Environmentalists Must Face Down the Anti-Science in Their Own Househttp://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/06/15/environmental-groups-must-face-down-the-anti-science-in-their-own-house/
One of the major arguments of environmental groups on global warming is that there is overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. This consensus, which is represented by the IPCC and supported by the national academies and scientific societies of every country in the world, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human activities add enough of this heat-trapping gas to warm the planet. This is a valid argument. When one finds oneself on the opposite of the scientific consensus of such esteemed bodies as the NAS, the Royal Society, the IPCC, etc., you should be worried. If you dont have an overwhelming level of evidence and a solid body of literature backing you up, you should consider a period of introspection and self-evaluation, because you might just be a crank or denialist. Most cranks dont have this capability, instead they have conspiracy theories, and a set of ready-made logical fallacies to throw at their critics like youre just a shill for x, where x is variably big pharma, monsanto, corporations in general, big government, grant money, environmental groups, the democratic party, the republican party, or whatever other bogeyman the crank hates. If they throw in a reference to how theyre just like Galileo, well happily give them the crank stamp and call it a day.
And what exactly is the ideology that ties together Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Mike Shermer, Dave Gorski (who thinks the anti-vaxx comparison is more apt), Steve Novella, and Keith Kloor? Could it be skepticism? Respect for science? It sure isnt politics (Shermer is even a libertarian ewwwww). None of us works for any of these companies, or receives money from them (although I hear Keith is in bed with Monsanto these days). That wont stop us all from being called a shill in every comment thread in which we express skepticism of the often outrageous, science-fiction claims of anti-GM advocates like Jeffrey Smith. So whats this ideology that binds us all together on the ludicrous nature arguments made against GMO, other than a hatred of bullshit?
So Laskaway is partially correct, on one side we have groups with a specific and obvious bias with a high probability of ideology clouding their reason on science. On the other side we have the AAAS, the European Commission, the Royal Society, the National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine, and a diverse group of skeptic and science writers from Richard Dawkins to PZ Myers to Dave Gorski and Steve Novella. Feel free any time to take these two weak papers that show nothing, and wave it under our nose and call us the ideologues.
resistant pathogens. I also don't want alien species' genes put into foods without labeling so that people who oppose the technology can avoid them (ie vegans wanting to avoid fish genes in their tomatoes or Jews wanting to avoid pig genes in their wheat or whatever abomination they come up with next week).
I am not afraid of GMOs for my sake - I am afraid of them for our ecosystems' sakes. That's not anti-science; that's just being reasonably cautious. Hell, I use genetically engineered vaccines in my patients and happen to think that particular use of the technology has been a huge WIN.
Just look at the contaminated wheat issue in WA. How are you going to put THAT genie back in the bottle? And how are you going to compensate the farmers whose wheat got contaminated when Monsanto comes after them with another of their famous lawsuits where they try to ruin the VICTIMS of their genetic pollution??
it's defensive twaddle. Hey if you want to pack your kids with blunder drugs and frankenfood because... well... science and stuff, that's your business.
Some pretty silly shit Sid, even for you.
have control over, I'll believe it's safe. Until then, we only have Monsanto's limited research on the topic. They stopped their "studies" on safety after three months. There are NO long term studies on the safety of GMO foods. And I don't want to injest proteins that kill insects and plants, thank you very much. Did you know that anyone who buys Monsanto seed has to sign an agreement saying they will not conduct research on it?
Anyone who buys Monsanto's word on the safety of GMO food is a complete fool. The bias is Monsanto's.
Perfect example of this in this thread:
Using the ramblings of anti-vaccine, AIDS-denialist Gary Null is the perfect way to poison the credibility of those who have have real, measured concerns about GMOs.