Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum109 Nobel Laureates sign a letter slamming Greenpeace.
This comes from a Pop publication, but, be that as it may, it certainly is encouraging.
100 Nobel Laureates Slam Greenpeace
How and why Greenpeace became known as an "environmental organization" is beyond me. The overall ignorance of their positions has done enormous damage to the environment and to human health and welfare since, for reasons that also escape me, people tend to take their ignorance as if it were, well, something other than ignorance, which it is not.
It's nice to see a large body of the most prominent scientists in the world fighting back.
Enjoy the upcoming holiday weekend.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)nt
NNadir
(33,512 posts)...chemistry in a bad school district.
This is why any thing they have to say about the environment is nonsense. Very few of them could pass a basic biology course either.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)That's the entire point.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Greenpeace produces a great deal of high-quality independent analysis to verify the validity of corporate/government claims of science in public policy. Their work is is highly regarded around the world.
However, corporations and their agents in government are frequently motivated to lie about their efforts, qualifications and motives.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 3, 2016, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)
It's time to recognize that NGOs like Greenpeace are only focused on their own continuation.
https://storify.com/mem_somerville/nobel-award-winners-ask-greenpeace-to-stand-on-sci
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Edited to clarify header:
That's certainly the nonsensical right wing meme that corporate bad actors love to spread.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Why do you think it's ok to defend the indefensible?
http://www.marklynas.org/2016/06/a-plea-to-greenpeace/
kristopher
(29,798 posts)On the face of it your position has no merit. You start with accusations of bad ethics on the part of Greenpeace while you defend the ethics of an industry that is well documented as corrupt.
You've presented nothing else other than appeals to illegitimate authority and name calling.
If you have a specific criticism to make, then by all means do so; but your method of attacking the problem simply lacks legitimacy.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And in the links I've already provided. Try reading. Try doing the right thing.
You have no justification for your defense of the indefensible.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/06/what-would-a-world-without-gmos-look-like-/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fbp20160630plate-gmos&utm_campaign=Content&sf29995470=1
kristopher
(29,798 posts)None.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
You really need to take a long look in the mirror, and stop making knee-jerk defenses if the indefensible acts of organizations like Greenpeace.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)All you've done so far is display your total lack of knowledge on the topic of ethics in both science and public policy.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You will defend the indefensible, and that says a lot about you.
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You believe corporations are motivated by profit and power seeking to act ethically, while groups like Greenpeace are corrupted by the fact of their existence. Apparently in your mind, since the NGO's operate on donations they have no foundational ethical base.
That criticism is as absurd as claiming climate change is a product of leftist academia trying to generate research funding, but it is typical of the way your total lack of knowledge on the topic of ethics in science and public policy manifests itself as ridicule instead of reason.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You really have some serious issues.
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/
kristopher
(29,798 posts)8. No, it doesn't. It has lost all credibility with anyone who cares about ethics and science.
It's time to recognize that NGOs like Greenpeace are only focused on their own continuation.
That is a very well known position promulgated by corporate bad actors that are obstructed by the work of groups like Greenpeace. Secondarily, you don't argue the specifics of Greenpeace's position; relying instead on straw man arguments in the popular press.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)This is an accurate position, and you have chosen to try to paint me as something other than what I am, while you continue to defend the indefensible. Your actions here are not ok, and that is being VERY kind.
You have shown us all that you will defend something very ugly, for no good reason, and you will attack people in ugly ways since you can't support your position on the organization's ugly acts.
PS: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/think-organic-food-is-better-for-you-animals-and-the-planet-thin/
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That is a nonsensical and unsustainable position. Especially so when you embrace the corollary and absolve profit seeking corporate actors of bad intent.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 3, 2016, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm simply saying they are lying their asses off, and that's been shown over again, in regard to GMOs. They have been shown the evidence, and they don't care. They would rather use fear to foment more donations. It's time for you to recognize reality, and stop treating other people so badly.
https://storify.com/mem_somerville/nobel-award-winners-ask-greenpeace-to-stand-on-sci
kristopher
(29,798 posts)it's pretty hard to run from that, but you don't seem hindered at all by facts and truth.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's impossible for you to run from that, and it's impossible for you to run from the fact that Greenpeace has acted in despicable ways, yet you keep trying to pretend otherwise. You also keep making ugly personal attacks, because you can't defend the indefensible. Ethics matter. It's time for you to figure that out.
You are not worth my time.
https://storify.com/mem_somerville/nobel-award-winners-ask-greenpeace-to-stand-on-sci
...
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)lol
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Why do you put your faith in anything less?
PS: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/think-organic-food-is-better-for-you-animals-and-the-planet-thin/
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)go go go
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)yea - science
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Greenpeace sure isn't helping any.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)so funny
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 3, 2016, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)
https://storify.com/mem_somerville/nobel-award-winners-ask-greenpeace-to-stand-on-sciSoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)got to love it
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)woo - boo - you
me!
WHEE!
.
progressoid
(49,969 posts)So that's gotta be good, right?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And is an important organization. Just that they are wrong on a particular subject.
