GMO's: The liberal climate denial

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?

Because politics makes people stupid.

Especially Leftist Politics.

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

{citation needed}

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
{citation needed}

Here's one from a pew survey:

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

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?

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"😉.

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. 🙂

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.

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

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. 🙂

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.

^ 👆

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.

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.

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".

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.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]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". [/B]

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

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..

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Blah Blah Leftist Commie Double Talk Blah blah blah.. [/B]

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

Originally posted by Scribble
What?

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

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

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

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.

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

Originally posted by Robtard

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