Kind of like Al Gore

Doesn’t the information below about the lying autism/vaccination doc remind you of Green Billionaire  Al Gore and his fellow wealth redistribution (into their own pocket) fellow travelers?

According to new research published in today’s BMJ, Wakefield’s motive for the fraud was money — and lots of it. Wakefield “planned secret businesses intended to make huge sums of money, in Britain and America, from his now-discredited allegations,” according to a BMJ press release.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/ Zachriel

    Ymarsakar: The question is, why are you ordering people into the climate change room for economic corrections when you yourself have no qualifications on the matter?

    We have consistently referred to the strong consensus of the scientific community.

    Joint science academies’ statement: Climate change is real.
    http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

    This thread has probably run its course. 

  • Mike Devx

    Zachriel, #101
    > We have consistently referred to the strong consensus of the scientific community.

    There’s that royal WE again!  As far as I know, only you, Zachriel, have referred to that “strong consensus” as a positive.  If others have typed that phrase above, it is only in refutation of your argument.

    > This thread has probably run its course.

    Translation: “I’m getting tired of this.  You won’t see me much in this thread anymore, if at all.”

    Saying “I’m getting tired of this” would have been an honest comment.  Saying “This thread has probably run its course” is more sideways-slippery rhetoric that implicitly claims more consensus where there isn’t any.  I don’t think anyone else here is claiming that the entire thread has “probably run its course”.

    Actually, I’d like to commend Zachriel.  He (or she?) has been doing a fine job presenting his viewpoint.  He’s more informed than most AGW proponents.  He’s regularly civil.   And remember, it IS awfully tough to hang in there in a blog comment section when no one else has joined your argument’s side; you can start to feel ganged-up-on.  I may nitpick on the royal “we” stuff and implicit claims of consensus (this thread has run its course) rather than simpler statements of opinion (I’m getting tired of this).  But I’m just nitpicking because I’m used to it in arguments and its an irritant to me.  (Ozzie used to do that a lot, too.)  Zachriel’s been great, in my opinion.  I’ll read his comments with serious reflection anytime.

  • Mike Devx

     

    > But handwaving away the conclusions of science won’t change those conclusions. Only data will.
     
    “Handwaving” is what AGW proponents do to arguments that AGW is only a minor contributor to global warming.  Their data and hypothesis often seem more compelling to me.
     
    Zach continues to focus solely on data rather than on the entire scientific method that results in accepted theories.  I still don’t understand that.  Data is merely the inputs.  It’s the starting point, only.  I continue to insist that any good theory must submit its models to the scientific community and the results must be independently verifiable; and the theory will then also be put to the test via other experiments whose conclusions result in PROOF.  That’s the way it’s always worked, and no handwaving attempts to dismiss the scientific method will cause it to be discarded.
     
    > And according to a strong consensus of the scientific community, the data supports anthropogenic climate change.
     
    Supports its existence, yes.  Supports the claim that it is the major, primary contributor to global warming… not at all so clear.  Not at all.
     
    > Any reasonable person would take that to stead, fund additional research, and take reasonable measures — most of which have substantial secondary benefits anyway.
     
    That doesn’t explain the fact that peer review groups are self-selected solely from proponents of AGW.  That dissent is oppressed, that those who dissent are denied funding.  Ahem, any reasonable person would take that to stead, fund additional research to determine the true nature of global warming in all its true facets.
     
    > What you fail to acknowledge is that the well being of actual human beings depends on taking action to protect the environment. Just think of it this way. Again, either the U.S. can lead on this, or they will cede the technology to others.
     
    The debate is whether the causes of global warming are proven with enough precision to warrant hundreds of trillions of dollars to be spent – taxpayer money, by the way.  It should not be spent if it will not be effective.   It should not be spent on a wild goose chase.  In particular that is true in this case, because most of the current proposals for combatting global warming would basically bomb civilization backwards a hundred years or more.  Spending hundreds of trillions of taxpayer money that we really don’t even have to spend.  This, in support of a supposed THEORY that, for all its “consensus”, has not been proven; and whose major scientific proponents (the Climate-Gate folk at East Anglia) have been engaged as much in politics as they have been in science, and are under the cloud of suspicion of outright fraud.
     
    I’m not the only one claiming that the manner in which global warming “science” has been managed in the last two decades has actually resulted in a huge black eye for “science”, and has caused the skeptical public to begin to doubt any and all claims of “science” that have any political overtones to it at all.  The “science” has been corrupted by its practitioners, and they have a LOT to answer for.
     

  • suek

    >>The U.S. could be a leading exporter of the new technology.>>
     
    Not likely.  China is replacing us, due to cheap labor and no environmental regulations to deal with.  We are no longer major manufacturers.

  • Gringo

    And according to a strong consensus of the scientific community, the data supports anthropogenic climate change.
     
    Like the fudged data does. Oh yeah. Tell me , brother. Nothing proves a hypothesis better than fudged data. At least in the minds of the data fudgers.