Toggle sidebar

Pat Sajak - People concerned about climate change are racists

Jon said:
don't have them, nor do I have time to research them today.
Click to expand...
Well, when you have time, thanks. I'm patient, as I've done the research.

Though GMO means genetically modified organism.
Click to expand...
Of course, but the use of the term in theses studies and papers specifies the more commonly use of the term - engineered modification, not selective breeding. Again, this is all in the links above, of which i can provide much more if needed.

The fact is Monsanto et al., have spent many millions of dollars to convince people that they're saving lives, when ALL independent (non-corporate sponsored) data says otherwise. In fact, one UN paper concluded that long term, more and better food could be grown by those in great need by farming organically - not even using man-made pesticides, etc...

Don't buy the lie - engineered GMO foods aren't good for anyone but corporate agriculture.
 
PacadermaTideUs said:
I've spoken a lot about climate change on this board in the past and I don't intend to do it again when prompted by a facetious tweet from Pat Sajak. But one of the pet peeves that I always seem to return to is the increasing frequency with which good science is hijacked. Inevitably, I see alarmists referring to what "climate scientists know", and I see skeptics pointing to what "scientists are motivated by".

The thing is: scientists are not monolithic. Good scientists believe a lot of different things and are motivated by a lot of different things.

When either side of the AGW debate tries to marginalize the other equally-scientific view by characterizing the beliefs of climate scientists in a monolithic way, it quells the scientific discussion and erodes public trust in the whole scientific process. When either side of the AGW debate tries to cast aspersions on the entire scientific community with accusations of suspect motivations, not only does it quell the scientific discussion and erode public trust in science, but it's actually self-marginalizing. The end result is that actual science is cut out of the debate, and we're left with a cacophony of confused people arguing about things that they themselves don't really understand too well.

The reputation of science in general is taking a huge hit by this whole issue. Some of that is earned. But much of that is due to the monolithic misrepresentation of "what scientists know" and "what scientists are motivated by".

I'll say it again: scientists are not monolithic. Good scientists believe a lot of different things and are motivated by a lot of different things.

</high horse>
Click to expand...

the actual science, regardless of who is doing it, is very one sided
 
Jon said:
We can now create things like Golden Rice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
Click to expand...
Ahh, yes...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmo-food_b_914968.html

In the years since Time proclaimed the promises of golden rice, however, we've learned a few things.

For one thing, we've learned that golden rice will not grow in the kinds of soil that it must to be of value to the world's hungry. To grow properly, it requires heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides -- expensive inputs unaffordable to the very people that the variety is supposed to help. And we've also learned that golden rice requires large amounts of water -- water that might not be available in precisely those areas where Vitamin A deficiency is a problem, and where farmers cannot afford costly irrigation projects.

And one more thing -- it turns out that golden rice doesn't work, even in theory. Malnourished people are not able to absorb Vitamin A in this form. And even if they could, they'd have to eat an awful lot of the stuff. An 11-year-old boy would have to eat 27 bowls of golden rice a day in order to satisfy his minimum requirement for the vitamin.
Click to expand...
 
I don't hear too much about the impact of commercial farming and massive food donation on Third World subsistence farmers.
They really will all starve to death if you destroy their farming industry and then something happens to dry up the teat.
 
92tide said:
that's because they are still trying to discover the reason.
Click to expand...

Does anyone else find it strange that everyone seems ok with science still trying to figure out the cause of the collapse of single insect species but at the same time, they believe that the science is settled on an infinitely more complex issue like climate change?
 
Jon said:
I don't recall any Scientific consensus on Gluten intolerance. There were a few studies that suggested a correlation between gluten and problems but that's it. "Science" cannot be held responsible for a willing and ignorant media and corporate marketing championing the issue and running with it. If anything we see today that some real science is finally being done around gluten and it is coming out to be a bunch of bull. That's the great thing about science, it self corrects. This is hardly 10-15 years of Scientists telling us to fear Gluten.
Click to expand...

I guess science can't be held responsible for sitting back quietly and letting government publicly force man made global warming down a society's throat in order to push its agenda? Of course not, because a lot of science's money comes from government. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
 
Last edited:
G-VilleTider said:
Does anyone else find it strange that everyone seems ok with science still trying to figure out the cause of the collapse of single insect species but at the same time, they believe that the science is settled on an infinitely more complex issue like climate change?
Click to expand...

one has absolutely nothing to do with the other
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back