Revealed: Secret businesses which aimed to exploit vaccine fears

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?

Wakefield is just one more example of a scumbag ...

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.

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.

you would probably hit a dog with your car and forget about it a week later.

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

Wakefield is just one more example of a scumbag ...

But he was a SCIENTIST.

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.

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

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.

...in cases of rape and incest...

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.

...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 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".

and others who say that not all the signers are climate scientists, even though many thousands are.

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.

Well, for one thing, that wouldn't work with government employees, because they already get 26 weeks vacation

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.

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!

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.

Did you read the breakdown of the degrees, and see how many thousands were relevant to climate research?

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!

31,000 signatures with 9,000 Phds

I see no lawyers, economists, or fakes.

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.

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.

orm MY opinion.

AGW is a theory that cannot be supported with data, which is one reason the name has been changed to GCC.

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.

...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.

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."

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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,

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?

justifies increase govt control of the world economy?

Actually, they're hiring (proven) shills to be clever and obstructive to rational thought on the Internet forums. Like this one.

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

(Us freeeven 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.

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.

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?

I'd rather go through all the bullshit to reach common ground than just force my will on other people...

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.

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.

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

Exploit vaccine fears? That's just conspiracy nonsense!

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.

Exploit vaccine fears? That's just conspiracy nonsense!

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

Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035. -IPCC AR4.

And, then, there was the prediction that in summer 2008 all the Arctic ice would be gone.

Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 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.

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.

...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!)

...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?

...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.

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...

Not a peer reviewed journal. IPCC is essentially akin to Popular Mechanics.

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

Again, this is the media, not science.

None of which were science.

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

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.

Where did geokstr go?

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

Nope. It was not Al Gore.

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

Louis Fortier

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.

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.

Then who?

Link it.

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.

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.

Note carefully the review process for suitability. Close enough for government work...

Just as you said, try not to get clouds and ice confused.

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.

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... :)

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.

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...

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. ;-)

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. ;-)