How you get your avalanche of condemnation out of that snowball is rather baffling.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That is one broken and disreputable organization.
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)...why did they feel the need to destroy a field of Golden Rice whose purpose was to scientifically test to see if the rice was safe? Destroying empirical evidence is not the act of a scientific organization, it is the act of a religious organization that has already made up its mind and does not want to be confused by the facts.
http://buzz.naturalnews.com/000902-GMO_crops-farmers-protest.html
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)...
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)The dangers of being in groups...
progressoid
(49,969 posts)NNadir
(33,512 posts)...and hopefully will rise.
I think that it is important for prominent scientists to confront ignorance, and everything that Greenpeace spews is in fact, scientifically and ethically absurd.
It is nice to see a mainstream media outlet bringing this point up as well. I have always wanted to chuck my lunch when mainstream media refers to Greenpeace as if it were an environmental authority, or for an even worse case, as if they knew or cared anything at all about climate change, as if it was an authority on climate change.
In fact, Greenpeace has gone a long way to being a contributor to climate change, because not only are there zero members who could pass an entry level chemistry or biology class, there are also zero members who could pass a physics or engineering class.
As I've been reporting here, 2016 is proving to be an unprecedented disaster as a climate year, and the complete fools who mutter insipidly in that organization - when they're not pulling off puerile publicity stunts and trying to win Darwin awards - have a lot to do with what is happening.
All time record set for week-to-week annual measurements of annual CO2 increases at Mauna Loa.
Probably much of the damage done by these childish uneducated fools is now irredeemable, but again, it's nice to see the world's most accomplished scientists fighting back, and the media, which bought into their nonsense, reporting the scientific effort to correct at least some of the damage done by these fools. This gives me hope that perhaps we can save what can be saved, although what can be saved is clearly less than ever.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It isn't science that is the problem, it's corporate abuse and misuse of the potential of science and their exploitation-for-profit of the public's trust in science. - k
Press release - 30 June, 2016
Manila, 30 June 2016 - A number of Nobel laureates have recently signed a letter calling on Greenpeace to review its position on genetically engineered ‘Golden’ rice. In response, Wilhelmina Pelegrina, Campaigner at Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said:
“Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered ‘Golden’ rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A Deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something that doesn’t even exist.
“Corporations are overhyping ‘Golden’ rice to pave the way for global approval of other more profitable genetically engineered crops. This costly experiment has failed to produce results for the last 20 years and diverted attention from methods that already work. Rather than invest in this overpriced public relations exercise, we need to address malnutrition through a more diverse diet, equitable access to food and eco-agriculture.”
On alternative solutions:
“The only guaranteed solution to fix malnutrition is a diverse healthy diet. Providing people with real food based on ecological agriculture not only addresses malnutrition, but is also a scaleable solution to adapt to climate change.
"We’ve documented communities across the Philippines that continue to express concerns about using GE 'Golden' rice as a solution. It is irresponsible to impose GE ‘Golden’ rice as a quick remedy to people on the frontlines and who do not welcome it, particularly when there are safe and effective options already available.
“Greenpeace Philippines is already working with NGO partners and farmers in the Philippines to boost climate resiliency. There’s a real chance here for governments and the philanthropic community to support these endeavours by investing in climate-resilient ecological agriculture and empowering farmers to access a balanced and nutritious diet, rather than pouring money down the drain for ‘Golden’ rice.”
END
Notes to editors:
1) From Washington University of St Louis’, The Source:
“As Stone and Glover point out, it is still unknown if the beta carotene in Golden Rice can even be converted to Vitamin A in the bodies of badly undernourished children. There also has been little research on how well the beta carotene in Golden Rice will hold up when stored for long periods between harvest seasons, or when cooked using traditional methods common in remote rural locations, they argue.”
https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises
2. Statements on the status of GE 'Golden' rice from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) responsible for the development:
'Golden' rice is not available:
http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/how-much-golden-rice-would-you-need-to-eat-to-prevent-vitamin-a-deficiency
Initial testing results need more research:
http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/what-is-the-status-of-the-golden-rice-project-coordinated-by-irri
It still needs to be proven whether GE 'Golden' rice can improve the nutritional status of Vitamin A deficient people:
http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/golden-rice-proven-to-reduce-vitamin-a-deficiency-and-its-health-consequences-like-blindness
3. Greenpeace International report, Twenty Years of Failure: http://grnpc.org/20yearsFailure
4. Eco-agriculture solutions: Smart Breeding and Building Climate Resiliency: http://grnpc.org/EcoFarming
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/2016/Nobel-laureates-sign-letter-on-Greenpeace-Golden-rice-position---reactive-statement/
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Greenpeace’s Colonialist Ambitions
https://risk-monger.com/2016/07/01/the-nobel-savage-greenpeaces-colonialist-ambitions/
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The rapacious behavior of these industries once they capture their regulators (as is now globally the case) is the threat that's real, not the propaganda those industries produce to perpetuate their positions of profound privilege.
