GMO's: The liberal climate denial

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



cdtm
Around 88% of scientists believe GMO products are safe. Studies of animals consuming millions/billions of meals over decades prove they're safe.

So why is the scientific concensis suspect in this case, but not in the case of mmgw?

Flyattractor
Because politics makes people stupid.

Especially Leftist Politics.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by cdtm
Around 88% of scientists believe GMO products are safe.

{citation needed}

cdtm
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
{citation needed}

Here's one from a pew survey:

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/06/PI_2015-07-01_science-and-politics_6-03.png

Others claim 33% of adults believe gmo's are unsafe, which would include Liberals.

Stigma
Originally posted by cdtm
Around 88% of scientists believe GMO products are safe. Studies of animals consuming millions/billions of meals over decades prove they're safe.

So why is the scientific concensis suspect in this case, but not in the case of mmgw?
TBH it is almost like comparing apples to oranges. These are two completely different fields of scientific inquiry.

Yet, it's obviously because the theory of mmgw does not always employ verifiable research methods, many prognosis of mmgw popularizers are scientifically subpar or logically deficient and even some of the data is proven to be falsified (e.g. "hockey stick graph"wink.

Not to mention highly active environmentalist lobbists and leftists idealogues that push mmgw narrative.

Also the fact that "global warming" now seems to be replaced with "climate change," narrative as if they cannot make up their mind what agenda to push. smile

Moreover, you seem to assume that there is no valid argument against GMO. I am sure if we looked for credible scientists that oppose the mainstream consensus on GMO, there would be many.


BTW Mainstream opinion does not mean it is the correct opinion. Scientist have bias, technology can be politicised etc etc.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by cdtm
Here's one from a pew survey:

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/06/PI_2015-07-01_science-and-politics_6-03.png

Others claim 33% of adults believe gmo's are unsafe, which would include Liberals.


there's nothing about the scientific community in that, so where is the citation to back up your claim that "Around 88% of scientists believe GMO products are safe"?




Originally posted by Stigma

Also the fact that "global warming" now seems to be replaced with "climate change," narrative as if they cannot make up their mind what agenda to push. smile

they had to change the term because too many under-educated simpletons insisted that "global warming" was proven wrong if it was relatively cold in their town on a particular morning. The hope was that said uneducated simpletons would be deflected from their idiotic and fallacious argument and forced to confront the problem of an ever-rising global mean temperature. obviously a fruitless venture.

Stigma
^ thumb up

TBH the whole idea that 90% of scientific community thinks this, 76% of that community thinks that etc. etc. is BS. These numbers cannot even be feasibly measured.

Lestov16
Even if this were true, it would seem that your argument is that liberals ignorance of GMOs justifies conservative ignorance of Climate change. How is that helpful to anybody? Seems to perpetuate a cycle of hypocrisy and ignorance.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Bashar Teg






they had to change the term because too many under-educated simpletons insisted that "global warming" was proven wrong if it was relatively cold in their town on a particular morning. The hope was that said uneducated simpletons would be deflected from their idiotic and fallacious argument and forced to confront the problem of an ever-rising global mean temperature. obviously a fruitless venture.

Nah. They have to keep changing the terms because all of their predictions keep failing to happen. That is why they now use the extremely Vague term of "Climate Change".

Putrumpin
The organelles in Eukaryotic cells were other simple cells once. It took 1.5 billion years for this to happen, one cell to consume another... Scientists now look at complex organisms as colonies, this view is helping us to understand Cancer. Any Scientist who said no method of transmission for gene transfer in genetically modified organisms as a definite would be jumping the gun somewhat. Especially given recombinant technologies are only 50-60 years old. In the history of life on Earth (3.5 Billion years), that's not much.

Scribble
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Nah. They have to keep changing the terms because all of their predictions keep failing to happen. That is why they now use the extremely Vague term of "Climate Change". http://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2017/01/19/3-reasons-scientists-are-confident-2016-was-the-warmest-year-on-record/#4d4e71da6a1b

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Scribble
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2017/01/19/3-reasons-scientists-are-confident-2016-was-the-warmest-year-on-record/#4d4e71da6a1b

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

Blah Blah Leftist Commie Double Talk Blah blah blah..

