It's not working for the EU or NZ, and Japan says they may back out of it. The cap and trade system that NY and a few other states formed isn't working either, and one of those states is backing out too. Maybe it would have worked before the global recession, but not now and not in the next few years at the least.
GSwift7
4 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
Actually, they're hiring (proven) shills to be clever and obstructive to rational thought on the Internet forums. Like this one.


Yes, both sides do this. Both sides also lobby in washington and bribe politicians. You won't get the truth out of the official spokesperson for any organization who is strongly advocating either the left or the right in this debate. Not the whole, complete, up-to-date truth anyway. You'll hear partial truths or subsequently disproven old truths or circumstantial truths or probabilities described as certainties and on and on.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2011
Sh:

Christians men don't "control" or want to control their wives. Excluding cults like mormons or the UPC, women do whatever they want really.

If they really bother to do what scripture says, then they love their wife more than their own life.

Oh yeah, in America today, women actually have extreme advantages under the law, even unconstitutional advantages in the case of divorce, whereby the man is effectively her slave for the rest of her life anyway.

the real heart of this argument is that liberals believe it's ok for everyone to run around acting like a free harlot, sleeping with a different person every week, or even every night, in some cases, and as long as you wear a condom, it's ok, fine and dandy.

Adultery and fornication are wrong by definition. Consequences are not what make a thing wrong. Consequences are what happens BECAUSE a thing is wrong.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2011
Christians men don't "control" or want to control their wives. Excluding cults like mormons or the UPC, women do whatever they want really.
Care to explain why they're classified with the cattle then?
If they really bother to do what scripture says, then they love their wife more than their own life.
Uhm, really?
Oh yeah, in America today, women actually have extreme advantages under the law
Only in secular countries. Theocracy still has them serving your will. Grow a set and let the women do as they will./ After all, without your mom, you would be nothing more than a stain on the rug.
(Us freeeven unconstitutional advantages in the case of divorce, whereby the man is effectively her slave for the rest of her life anyway.
LOL. Grow up, self victimizing fool.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2011
the real heart of this argument is that liberals believe it's ok for everyone to run around acting like a free harlot
You mean liberals tend to think it's ok for women to be equal to men.
sleeping with a different person every week
Doing the same bullshit men strive to do....
or even every night, in some cases, and as long as you wear a condom, it's ok, fine and dandy.
And choosing to get pregnant when they choose because that's what being a woman is about...
Adultery and fornication are wrong by definition.
Prove it.
Consequences are not what make a thing wrong.
Because if there was no hell, you wouldn't be kissing ass right now...
Consequences are what happens BECAUSE a thing is wrong.
Or...you have no idea what you're talking about and have a serious psychopathy problem. I don't cheat on my wife because it's a crappy thing to do. God can suck rocks. I'm faithful because I want to be faithful. "His will", is a fairy tale YOU need.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2011
Seriously, you need a book, from 2000 years ago, to tell you that cheating on your wife is wrong...

Wow, that's like the sort of thing I knew since I was born. "Don't be an asshole for no reason" is built in to me. What's wrong with you that you need your mum to tell you a story so that you understand that simple rule?

Here's your entire religion, morality-wise, in a nutshell....
"Don't be a douchebag."

So ends the New, New Testament of The Skeptical Heretic, hallowed be my name.

Now go forth and have fun, take care of each other, and above all else....

"Don't be a douchebag". Amen.
panorama
5 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2011
Wow, that's like the sort of thing I knew since I was born. "Don't be an asshole for no reason" is built in to me.

Isn't that basically Wheaton's Law?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
Wow, that's like the sort of thing I knew since I was born. "Don't be an asshole for no reason" is built in to me.

Isn't that basically Wheaton's Law?

"Don't be a dick!"

Yes, exactly. This is something that we all know. We can say there is one universal rule to humankind... Wheaton's Law of "Don't be a dick!"

The only problem, as everyone will point out shortly is, "dick" is subjective. Hence all the other social contract crap we have to layer upon it...

But you know what? I'd rather go through all the bullshit to reach common ground than just force my will on other people...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
I'd rather go through all the bullshit to reach common ground than just force my will on other people...

That is in direct conflict with your support of govt regulations.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
I'd rather go through all the bullshit to reach common ground than just force my will on other people...