Your appeal to illegitimate authority notwithstanding - policy scientists know well that the structural incentives are almost entirely loaded to produce honest, high quality analysis from NGOs like Greenpeace while we can expect to see deceit and bad actions from the concentrated power of corporate entities in industries like tobacco, nuclear power, and agribusinesses.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thanks for admitting that you know you can't defend Greenpeace's indefensible acts on this issue.
http://www.marklynas.org/2016/06/a-plea-to-greenpeace/
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It's the same basic public policy problem wrapped around a different area of concern as corporate control of governance isn't limited to one industry.
It's time to recognize that NGOs like Greenpeace are only focused on their own continuation.
I can only SMH and wonder why you don't realize that you are coming across in the same way as a climate change denier accusing climate researchers of promoting a "myth of climate change" in order to access research funding.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You have no justification for Greenpeace's actions regarding GMOs.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/06/what-would-a-world-without-gmos-look-like-/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fbp20160630plate-gmos&utm_campaign=Content&sf29995470=
All that does is put any of Greenpeace's claims into question, so way to make that point for us all!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Otherwise you'd recognize that having to misrepresent the position of those you criticize is a no-no.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You can make all the ludicrous claims you want to make about me, but it doesn't make them accurate at all. And you clearly don't bother to read anything. You are just making a blind defense of something an organization that has turned to the bad.
It does make me laugh, however.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...while groups like Greenpeace are corrupted by the fact of their existence. Apparently in your mind, since the NGO's operate on donations they have no foundational ethical base.
That criticism is as absurd as claiming climate change is a product of leftist academia trying to generate research funding.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Your indefensible posts keep getting more indefensible.
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...is a failure.
ETA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=102976
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thank you. It's about you realize that it's not ok to misrepresent others, and argue against your own fictions.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)... act like a 3rd grade elementary student.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 3, 2016, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)
That's too bad. I thought maybe you could offer up some honesty, as a change.
https://storify.com/mem_somerville/nobel-award-winners-ask-greenpeace-to-stand-on-sci
progressoid
(49,969 posts)How are corporations that sell GMO food different from corporations that sell traditionally hybrid foods? Why the emphasis on GMOs?
Licensing and marketing is the same for GMOs as any other hybrid crop. But they seem to be fixated on the boogieman GMOs. 
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...and I don't see a basis for your argument as a response to that position. They aren't coming at this from a direction that eschews 'science', they are coming at it from an alternative set of values where sustainability and minimizing negative external impacts are more important (or valuable) than a corporate model seeking to artificially increase their control of market mechanisms via a perverted intellectual property regime.
progressoid
(49,969 posts)None of the links above relate to "a corporate model seeking to artificially increase their control of market mechanisms via a perverted intellectual property regime". While that may be an issue for them, they instead decided to link to how GE rice baaaaad.
If Greenpeace has a solution, why don't they implement it. They have a decent budget (400 million dollars). They could at least put a little of that toward a small test project and show us how its done.
Or better yet, they could open up to potential good that genetic engineering can do. Golden rice's success or failure notwithstanding, we are going to need every tool available in the coming years. Pretending we can go back to old school farming when the world continues to grow and change at an alarming rate is foolish. New technologies like CRISPR/Cas9 can help us address issues like drought and disease much more efficiently.
Yes, corporations are going to try to make money off of it. But that's pretty much true of nearly every innovation.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You don't seem to have even bothered to find out what they are striving for.
Food is life. Food is happiness. Food is love. Our relationship with it is universal, primal, historic, rich in tradition and pride. But right now, most of us do not know where our food comes from. A greedy elite are industrialising, commodifying and controlling every aspect of our food system -- from genome to grocery store. They are growing our food on huge monoculture farms, spraying genetically modified crops with obscene amounts of chemicals and feeding these crops to factory-farmed animals.
The result is a broken system: soils drained of nutrients, poisoned waterways and the destruction of a precious diversity of crop varieties that have enabled human societies to thrive from the mountains to the coast for millennia. At the other end of the food chain, urban consumers – especially the poor – have little choice but to buy pre-packaged food built devoid of nutrition.
Did you know:
6 Big Ag giants control nearly 70 percent of the world's seed market, much of which has been genetically-modified so they can reap profits on every seed they sell
4 global corporations control 75% of all global grain trade
Top 10 global food processing companies control 26% of the global food markets
Animal livestock (beef, chicken, etc.) -- mostly grown on industrial factory farms -- is responsible for 14 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust of all motor vehicles worldwide?
It’s time to transform our broken food system
But a growing food movement is starting to brew around the world. More people are demanding to know where their food is coming from. Farmers and communities are reclaiming control over the seeds of life, and their right to self-determination through the food they grow and eat. A number of far-sighted corporations are looking to meet the evolving demands of the consumers they serve with a food system that matches this growing shift in consciousness.
Greenpeace’s food campaign is here to support the global food movement based on "ecological farming" -- where most of our food is grown ecologically, and farmers together with consumers reject toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers and GMO seeds. It’s a future where people from all walks of life work together to build a system that is best for their families, farmers, and for the planet.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/
progressoid
(49,969 posts)And why?
