Editorials & Other Articles

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)

63. Nah, I'll go where the science leads...

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 04:10 PM

Mar 2016

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/the-solid-gmo-scientific-consensus/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thanks-gwyneth-but-well-stick-with-the-scientists-on-this-issue_us_55c23d5ee4b0f7f0bebb34a4

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study: Eliminating GMOs would hurt environment, economy [View all] HuckleB Mar 2016 OP

The lead author is from a land grant university. bulloney Mar 2016 #1

And so that changes the research reality? HuckleB Mar 2016 #2

Its easy to attack the premise of the study, which is this: cprise Mar 2016 #7

In other words, you have no actual criticisms of the study. HuckleB Mar 2016 #8

That sounds more like you have no intelligent rebuttal cprise Mar 2016 #10

You made no relevant points. HuckleB Mar 2016 #13

I forgot, ecology is irrelevant. cprise Mar 2016 #14

No one said that. HuckleB Mar 2016 #16

Like I said, Round and Round you go cprise Mar 2016 #17

Your "criticism" is about your world view, and does not address the study itself. HuckleB Mar 2016 #18

OK thanks for demonstrating you don't even know what ecology is cprise Mar 2016 #19

In other words, you really are ignoring reality. HuckleB Mar 2016 #20

LOL cprise Mar 2016 #21

Thanks for the confession. HuckleB Mar 2016 #24

The key to this poster. As if ecology does not exist. immoderate Mar 2016 #28

Another false attack. HuckleB Mar 2016 #29

Attack? I am not aware of any ecological thinking on your part. immoderate Mar 2016 #30

Of course, you're not. HuckleB Mar 2016 #31

Y'welcome. But I'm disappointed you don't have me on "ignore." immoderate Mar 2016 #32

Nice confession. HuckleB Mar 2016 #35

Good points, all the way around. OP is among the first to discredit sources, methods, and funding villager Mar 2016 #26

I discredit sources with evidence, not lame hyperbole. HuckleB Mar 2016 #38

...and of course, deploys rote phrases like "hyperbole" and "weak sauce" when necessary villager Mar 2016 #42

You imagine inconsistencies. HuckleB Mar 2016 #43

Actually, no -- I *hope* for "consistency" villager Mar 2016 #44

Utilizing evidence and principles of the scientific method is an agenda, I suppose. HuckleB Mar 2016 #45

You are good with the attack phrases, of course, and the circular use of agenda-driven web links villager Mar 2016 #46

LOL! "Attack phrases." Ah, I love the hypocrisy. HuckleB Mar 2016 #47

And of course, when all else fails... the projection. villager Mar 2016 #48

"Projection." HuckleB Mar 2016 #49

You mean, "daring to reply to you?" villager Mar 2016 #50

Another ironic post. HuckleB Mar 2016 #51

"Responding without content, and without being able to support your claims is not really responding" villager Mar 2016 #54

LOL! HuckleB Mar 2016 #58

Your links, of course, do nothing to buttress your argument. But glad to get them aired again! villager Mar 2016 #60

You keep telling yourself that. HuckleB Mar 2016 #61

"You keep telling yourself that." villager Mar 2016 #62

Nah, I'll go where the science leads... HuckleB Mar 2016 #63

Yes, you do have your trove of agenda-driven websites, all right villager Mar 2016 #64

So hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and scientific knowledge = "agenda-driven websites." HuckleB Mar 2016 #65

I challenge you to prove that Tyner is being paid by "large agribsiness" to come to his conclusions. Buzz Clik Mar 2016 #55

It's the Daily Caller, though. Archae Mar 2016 #3

It's a peer-reviewed study. HuckleB Mar 2016 #4

I see that in your above posting. Archae Mar 2016 #5

I know that, and you know that. HuckleB Mar 2016 #6

+1 nt villager Mar 2016 #27

Steven Novella wrote a piece on this study, too. HuckleB Mar 2016 #41

The study employs only economic arguments. Ghost Dog Mar 2016 #9

But only green-paper budgets matter cprise Mar 2016 #11

. Ghost Dog Mar 2016 #12

The study notes the effects on economic reality and land use HuckleB Mar 2016 #15

5 Reasons to Avoid GMO Food HuckleB Mar 2016 #22

MoJo: 'WTF Happened To Golden Rice?' cprise Mar 2016 #33

Thanks for the usual silliness. HuckleB Mar 2016 #34

Try reading the article I linked cprise Mar 2016 #36

I read it a long time ago. It was debunked then. HuckleB Mar 2016 #37

But what will happen to us when we all have autism from eating GMOs? progressoid Mar 2016 #23

I guess we'll all develop more vaccines! HuckleB Mar 2016 #25

�Follow the money�: the finances of global warming, vaccines, and GMOs HuckleB Mar 2016 #39

The Cost of Banning GMOs HuckleB Mar 2016 #40

Gee, I wonder who funded the study? louis-t Mar 2016 #52

Brilliant response. HuckleB Mar 2016 #53

40 percent of corn is used to produce ethanol virtualobserver Mar 2016 #56

That would help, but it is not the address of the study. HuckleB Mar 2016 #59

Great post. Buzz Clik Mar 2016 #57