That is in direct conflict with your support of govt regulations.


....if you listen closely, from afar away in the mangyhole, you can hear mangynowrintintin tittering at its own jest, contentedly picking at the encrustations upon its backside...

eachus
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2011
No, he isn't, and neither are you. You two can repeat this sounding board all day long to try to dissuade people of the facts, until you can produce an observation or create a testable situation that shows the theory is wrong, then the theory remains.


Siqh! What is the difference between science and religion? Scientists test theories. Passing one test does not mean that the theory is true, just that it hasn't been falsified yet. But failure in a single well designed test, sends a scientist back to the starting gate. Not to propose a different test, but to figure out why his theory is wrong.

In a religion, you have unquestionable dogma. Even attempting to test dogma can lead to excommunication.

There have been quite enough papers by AGW believers advancing testable predictions. Many of those predictions have proved incorrect. It is considered good form for the authors to withdraw such papers, and bad form to publish papers that just point out such failures.
FrankHerbert
0.7 / 5 (47) Jan 15, 2011
ya'll hella dumb
BillFox
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2011

....Oh, and masturbation is genocide right?


Only for men apparently lol
NameIsNotNick
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2011
Exploit vaccine fears? That's just conspiracy nonsense!


Judging by the down votes, seems they don't get the joke ;-)
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
Many of those predictions have proved incorrect. It is considered good form for the authors to withdraw such papers, and bad form to publish papers that just point out such failures.
Can you name one of these predictions, citing the paper with it, of course.
Skepticus_Rex
2.2 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2011
This could be a fun exercise. I'll start with a few. :)

Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035. -IPCC AR4. (They found out that this was based on mistake that was missed in propagandistic WWF literature; the real prediction was 2350 in the original paper).

And, then, there was the prediction that in summer 2008 all the Arctic ice would be gone. That was up-revised as 2008 came and went with unexpected increases in Arctic Ice.

This then was followed by another prediction based on actual climate modelling that the "Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015" and in another place somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

2010 came and went and still we had no iceless Arctic. Let's see where 2015 and in between goes...

I'd link to these predictions but Physorg.com apparently does not allow linking anymore because of the spammers.
Egnite
3 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
Exploit vaccine fears? That's just conspiracy nonsense!


Judging by the down votes, seems they don't get the joke ;-)


Glad someone did ^^
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035. -IPCC AR4.
Not a peer reviewed journal. IPCC is essentially akin to Popular Mechanics. Just as many people get things wrong, this shows how the IPCC gets things wrong. They included an unsourced estimate, bad publishing.
And, then, there was the prediction that in summer 2008 all the Arctic ice would be gone.
Not scientific, this was Al Gore and carried by the media.
Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015
Again, this is the media, not science.
2010 came and went and still we had no iceless Arctic. Let's see where 2015 and in between goes.
None of which were science.
I'd link to these predictions but Physorg.com apparently does not allow linking anymore because of the spammers.

Simply remove the H of http. Not providing links is a cop out.
gvgoebel
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Not a peer reviewed journal. IPCC is essentially akin to Popular Mechanics. Just as many people get things wrong, this shows how the IPCC gets things wrong. They included an unsourced estimate, bad publishing.


It might be a bit severe to compare the IPCC to PM -- the IPCC staff has good credentials in climate science. It is true that the review board that went over the IPCC's work was critical on a fair number of points, particularly the Himalayan glaciers goof -- but the end assessment of the review was that the IPCC's conclusions were generally valid.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
It might be a bit severe to compare the IPCC to PM -- the IPCC staff has good credentials in climate science. It is true that the review board that went over the IPCC's work was critical on a fair number of points, particularly the Himalayan glaciers goof -- but the end assessment of the review was that the IPCC's conclusions were generally valid.
True, but that does not mean that any of their findings were directed peer reviewed research. This invalidates the IPCC as a source on the subject beyond a magazine article. In the discussion of the science, the IPCC is utterly meaningless for both sides of the discussion, as is Popular Mechanics.
Skepticus_Rex_
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
...to what I said earlier I would supply links if I had them! I used the 'Spammer' as a clever decoy (bet you didn't twig eh!....ohh, I forgot, other people manage to put links in....DOHH!)
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
...to what I said earlier I would supply links if I had them! I used the 'Spammer' as a clever decoy (bet you didn't twig eh!....ohh, I forgot, other people manage to put links in....DOHH!)