Getting rid of GMOs won't make any difference to corporate control of our food production.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That's called naivete, not sound judgement or solid reasoning.
progressoid
(49,969 posts)Corporations license traditional hybrids too.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The fact that there are other areas covered by the same supra-national governance regime being enshrined in the trade deals doesn't negate the way that agribusinesses are putting that regime to use.
progressoid
(49,969 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)You are cherry picking.
progressoid
(49,969 posts)How so? This thread is about their unfounded fear of GMOs. And you even used links that show it.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts) progressoid
(49,969 posts)He incorporates old school and modern techniques. His biggest worry wasn't GMOs (he grows both GMO and non-GMO). It was his lack of options when buying seed - both in variety and price.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)GP has caused more environmental damage that the MIC - fossil fuel industry - and the agriculture combined.
GP is evil
All the greatest minds in the world should work together to end the total control GP has over the world
this crazy must be stopped - stop GP
NNadir
(33,512 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 2, 2016, 10:12 AM - Edit history (2)
The organization consists entirely of childish consumer bourgeois brats with poor educations who are doing vast damage to the planet.
While they were handing out idiot rhetoric about what - in their useless and ignorant fantasies - about would happen happen in 2050 the planetary atmosphere is collapsing now at the fastest rate ever observed. I note that in the last ten years, over two trillion dollars has been squandered by humanity - two trillion dollars that might have done an awful lot of good - on so called "renewable energy" and that in 2015, the increase in concentrations of dangerous fossil fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere exceeded 3.00 ppm (3.05 ppm) for the first time in history. I have been monitoring the status of the atmosphere rather closely and reporting on this site the disturbing trends on this site. 2016 will surely be the worst year ever observed for the accumulation of new carbon dioxide.
People who put responsibility on future generations to do what they do not know how to do themselves are, or should be, beneath contempt, and again, in my view, Greenpeace is beneath contempt.
In any case, the attempt to make the failed, expensive and useless so called "renewable energy" industry viable is absurd, since it is not in fact, renewable, since it depends on the mining of increasingly rare and toxic metals, as well as the consumption of massive amounts of steel, concrete, aluminum and other materials, owing to its low energy to mass ratio. Since the assholes at Greenpeace have never, not once, opened scientific papers or science books, they remain blissfully unaware of this.
The nuclear industry saves lives.
Here is a scientific publication from 2013 - it has remained on the 12 month most read list in one of the world's most prominent scientific environmental journals continuously since publication - that describes in great detail by appeal to data, how nuclear energy saves lives: Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
One of the co-authors of the paper is one of the most famous climate scientists in the world. He clearly, as I do, holds Greenpeace in contempt.
Since the membership of Greenpeace is completely ignorant about nuclear technology - the only thing they know about nuclear energy is that they hate it - it is disgraceful and extremely dangerous to allow these complete asses any access whatsoever to the NRC.
Right now, although they clearly don't give a shit at Greenpeace while they prattle on endlessly about 2050, about seven million people die each year from air pollution, according to the data on the 67 highest risk factors for human disease and mortality published in the prominent scientific journal Lancet in 2012. Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.
This amounts to 13 people killed every minute. In my view, almost none of the 390 people who died in the half hour it took me to write this post needed to die, except for the idiotic rhetoric put out by Greenpeace and the media which ignorantly cites Greenpeace's toxic crap as "environmentalist" perspectives.
The nuclear industry was built by some of the finest minds of the 20th century, many of the participants being Nobel Laureates themselves. To allow the twerps at Greenpeace to even address their work is absurd.
One suspects that you have intended your post as wit, as sarcasm. However, the statements in your post are all literally true. The current generation of the world's greatest minds should and must confront the idiocy of Greenpeace and it's appeals to fear and ignorance. I take this particular failure of wit as demonstrated in your post as typical of the type that takes Greenpeace seriously.
By working to destroy the planetary atmosphere, and by extension the world's oceans, which are rapidly acidifying, Greenpeace is working to kill not only whales, but every other living thing not only in the oceans, but far beyond them.
They think that Fukushima and Chernobyl were the worst environmental disasters of all time. However, it's not even close. The worst disaster of all time is on going at an accelerating rate. It is the destruction of the planetary atmosphere.
If the members of Greenpeace find a need to engage in their puerile, childish games - dressing up in monkey suits or whatever - they should be ignored, just as petulant children should be ignored.
The confrontation of the scientific community, as well as the media, with Greenpeace is long overdue, and is certainly welcome. Humanity needs to grow up, even if the morons at Greenpeace refuse to do so.
Have a nice holiday weekend.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Your position in support of nuclear power is clearly established. It dominates your world view and predetermines your position on all related issues - a fact that leads you to routinely make false claims about any entity that disagrees with your poorly established beliefs.
You are the last person to be casting aspersions on the ethics of a group as well regarded as Greenpeace.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)lol
come up for air
NNadir
(33,512 posts)... year because, as noted in the Lancet piece which Greenpeace giggly types are incompetent to read, as they hate science because they don't know any, people listen to the ignorant crap the tiresome fools at Greenpeace put out.
