Pat Sajak - People concerned about climate change are racists

[92tide]

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.

that's because they are still trying to discover the reason.

 

[crimsonaudio]

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

Well, when you have time, thanks. I'm patient, as I've done the research.

Though GMO means genetically modified organism.

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.

 

[92tide]

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>

the actual science, regardless of who is doing it, is very one sided

 

[Catfish]

For the record, I'm not a fan of GMOs or many forms of pesticides. Or, overpopulation for that matter.

 

[crimsonaudio]

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

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.

 

[cbi1972]

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.

 

[Catfish]

To grow properly, it requires heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides --

I suspect that this is exactly what it was engineered for. Fertilizer and pesticide sales.

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

the actual science, regardless of who is doing it, is very one sided

That depends on what issue you're debating.

 

[92tide]

That depends on what issue you're debating.

we are talking about climate change are we not

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

we are talking about climate change are we not

The "topic" of climate change is made up of many separate concepts. It's not like a media bundle: if you buy one, you don't have to buy them all.

 

[92tide]

The "topic" of climate change is made up of many separate concepts. It's not like a media bundle: if you buy one, you don't have to buy them all.

ok, which particular parts of it are you talking about. i am talking about human-caused climate change

 

[Bamabuzzard]

This is like equating the average Christian with Fred Phelps.

Agreed, but $$$ plays a big enough role that it influences a lot of things that science "finds out".

 

[G-VilleTider]

that's because they are still trying to discover the reason.

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?

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

ok, which particular parts of it are you talking about. i am talking about human-caused climate change

I'm not talking about any part - only registering my general distaste for the reality that the scientific debate has been long-hijacked by non-scientists.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

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.

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.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

you are not using the word theory correctly.

"Theory" has double meaning in the science community. I get that. I love pizza, I love my wife.

 

[92tide]

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?

one has absolutely nothing to do with the other

 

[92tide]

I'm not talking about any part - only registering my general distaste for the reality that the scientific debate has been long-hijacked by non-scientists.

in that part, i agree with you

 

[G-VilleTider]

one has absolutely nothing to do with the other

I think you are missing my point. It's like believing that a toddler can figure out differential equations, but can't add two plus two.

 

[92tide]

"Theory" has double meaning in the science community. I get that. I love pizza, I love my wife.

no it doesn't. link

you are confusing the word theory with wild arse guess