So, why would you be so outspoken about the science if you're not paying attention to it?
Skepticus_Rex
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2011
...to what I said earlier I would supply links if I had them! I used the 'Spammer' as a clever decoy (bet you didn't twig eh!....ohh, I forgot, other people manage to put links in....DOHH!)

So, why would you be so outspoken about the science if you're not paying attention to it?


Skeptic_Heretic,

Looks like you got teken in by another MikeyK sockpuppet. Note carefully the difference between my username Skepticus_Rex and the directly above Skepticus_Rex_.

I just sent up a complaint to management about his repeat antics of abuse.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
...to what I said earlier I would supply links if I had them! I used the 'Spammer' as a clever decoy (bet you didn't twig eh!....ohh, I forgot, other people manage to put links in....DOHH!)

So, why would you be so outspoken about the science if you're not paying attention to it?


Skeptic_Heretic,

Looks like you got teken in by another MikeyK sockpuppet. Note carefully the difference between my username Skepticus_Rex and the directly above Skepticus_Rex_.

I just sent up a complaint to management about his repeat antics of abuse.


Neat trick, man!

As far as providing links -you can do like I did a few posts above- a solution, among others, proposed by both frajo and Ethelred.

Skepticus_Rex
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2011
Neat trick, man!


You, of course, would know a lot about stuff like... :)

As far as providing links -you can do like I did a few posts above- a solution, among others, proposed by both frajo and Ethelred.


Tried several different methods, none of which worked. The new spam filter stopped them all until I removed the offending text. Believe whatever you want, though...you already do...
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2011
Neat trick, man!


You, of course, would know a lot about stuff like... :)


Not really. No chicanery here (bit of sarcasm, though). If I take exception to your position, I'll let you know directly- you won't have to worry about sockpuppets and the like.

As far as providing links -you can do like I did a few posts above- a solution, among others, proposed by both frajo and Ethelred.

Tried several different methods, none of which worked. The new spam filter stopped them all until I removed the offending text. Believe whatever you want, though...you already do...


Hey -I offered a solution to your difficulties there. Does it matter that someone else provided it? I had exactly the same problem with the spam filter. I wasn't accusing you of lying, if that's what you mean by that comment.

Why should I care? Well....I don't, really, but I saw that I was in a position to provide assistance, so I did.

Is that a crime, now, too?
Skepticus_Rex
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2011
Not a peer reviewed journal. IPCC is essentially akin to Popular Mechanics.


Dont let the IPCC hear you say that. They insist that their report was peer reviewed.

Not scientific, this was Al Gore and carried by the media.


Nope. It was not Al Gore.

Again, this is the media, not science.


Nope, the report came directly from the organization to the media. I do agree with you that it was not science, however.

None of which were science.


I agree with you there. But, it had nothing to do with Al Gore. The name of the fellow who made the 2010 prediction was Louis Fortier, who "holds the Canada Research Chair on the response of arctic marine ecosystems to climate warming. He sits on the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada since 2005."

Simply remove the H of http. Not providing links is a cop out.


Tried that for the two links I tried to provide. It did not work. I tried several other methods, too. None worked.
Skepticus_Rex
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2011
Here goes with an attempt with a differently formatted link to a different site regarding the 2010 prediction:

htp://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/news/y2007.php

See the news item dated "15 November, 2007."

I quote it here in case the link does not make it.

CanWest News Service, Canada.com - November 15, 2007 - Prof. Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, is featured in an article discussing the climate projections of an ice-free Northwest Passage as soon as 2010. Fortier approves of Prime Minister Harper's announcement to reassert Canadian sovereignty in the North.


I cannot say whether or not he still stands by that prediction or has modified it since. Should I find out, however, I will let you know. :)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2011
Note: I quoted the wrong item (see instead the item dated 16 November, 2007 and compare that to other information you might be able to uncover via the web) but the link to the page worked this time. It still will not work for the other ones I tried earlier, however. I'll keep trying but don't expect any promises.
thales
not rated yet Jan 18, 2011
Where did geokstr go?
geokstr
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2011
Where did geokstr go?