I'm a scientist and I am very much supportive of what the best of the scientific community is doing to confront the giggly types so responsible for the Greenpeace rhetoric which is clearly, and unambiguously doing, um, exactly what I said it is, vast damage to the planet.
Most of the Greenpeace types here are giggling assholes, and I've made a practice of putting them on my "ignore list," since their ignorance and superstitions and scientific illiteracy do nothing but raise my blood pressure. They are very stupid people.
My "ignore list" is about to expand by one person.
a small start
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's par for the course when ideology runs people.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)...button regularly on DU these days - it's a wonderful button that's good for one's health, although I was here for many years before learning to use it - and apparently I've already blocked the most stupid participant(s) here. I can guess who they are, (or who he is) and am very pleased that I'm not being exposed to their/his insipid, ignorant blather.
These are, of course, the very kinds of people that the Nobel Laureates are trying to address, destructive ignoramuses. There are definitely people for whom no amount of information can change their minds, creationists on the right, and their equivalents on the far left.
However the Nobel Laureates efforts may assist in challenging the leach of these very dangerous ignorant ideas into mainstream thinking.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)NNadir
(33,512 posts)...kinds of people, one realizes that they're complete fools, and you hope that eventually reality will win out and people will recognize them for what they are. Usually, they can be brought into paroxyms of saying ever more stupid things, but what's the point. It's not like they're bright enough to shut their mouths.
Actually reality always does win out, since it's, well, "reality" and the issue you may be trying to address is trying to minimize the pain that avoiding reality brings. This is not always possible as regrettable as it may be.
Greenpeace is an organization of stupid and uneducated people, and for a long time, they were able to do great harm because of their puerile marketing approach to trivializing serious issues about which they know nothing. Their membership is, however, declining, and, as the OP demonstrates, they are now being challenged in the media on their ignorance. It does seem this effort by the Nobel Laureates has gotten quite a bit of press. That's all good.
As for the loudmouthed fools I have on ignore, I'm an old man, and I'm trying to see as much as I can before I die. I see no reason to suffer fools at this point. They are distractions, and they keep me from my work.
But we each address these things in our own way, and while I certainly understand your view, I've changed my mind and chosen a different path.
Best regards,
NNadir
pansypoo53219
(20,969 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Opposing GMO's is anti-science.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)from the original 1 celled whatever it was.
The argument against GMO is every bit as anit-science as the arguments against global warming or the arguments against vaccination.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Got an example? Let's see the link.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Humans have a bit of shark in them
Animals That Share Human DNA Sequences
Background on Comparative Genomic Analysis
Pigs and humans share more genetic similarities than previously believed
Humans and Sharks Share Immune-System Feature
Humans share 25% of their Genes with bananas.
Switching out a gene does exactly the same thing as a random mutation.
The argument against GMO's using some initiate unique quality of an animal is unscientific. All organisms on the planet share a genetic ancestry.
Lithos
(26,403 posts)But their science sucks.
My issue is with Monsanto and similar entities who use bad law and bad science to lock down changes indiscriminately. This is where most of the fear, uncertainty and doubt have entered into the equation.
L-
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)"...who use bad law and bad science to lock down changes indiscriminately."
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
NNadir
(33,512 posts)Sorry, but I didn't see or hear any "bad science" there.
I was engaged in a fairly high level discussion of lectins with these people. They cared.
I can't say I knew these scientists very well, but my general impression was that they were serious people with outstanding educations who cared about the world, worked hard, and were a little bit amused and a little bit angry about the vapid criticisms they constantly endure when they say where they work.
The criticism is, frankly, assinine.
Monsanto has an entire marketing group designed to debunk anyone who disagrees with their science:
http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-employee-admits-an-entire-department-exists-to-discredit-scientists/
There is a ton of issues with Monsanto's use of law and science to create seeds which have a single lifetime (ie, a subscription model), their use of genetically modified plants which target both good and bad insects...
Can go on. Monsanto's view is very short sighted.
Not doubting intent - this comes back to the whole notion of "does man understand the ramifications".. This gets even worse when you consider a corporations short term profits.
Do I think Monsanto is the only one promoting bad science, no... But there is definitely a lot of "FUD" displayed on both sides...
NNadir
(33,512 posts)I am uninterested in "Monsanto employee admits..." links on the internet.
I'm sure you can go on...and on...and on... as many people with this bent never stop going on and on and on...but as I have personal knowledge and direct experience with Monsanto employees, scientist employees, and have met many of them both at their facility and at scientific meetings which they, and I, have attended.
The furor raised about glyphosate is fairly stupid in my opinion, particularly because glyphosate is an important element in "no till" farming.
Is glyphosate harmless and risk free? Maybe not. However an intelligent person balances risks and rewards, and chooses a combinatorially optimized solution. An unintelligent person isolates risks while ignoring benefits. In the last several decades glyphosate has become one of the most widely used herbicides on the planet. It has not resulted in a health crisis quite on the level of the health crises that occur in major famines.
