Pat Sajak - People concerned about climate change are racists

[Bamabuzzard]

And considering that most of the world (China, India and others) won't participate in economy-killing schemes for dubious benefits futher undercuts the notion that Washington can solve the problem.

Tough solving a problem that doesn't exist. :biggrin2:

 

[Bamaro]

He said this tongue in cheek just like a couple of months ago when he announced that he was coming out as a hetrosexual.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/pat-sajak-comes-out_n_5186950.html
He also said

Sometimes it's fun to poke a stick in a hornets' nest just to hear the buzzing.

 

[TideEngineer08]

How old is Pat Sajak now?

 

[cbi1972]

This is the problem with our science community. They are so arrogant and convinced as to how freakin' smart they are that (as in the gluten issue) they preach things as "fact" that in reality aren't. They're simply theories. When they preach things as "fact" it causes people to change their behavior, creates markets, causes government to want to spend billions and billions of dollars based on what is nothing more than theories. But I think the true answer is in the $$$$. As someone has alluded to, follow the $$$$ and that will lead you to the truth.

This is like equating the average Christian with Fred Phelps.

 

[Jon]

And here's where most people (like myself) take issue. Our government (and others who believe every word they say, seebell says "HI!") want us to spend untold amounts of money (which will come out of taxpayer's wallets) toward something that is admittedly nothing more than a guessing game and educated guesses. It's much like the recent gluten fear mongering. Scientists (for some 10-15 years now) have preached like the gospel about all the bad things gluten does to the body. It has created a billion dollar market, caused people who have fell for the fear mongering to spend double on gluten free foods than what they normally would. Only to now find out that these same researchers are now saying what they'd been preaching for the last decade or so isn't true. That only gluten intolerant people are effected, which is about 1% of our society.

This is the problem with our science community. They are so arrogant and convinced as to how freakin' smart they are that (as in the gluten issue) they preach things as "fact" that in reality aren't. They're simply theories. When they preach things as "fact" it causes people to change their behavior, creates markets, causes government to want to spend billions and billions of dollars based on what is nothing more than theories. But I think the true answer is in the $$$$. As someone has alluded to, follow the $$$$ and that will lead you to the truth.

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.

 

[92tide]

This is the problem with our science community. They are so arrogant and convinced as to how freakin' smart they are that (as in the gluten issue) they preach things as "fact" that in reality aren't. They're simply theories. When they preach things as "fact" it causes people to change their behavior, creates markets, causes government to want to spend billions and billions of dollars based on what is nothing more than theories. But I think the true answer is in the $$$$. As someone has alluded to, follow the $$$$ and that will lead you to the truth.

you are not using the word theory correctly.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

sorry, huge believer in GMO here, billions would be starving right now without them

Maybe that's not a bad thing...All we are doing is telling third world countries, have more kids than you can support, we'll figure out a way to feed them anyway. Much like our own welfare system.

 

[92tide]

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.

there is none. the whole gluten free thing is purely marketing using the guise of science (e.g. people in lab coats and "studies") and the knowledge that consumers are gullible as a foundation.

now crossfit, that is based on a solid scientific foundation

 

[crimsonaudio]

sorry, huge believer in GMO here, billions would be starving right now without them

Show me the numbers.

http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/rss/news/?feed=news&articleId=888

http://theantimedia.org/contrary-to-popular-belief-monsanto-is-not-ending-or-reducing-world-hunger/

ETA: I can post tons of university, UN, etc articles and studies showing that GMO foods have done nothing to help fight hunger - you've been sold a lie by Monsanto et al.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Show me the numbers.

http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/rss/news/?feed=news&articleId=888

http://theantimedia.org/contrary-to-popular-belief-monsanto-is-not-ending-or-reducing-world-hunger/

I wonder what he would have to say the massive honey bee die off that started occurring as GMOs were being rolled out.

 

[Jon]

Maybe that's not a bad thing...All we are doing is telling third world countries, have more kids than you can support, we'll figure out a way to feed them anyway. Much like our own welfare system.

if by "we" you mean the religious and most specifically the Catholic Church then I agree. They are telling third world countries to be fruitful and multiply, to be wary of contraception and that "god will provide" despite all the evidence to the contrary of course

 

[92tide]

I wonder what he would have to say the massive honey bee die off that started occurring as GMOs were being rolled out.

i think you're talking about colony collapse disorder.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

i think you're talking about colony collapse disorder.

I know what it is, but the reason behind it has never been truly publicized. The truth hasn't, but hey, quote a Salon or Huffington Post article for me and make me feel better.

 

[Jon]

I know what it is, but the reason behind it has never been truly publicized. The truth hasn't, but hey, quote a Salon or Huffington Post article for me and make me feel better.

I seem to recall the latest research being linked to pesticides not GMO's

 

[Catfish]

I wonder what he would have to say the massive honey bee die off that started occurring as GMOs were being rolled out.

Recent studies indicate that Colony Collapse Disorder is a result of the bees' exposure to a certain kind of pesticides known as neonicotinoids.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/b...lags-about-neonicotinoid-pesticides-1.2644354

 

[Jon]

Show me the numbers.

http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/rss/news/?feed=news&articleId=888

http://theantimedia.org/contrary-to-popular-belief-monsanto-is-not-ending-or-reducing-world-hunger/

ETA: I can post tons of university, UN, etc articles and studies showing that GMO foods have done nothing to help fight hunger - you've been sold a lie by Monsanto et al.

don't have them, nor do I have time to research them today.

Though GMO means genetically modified organism. You can genetically modify an organism through crossbreeding, which most feel we've been doing since around 10,000 BC or so. One guy, Norman Borlaug took this to the extreme in the 60's creating strains of wheat that have saved billions of lives. Google him

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Recent studies indicate that Colony Collapse Disorder is a result of the bees' exposure to a certain kind of pesticides known as neonicotinoids.

And what do you think GMOs are? They are genetically modified with pesticides.

 

[Jon]

And what do you think GMOs are? They are genetically modified with pesticides.

you need to do some research

GMO means modifying organisms, we've been doing it since we invented farming

in the last 20 years or so our tech has improved to the genome level.

We can now create things like Golden Rice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

I don't see a drop of pesticide there

and by the way, you are thinking of GMO's that include resistance to things like round up. This makes farmers able to spray the fields without hurting their crops. I'm not for that either as I think there is bound to be some danger in ingesting roundup

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

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>

 

[Catfish]

And what do you think GMOs are? They are genetically modified with pesticides.