Awww, you missed me. How sweet.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2011
Dont let the IPCC hear you say that. They insist that their report was peer reviewed.
No, they insist that their report was based wholly on peer reviewed research, and it wasn't, it was bad journalism and forced them to print many retractions, like the Himalaya ordeal.
Nope. It was not Al Gore.
Then who?
Nope, the report came directly from the organization to the media. I do agree with you that it was not science, however.
Link it.
Louis Fortier
Mr Fourtier never claimed an Ice free artic. He claimed that we were seeing record ice loss in 2007 in an article run by the Ottawa Citizen which cited no scientific research what so ever. Fourtier said we were "seeing large melt... passages open that haven't been open for years...recommended strategic shipping control strategy and further study."

No statements of an ice free artic from scientists, just a journalist. Next time, follow the source of the rumor.
Skepticus_Rex
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2011
No, they insist that their report was based wholly on peer reviewed research, and it wasn't, it was bad journalism and forced them to print many retractions, like the Himalaya ordeal.


Actually, the IPCC allows for citation of non-peer-reviewed material, with specific rules for use.

1. Responsibilities of Coordinating, Lead and Contributing Authors
Authors who wish to include information from a non-published/non-peer-reviewed source are requested to:
a. Critically assess any source that they wish to include. This option may be used for instance to obtain case study materials from private sector sources for assessment of adaptation and mitigation options. Each chapter team should review the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report.


See Annex 2 in htp://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf

Note carefully the review process for suitability. Close enough for government work...
Skepticus_Rex
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2011
Then who?


Dr. Olav Orheim, "distinguished glaciologist, climatologist and polar expert who has spent more than thirty years studying the effects of global warming," who at the time of the announcement was "Executive Secretary of the Norwegian International Polar Year," "a renowned authority on climate change and its effects on the planet's poles," and "Senior Adviser to the Norwegian Ministry of Environment," that's who.

Al Gore just picked up on his research and public statements and used them for his own stuff.
Skepticus_Rex
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2011
Link it.


Tried again...still not working...

Mr Fourtier never claimed an Ice free artic. He claimed that we were seeing record ice loss in 2007 in an article run by the Ottawa Citizen which cited no scientific research what so ever. Fourtier said we were "seeing large melt... passages open that haven't been open for years...recommended strategic shipping control strategy and further study."

No statements of an ice free artic from scientists, just a journalist. Next time, follow the source of the rumor.


You are thinking of the wrong article and information. Fortier went beyond that stance in his followup article, which most definitely stated that all indications led him to believe that there would likely be an ice free Arctic in 2010 or between 2010 and 2015. The link to his information also still is keeping my post in the spam filter.

I'll keep trying but no promises... In the meantimem believe what you want. No skin off my nose. :)
Skepticus_Rex
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2011
I almost forgot about the agreeing prediction, made in April 2008, of a possible ice free Arctic in summer 2008 by Mark Serreze at NSIDC.

Well, actually, I did forget about it but got reminded of it just a few moments ago. Thought I would share. :)
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2011
@Skepticus_Rex,

Couldn't help but notice your "subtle" conflation of ice-free Northwest Passage with ice-free Arctic Ocean. Nicely done, slick.

Incidentally, you might find this ironic:
The late summer of 2010 saw an open Northwest Passage: this year, the deep water channel (the northern route) from M'Clure Strait to Lancaster Sound was navigable.
Above quoted from nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

What objectively verified prediction shall we be ridiculing next?
Skepticus_Rex
2 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2011
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2011
Damned physorg site...

Here is a photo of the area from 2010:

htp://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/science-fair/2010/09/13/arctic-icex-large.jpg

Looks like there still was some ice there. Can you say "fail" for another prediction? Doesn't "ice-free" mean NO ice? I see some there...

Or, do we need another redefinition of the meaning of "ice-free"?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2011
By the way, here is a photo of your "ice-free" Northwest Passage, courtesy of NASA:

htp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/45000/45766/nwpassage_amo_2010252_lrg.jpg

Careful not to confuse clouds and ice. But, you sill see that it hardly qualifies for "ice-free" and would appear to be another fail in prediction. Close but no cigar, slick. :)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2011
Note carefully the review process for suitability. Close enough for government work...
Which wasn't good enough, resulting in multiple retractions. As to the rest of your posts, multiple assertions with no links then you finally get a few links working showing an ice free Amundsen passage, jsut as was predicted by the reseach papers.