This may or may not come as a surprise to some people lingering on certain kinds of websites muttering about "poisons" but, um, diesel exhaust is fairly toxic, an element of the air pollution that kills millions of people each year.
Many tractors are diesel devices. "No till" farming which is widely discussed in the scientific literature in the context of climate change minimizes the use of tractors. Unquestionably not running tractors has saved lives, almost certainly more lives than have been lost to "poison" glyphosate.
At the risk of being directed to another ridiculous website, I would argue that one could look it up.
Enjoy the rest of the holiday weekend.
Lithos
(26,403 posts)Monsanto is not wholly comprised of scientists, all doing their best to serve the greater good of humanity. It first and foremost is a corporation designed to maximize shareholder profit. Monsanto does this by creating products designed often times for the manufacturers and not the farmers themselves. It also trademarks and does other things with these products which help create a monopoly. Sometimes the products are good, sometimes they are not. The bad science aspect comes in where scientists take the short term focus and lose sight of the bigger picture.
One issue with this type of corporate control of seeds is the decrease in options for farmers as these strains are often times created for the benefits of the manufacturers and not the consumers. Example: the wide spread domination by a heavily modified short-dwarf wheat designed for maximum gluten yield and minimum effort for the mill. The problem is this wheat is not as nutritious as the older varieties. In essence, manufacturers and the seed companies decided to maximize their profits over the nutritional benefits. It also puts more strain on water and other limited resources. Good science to get there, but bad science in that it fails humanity.
Another issue is that this standardization also creates other issues - visit the banana, whose primary variety in the global market is the Cavendish. The Cavendish was standardized and optimized for yield and shipment. However, this variety is under attack by Panama Wilt with the disease threatening to remove a major food item from the global market.
See also, this from the UN which talks about the loss of available agrobiodiversity for the farmer:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5609e/y5609e02.htm
NNadir
(33,512 posts)...of other things concerned with the food supply.
In fact, I wrote a goofy little piece on the internet many years ago: Potatoes, Bananas and Natural Habitats. I fully applaud genetic diversity, including natural genetic diversity, and obviously, as the link shows, having been thinking about it for quite some time. I note, that while my personal professional activity is not strictly focused on agriculture, I have had occasion for professional consideration of issues in that field, and I always try to educate myself as deeply as is possible, as much as time allows, before meeting with anyone on any such subject. All of my professional activities have effects on my environmental views.
I just don't spit out popular rhetoric.
My view, irrespective of the Pop garbage one hears, is that Monsanto is actually not in the business of tying up the world's genome as part as a secret conspiracy to control the world's food supply, and I would suggest that you are attempting to link two unrelated things by linking your personal contempt for Monsanto with anything having to do with the FAO.
You are spitting the word "corporate" in a wholly extreme fashion in my opinion, and are simply announcing that no one can convince you that Monsanto is not an evil entity intent of cornering the food market.
So be it.
I happen to believe that scientists have a right to hold jobs in corporations; that they deserve to be paid; and they deserve to be rewarded for their work. I support patent rights, and I am confident, despite some failures, that these laws have generally served humanity quite well.
You seem to believe that Monsanto is an evil organization trying to take over the world seed supply, motivated entirely by evil executives with no moral standing and no ethics. This is a cartoon version of the world in my view, silly, silly, quite possibly to the extreme. I have just googled my way to the CEO of Monsanto; he does hold scientific degrees in agricultural zoology and molecular biology. I actually am fond of companies in which the executives hold some scientific training. It is unfortunate in our time that too many senior executives in companies involved in science driven technology are assholes with MBA's and some bullshit social "science" or humanities degrees. At least Monsanto does not qualify on that score.
I am not aware that anyone on this planet has starved to death because farmers have no access to seeds because of "evil corporations."
Your thinking here in my view is specious. You simply want me to take your word for it that Monsanto is evil. I am personally sick of these, again, cartoonish views of the world, since they don't do any good, and, as the Nobel Laureates have pointed out, can do great harm.
Have a nice 4th of July evening.
Lithos
(26,403 posts)Hope you are having a good one as well...
First, please do not assume a false dilemma fallacy here. Because I say Monsanto is not out for the common good, it does not imply that I believe Monsanto is evil. Monsanto is a corporation - their goals are focused to making money.
Second, holding a science degree suggests absolutely nothing about someone's ethics or integrity or consistency. William Shockley (Nobel) was a racist; Kary Mullis (Nobel - Chemistry) is an AIDS denials; and James Watson (Nobel - DNA discovery) was both a racist and sexist. A friend of mine who I grew up with was head of the FDA with very impressive paper as a Doctor, but never practiced medicine nor has any clue how a real practice works.
Third, Monsanto does suffer from some very bad press as they are one of the faces of the modern agribusiness. I do recognize Monsanto is not *the* leading player here, but they still are probably the most brand-toxic. Perhaps unfair, but still they willingly entered into this arena.