Scribble
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Blah Blah Leftist Commie Double Talk Blah blah blah.. What?

Bashar Teg
that's his way of asking you to put him on ignore

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Scribble
What?

Thats code for "i didn't bother to clink the links cause I am tired..."
smokin'

Scribble
I assumed it was something like that. You should look at the links tomorrow once you've slept.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Scribble
I assumed it was something like that. You should look at the links tomorrow once you've slept.

Still got the just woke up headache. NO WANT READ STUFF!

Just make fun of Leftist Beliefs

Robtard
Originally posted by Bashar Teg

they had to change the term because too many under-educated simpletons insisted that "global warming" was proven wrong if it was relatively cold in their town on a particular morning. The hope was that said uneducated simpletons would be deflected from their idiotic and fallacious argument and forced to confront the problem of an ever-rising global mean temperature. obviously a fruitless venture.

https://www.sott.net/image/s11/230912/full/snowball_si.jpg

James Inhope (R-Oklahoma) disproving climate change on the senate floor using proven scientific methods.

Bashar Teg
http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/7/70/Kingme.png

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Robtard
https://www.sott.net/image/s11/230912/full/snowball_si.jpg

James Inhope (R-Oklahoma) disproving climate change on the senate floor using proven scientific methods. laughing out loud

BackFire
Originally posted by Robtard
https://www.sott.net/image/s11/230912/full/snowball_si.jpg

James Inhope (R-Oklahoma) disproving climate change on the senate floor using proven scientific methods.

Lol Jesus.

That's like saying terrorism doesn't exist because it's peaceful in my front yard.

jaden101
Originally posted by cdtm
Around 88% of scientists believe GMO products are safe. Studies of animals consuming millions/billions of meals over decades prove they're safe.

So why is the scientific concensis suspect in this case, but not in the case of mmgw?

I'm a 'liberal' and I think GMOs can solve huge problems particularly in third world countries.

So do most sensible liberals with a basic grasp of science.

Surtur
Originally posted by BackFire
Lol Jesus.

That's like saying terrorism doesn't exist because it's peaceful in my front yard.

Sounds like a similar way Obama would view radical islam. La la la I can't hear you cuz my fingers are in my ears, la la la religion of peace.

Robtard

ArtificialGlory
Haha, what a guy. Keep idiots like him out of halls of power, goddamn it.

cdtm
Originally posted by jaden101
I'm a 'liberal' and I think GMOs can solve huge problems particularly in third world countries.

So do most sensible liberals with a basic grasp of science.

Did you know sweet potatoes were created from bacteria transferring dna in nature? wink

Love sweet potatoes.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Stigma
^ thumb up

TBH the whole idea that 90% of scientific community thinks this, 76% of that community thinks that etc. etc. is BS. These numbers cannot even be feasibly measured.


That's because it is a logical fallacy known a appeal to authority. big grin It could also be the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.

Lord Lucien
Latin is cool.

Adam Grimes
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's because it is a logical fallacy known a appeal to authority. big grin It could also be the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum. Fallacy fallacy.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Fallacy fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy fallacy.

Putrumpin
Originally posted by jaden101
I'm a 'liberal' and I think GMOs can solve huge problems particularly in third world countries.

So do most sensible liberals with a basic grasp of science.

Exactly, whilst minimal long-term risks may exist from GMO's in the medium term they can only do good. That said since the 70's we have had the ability to feed the world if we want.

Putrumpin
The global temperature is going up. We are probably past the point of no return.

StyleTime
How did you lovable goofballs manage to make this a partisan issue? Even cdtm's survey shows no particular correlation between political ideology and views on GMO's.

Stigma
Originally posted by StyleTime
How did you lovable goofballs manage to make this a partisan issue? Even cdtm's survey shows no particular correlation between political ideology and views on GMO's.
TBH in a politicized society this and similar issues will inevitably turn political.

Also, scientists cannot escape partisanship completely.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.