Just as you said, try not to get clouds and ice confused.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
Just as you said, try not to get clouds and ice confused.


I didn't--but apparently you did. Look again.
Skepticus_Rex_
3 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
htt(DELETEME)p://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/092710.html
Here is another link as I couldn't tell the difference between ice and cloud. This shows the ice free gap in the North West passage....Dohh! ( :- {I} )
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
Unfortuantely for MikeyK's rear-underscore sockpuppet, the image he 'linked' does not show enough resolution to show much of value, as is his habit. Look at the satellite photo I 'linked' above. (I include it again here).

htp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/45000/45766/nwpassage_amo_2010252_lrg.jpg

The place was open but hardly ice-free. Remember, the prediction was for an ice-free passage. There was ice there. That prediction failed. End of story.

Let's see what the next prediction brings.
MikeyK
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2011
Muppet! You have again clearly demonstrated why nobody likes or listens to you. The whole discussion was for and 'Ice free gap', i.e. a navigable route through the NW passage. You admit above "The place was open" THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT!! Your photograph shows the gap, the satellite shows it...even Skeptics know it.
Pathetic.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jan 21, 2011
Unfortuantely for MikeyK's rear-underscore sockpuppet, the image he 'linked' does not show enough resolution to show much of value, as is his habit. Look at the satellite photo I 'linked' above. (I include it again here).

htp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/45000/45766/nwpassage_amo_2010252_lrg.jpg

The place was open but hardly ice-free. Remember, the prediction was for an ice-free passage. There was ice there. That prediction failed. End of story.

Let's see what the next prediction brings.

You're going to have to produce the article that makes that claim seeing as you've now found the ability to link things.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Ah...so he finally comes out from behind the sockpuppets. No, the prediction was for an ice-free passage. The other was for an ice-free Arctic. Both were made by the same person. Of course, neither prediction actually came true.

The passage was navigable but there still was ice there. "Ice-free" means "no ice." Anything else is something other than ice-free. I understand that you have reading comprehension problems but please don't latch your problems onto others by projection. It is rather unbecoming.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Yeah, Skeptic_Heretic, I have been linking for some time but for some reason the two addresses STILL keep getting caught in the spam filter no matter what. I am going to have to link to the next best thing, which is a news article detailing what was said. I think it will make it through. So, here goes nothing...

Ice-free Arctic 2010:
htp://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=1aaab4cd-0ca4-4b28-8a71-f442545a9d23

This same story was picked up by several papers in Canada at the time. I'll try to find another link and post as soon as I can. But, no matter what you think, the two I originally have tried over and over to post here still will not post through the spam filter. I am wondering whether it has something to do with content of codes in the URLs.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Here is another news article relative to what was said by Orheim.

"Expert: Arctic polar cap may disappear this summer [2008]":
htp://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/01/content_7696460.htm

The first attempt did not get past the spam filter. Here is the second attempt.

Edit: Well, at least you get to read these. :)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2011
Again, this is the unsourced Fourtier comment.

PM me the links and I'll post them for you or at least be able to evaluate your sources.

As for your other source, it's completely unsourced from the Chinese State News Agency.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Actually, I am done wrangling with the links. Whatever does not post does not get posted. I am sure you will believe what you will, however... :)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
But, while on that trailing note, here is another article that makes reference to the same prediction of Fortier:

htp://www.physorg.com/news115053247.html

The claim has been repeated by him and others since he made it.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2011
Actually, I am done wrangling with the links. Whatever does not post does not get posted. I am sure you will believe what you will, however... :)
Has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with a lack of faith in hearsay.
But, while on that trailing note, here is another article that makes reference to the same prediction of Fortier:

htp://www.physorg.com/news115053247.html

The claim has been repeated by him and others since he made it.
You can't say he's made or repeated a claim that you can't substantiate. I've taken away every objection you could have on the matter of posting your source and you still won't do it.

You just don't have a source, do you? You never investigated what the paper printed and instead swallowed it whole cloth.
eachus
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2011
I just love the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" request that I post links to withdrawn papers. What part of withdrawn don't you get?