However, Monsanto (and DuPont and other agri-businesses) have occasionally engaged in practices, which while lucrative, are not necessarily in the best interests of the world. Evil? No, but in some cases not necessarily something which should be condoned. Does the agribusiness industry, the associated chemical industry (and Monsanto who played in both arenas until selling off their chemical side) have a history of bad science? And by bad science, I mean science done without a fully understanding of the implications (which can take years in some cases). Absolutely, they do.
Examples from Monsanto which were considered good science at the time: DDT, Agent Orange, Dioxin, Bovine Growth Hormone.
It is this type of short term product which scares people. One example (non-Monsanto) is the Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis which plagued British beef supplies - because of short term interests which did not understand the bigger picture. But issues like this do affect views of what companies like Monsanto are doing.
The ethics of Monsanto are also rather interesting given that they did attempt to pull into play the 'terminator' seed (they acquired the company), but stopped the effort as it failed to work as hoped (for $$$ reasons, not ethics).
Back to the original piece about "golden rice". Ostensibly a very good project, but IMHO, it fails to frame the problem correctly. It is an expensive solution which fails to solve the real issue of food diversity. Rice itself is a water-intensive resource which does not translate well in the changing climate. It has been shown that there is far better effects fortifying existing foods and by adding additional crop diversity. The latter giving additional nutritional value than just Vitamin A.
Short summary - Monsanto, like many of the agribusinesses are in an industry which has very little watch dog oversight save for consumer opinion.
Nay
(12,051 posts)your appropriately nuanced take on things.
I love science and appreciate how far it has taken us, but the main thing to remember is that PEOPLE run corporations, labs, feed lots, university science departments, etc. In no aspect of human endeavor is corruption, expediency, greed, ideology, fear of job loss, etc., not a huge factor in what comes out of those institutions, who is hired and fired at those institutions, and what avenues are pursued in those institutions.
The golden rice project, to me, illustrates this perfectly. I, like you, immediately wondered why a strain of rice was conceived as the first best solution to a Vitamin A deficiency. If Vitamin A deficiency is a problem, why is something like a brand-new, decades-in-development, proprietary rice the solution? It seems more like using a nuke to destroy an ant hill. Are there no universal foodstuffs in these Asian countries that could be fortified cheaply with Vitamin A, like cooking oil? For the 20 years that the rice was in development, couldn't we have given away Vitamin A capsules as a health initiative through local, trusted health providers? Now, I don't know all the history of the development of golden rice, but in all my readings I have never read anything about any other trials of other ways to get Vitamin A to the relevant population. Maybe golden rice is the only viable way, but I doubt it.
One of the MAJOR problems capitalist countries have is that we always try to 'solve' a problem not by rationally arriving at the simplest, cheapest and easiest solution, but by throwing money at corporations to come up with a years-long, convoluted, EXPENSIVE solution that only incidentally may solve the Vitamin A deficiency, but will definitely make millions for the corporation(s) involved.
Nay
(12,051 posts)NNadir
(33,512 posts)He knows what people in the third word will and will not eat.
Which is why "Couterpunch" is a world wide reputable source on the value of Golden Rice, even though it's completely lacking in any kind of peer review, obviously
And he should know, because he's a "former professor of Nutrition" at a Korean University.
He also declares the 110 Nobel Laureates "unqualified," because, um, he's declared himself qualified.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 5, 2016, 11:49 PM - Edit history (1)
And it was because their abusive corporate tactics had turned so many people away from GMO's.
He's one of the scientists who put Bt into corn, I've known him since he was a university professor in the 1970's.
It's funny, I studied computer science, and I've never heard anyone accuse anyone of being "anti-science" for saying "Microsoft is evil!" or "Windows sucks!" or "The damn computer screwed up again!". But when it comes to genetic engineering or nuclear energy, complaining about the very real problems with those technologies gets you labeled "anti-science".
It's denial of the very real problems with those technologies.
Lithos
(26,403 posts)In the tech industry, it's the fight over Privacy. Another is the Closed-Source vs Open-Source debate.
It's always a "trust us" kind of thing. However, the tendency to hide behind legalities to create an opaqueness designed to make them money is never a good thing. And in this case, the claim is not "anti-science", but "anti-innovation"...
Same pattern exists in Education, Pharma, Medicine and Energy. And I think a lot of people take their experiences in one and relate them to the other fields.
It's only in the past 200 years have most of these fields turned into a very big business. The relationships between the companies servicing the supply chain and their financial investors have gotten very complicated. There have also been many laws which these businesses have lobbied which protect these businesses, their relationships to the detriment of the consumer, and in some cases the producer (think about why the effort for Fair Trade coffee). It's very big money. There is a lot of quid-pro-quo.
However, one must be careful though to keep this from being a false dilemma fallacy. In the case of Agriculture - humans have been modifying their food base, and environment, for thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years. I think it rather foolish to try and make the claim that any changes are bad; that ship has sailed. I do not think it foolish to ask for a bit more skin and transparency from these businesses into the risks they make us take. 200 years ago, a mistake would cause a village in France to have Ergot poisoning. Today a mistake can affect millions of people sometimes for tens of years afterwards; privatized profit but socialized loss.
But to repeat, these businesses can do great good with science and innovation, but they can't hide behind them with a 'trust us'. They have to be called out when they choose quid-pro-quo and business as usual over the concerns of the consumer. The ability of Pharma to deliver good vaccines to the world population is an astounding feat of science and logistics. However, the games they play with Patent Extension which keeps needed drugs out of the hands of people, long after the Pharma industry made their profits is obscene.
The same is also true with the other fields noted above.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)It's late and I have to work tomorrow.
The entire post is pretty weak, but hopefully can be attributed to too much partying on the 4th of July.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And yet following the evidence isn't good enough for some. They appear to now hide behind a distrust of experts as an excuse to foment fictions. It's ludicrous.
Response to NNadir (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Response to HuckleB (Reply #81)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Scientific
(314 posts)Just more of the same old twisted crud from the GMO-Chemical Corporate Conglomerate. Spare us this PR, puh-lease. This is polluting the I-net with twisted reality.
Meanwhile, read further about how the GMO KonGLOMerates are distorting SCIENCE systematically.
These GMO corporations with their occult machinations have undermined the integrity of science. Disgraceful. At this point, anyone supporting the GMO Corporate Agenda is automatically suspect.
As someone who loves and respects science, I am totally pissed at what these GMO Corps have done to it.
Bugger off GMO PR Bullshitters.
Nobel Laureate Attack on Greenpeace Traced Back to Biotech PR Operators
"...no one in the press seems to have asked if the event was organized by the biotech industry (or if all of the Laureates
were still living). They should have..."
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/107-nobel-laureate-attack-on-greenpeace-traced-back-to-biotech-pr-operators/
Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs” (2016).
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/under-influence-national-research-council-and-gmos.
“Public Research, PrivateGain: Corporate Influence over Agricultural Research”
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insighta/public-research-private-gain.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Lame.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)Idiocy, as stated, knows no bounds. The contempt for science on the "far out" left is no less absurd than creationism on the right.
What the Laureates are talking about is precisely this sort of reaction, hysterical, ignorant, uneducated and, well, frankly, freaky.
In fact, in many ways far out left science hating is worse than silly stupid creationism on the right, since the anti-GMO nutcases have done far more damage to human health and the environment.
It would be interesting to see if any of the shit-for-brains types who believe that 1/3 of the world's Nobel Laureates are in an occult conspiracy would ever, gasp, eat a pink grapefruit.
Enjoy the rest of the holiday weekend, and in fact, the rest of your life.
I need to work that ignore button again, since what I'm proposing for Greenpeace, that it be ignored, is what I've chosen to practice.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)--because they wouldn't quit contributing to ALEC. The issue of whether agriculture should be dominated by giant corporations is a political one, not a scientific one.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)...planet in my view is attaching trivializing political opinions to important scientific issues.
Much of the fear of "giant corporations" around here is, in my view, trivializing. Golden rice was not developed by a corporation in any case, but shit for brains people who have some kind of anti-corporate mumbo jumbo flying around in their brains don't bother to make such distinctions.
In the major drought that took place in the American Midwest a few years back, the entire soybean crop of the United States would have been decimated were it not for the commercial availability of drought resistant soybeans, which, by the way, represented more than 90% of the crop.
GMO soybeans
If vegetable oil hit $15/a bottle had that crop failed, I wonder how many bourgeois types picking lint out of their navels and decrying "corporations" would have given a shit about whether poor people could afford cooking oil.
Probably not many, I'd guess. They live in a rarefied world filled with silly associations, imagining themselves in some socialist paradise that um, doesn't actually exist.
They wouldn't have given a fuck about farmers either.
By the way, most of the world food supply depends wholly and totally on Haber fixed nitrogen, invented by BASF and commercialized now by many, um, big corporations all around the world. In fact, Haber nitrogen is responsible for consuming between 1% to 3% of the world's energy.
Haber nitrogen has many important environmental consequences, but I see very, very, very, very, very few critics of the nitrogen fertilizer industry volunteering to starve to death because they object to corporate input into agriculture.
Have a nice day tomorrow.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--that gives away its seeds.
Monsanto soaking the world's soil in glyphosate for profit is an entirely different matter
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0
Since 1974 in the U.S., over 1.6 billion kilograms of glyphosate active ingredient have been applied, or 19 % of estimated global use of glyphosate (8.6 billion kilograms). Globally, glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since so-called “Roundup Ready,” genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops were introduced in 1996. Two-thirds of the total volume of glyphosate applied in the U.S. from 1974 to 2014 has been sprayed in just the last 10 years. The corresponding share globally is 72 %. In 2014, farmers sprayed enough glyphosate to apply ~1.0 kg/ha (0.8 pound/acre) on every hectare of U.S.-cultivated cropland and nearly 0.53 kg/ha (0.47 pounds/acre) on all cropland worldwide.
Nitrogen fertilizer is produced in 78 countries, unlike Roundup-Ready crops. Not exactly a monopoly there.
https://www.tfi.org/industry-resources/fertilizer-economics/us-fertilizer-production
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)