For example I can point to the infamous hockey stick graph by Michael Mann. The flawed graph can be found in lots of places, including the cover of the IPCC draft report. (Or here: ttp://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm with a discussion of the whole issue including a correct graph showing the MWP from the 1990 IPCC report.) But the flawed paper it appeared in has been withdrawn. If you want to find a paper copy, look for: Mann M.E. et al, "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations", AGU GRL, v.3.1, 1999, but I have no idea where any cached copies from before it was withdrawn can be found on line.

Does the Mann paper count as a prediction? Sure. It was predicting that the MWP was limited to Europe, which numerous cites that can be found above contradict.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
If you say so, it must be true... Oh, the shame of it all...

Well, anyway, here is another reference to the claim and an article publishing it, with no clarifications, refutations, or retractions, and this one is on the ArcticNet website.

The original article that was linked there is no longer there or even linked, however. So, don't expect me to post that one either because in this case it no longer exists. I was unable to pull it up using archive.org as well.

"23 November, 2007
The Gazette; Earthtimes.org, Science News Editor - November 23, 2007 – Prof. Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, says the worst-case scenarios about melting sea ice are coming true and the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summertime as soon as 2010 or 2015. The detrimental consequences of climate change on Inuit culture and their way of life are discussed."

htp://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/news/y2007.php

Seriously, I am done with this. Fortier made the claim. Many picked it up. '.'
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
Funny thing just happened... I cannot get access to the original presentation.

So, with all the dickering over the link it does not matter anymore. Even I do not have access to this presentation of information.

However, someone you know (or who someone else here knows, or even someone visiting the site who actually attended the presentation) might have access to it in printed form, or even in outline form for the presentation. Ready? Here goes.

The title of the presentation was: "Climate Change: the Arctic on the Line of Fire."

It was scheduled to be presented by Dr. Louis Fortier at 1030 hours on NOVEMBER 15, 2007, during the segment of the conference entitled "Defence and Security of the North American Continent: the Driving Force behind Innovation."

See what you can find. Hopefully, someone has a printed copy of the presentation information lying around somewhere. I don't and I did not think to save the information to my hard drives.

I know. "Convenient." :)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
I guess further information was needed. I noticed that I neglected to post additional information.

The Conference was at Château Frontenac, in Quebec, Canada, during November 13-16th, 2007. The conference was "Defence Security Innovation 2007" or "DSI 2007."

Hopefully, that will be enough detail for someone to pick up on and obtain additional information. :)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
I just love the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" request that I post links to withdrawn papers. What part of withdrawn don't you get?
What part of withdrawn do you not get?

If the paper is withdrawn, it's not part of the body of scientific knowledge. We don't debate big bang vs steady state theory because Hoyle published a paper predicting something different than observation. Similarly, if a paper is withdrawn in a field like, I don't know, AGCC, the status quo folks tend to harp on it for decades. So if the status quo folk are going to come on here and state that "there are utterly ridiculous predictions in the science, all of which are false" but those predictions/papers no longer exist, then they're not part of the science and not part of the scientific debate.

The collective ignorance of the average person in this field of science is the only thing that pumps this conversation. This is the exact same sort of marketing bullshit that the Creationist lobby employs
eachus
1.5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
What part of withdrawn do you not get?

If the paper is withdrawn, it's not part of the body of scientific knowledge...

Similarly, if a paper is withdrawn in a field like, I don't know, AGCC, the status quo folks tend to harp on it for decades. So if the status quo folk are going...state that "there are utterly ridiculous predictions in the science, all of which are false" but those predictions/papers no longer exist, then they're not part of the science and not part of the scientific debate.

The collective ignorance of the average person in this field of science is the only thing that pumps this conversation.


I'm not ignorant in this field, I have provided statistical advice to many people trying to make sense out of real climate data. Stop trying to scare the children with stories about climate disasters, and we will be on the same side--CO2 levels are already having health effects on humans. Another field but that is part of the fun of being a statistician. ;-)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
I'm not ignorant in this field, I have provided statistical advice to many people trying to make sense out of real climate data. Stop trying to scare the children with stories about climate disasters, and we will be on the same side--CO2 levels are already having health effects on humans. Another field but that is part of the fun of being a statistician. ;-)
At what point in time did I claim any climate disasters? The only claim being made here was that science predicted some sort of ice melt disaster, no one claimed that in the research, so if you fine gents are going to tell us that the scientists are making doom and gloom predictions, and not the media, prove it.