Infographic: Climate change vs. GMOs: Comparing the independent global scientific consensus

|
better wordle

Who do you trust to accurately report the scientific consensus on genetically modified foods?

On any contentious issue like GMOs, reaching agreement requires finding sources that all parties trust. This is an attempt to locate that common ground.

You trust the national and international science organizations that have stated human-caused climate change is a fact. These statements are issued based on thoroughly scrutinized independent expert reviews of hundreds or thousands of scientific papers, with due attention paid to potential bias. The organizations have stood by their statements in the light of further evidence, which has become only more supportive.

As detailed in the table, these organizations that you trust agree that climate change is real and alarming, and also that GMOs are safe for our health and for the environment. Their statements are careful, nuanced, and unbiased. For example, they point out that RoundUp herbicide tolerance in weeds is currently a problem, and encourage diversifying agricultural approaches (including alternative GMOs) to solve it. They agree that GMOs are not remotely the whole solution to improving the global food supply, although they can be an important part of it, as can organic methods. (Organic GMO anyone?) They agree that safe and beneficial GMOs should be made available at low or zero cost to developing nations. They agree that many herbicides and insecticides have toxic effects. All of these points run counter to Monsanto’s interests; these organizations make these claims for the same reason they make all their claims: because the science supports them.

Big Oil could not buy these organizations on climate change, or influence them by means of inserting a few biased members. But this means neither can Monsanto, with its tiny resources by comparison. (Exxon-Mobil’s net profits are 20 to 30 times Monsanto’s!)

You are encouraged to consult these sources for yourself, in the hope that we will be able to find common ground and join together in the important struggles ahead: against climate change denial, for independent science, and for food security in the face of climate change and a growing world population–with all the healthy and beneficial agricultural methods at our disposal. We’ll need them.

[Download pdf of graphic | Download pdf of comparison with summary]

climateGMO1page

Dan Ryder is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia, Okanagan. dan.ryder@ubc.ca | Danryder.com

  • Just one problem with your thinking here Dan: Big Oil isn’t fighting the global-warming/climate-change agenda. Their products are already taxed as high as 50%, so why would they care if another 5%, 10% or even another 50% levy was attached to the price of gasoline in the misguided attempt to fight the myth of anthropogenic climate change?

    • Mackinz

      I thought you were cool before but now you assert that anthropogenic global warming is a myth, even when all of the data agrees upon it and 97% of publishing climatologists agree?

      You need to go to Skeptical Science.

      Fuck Big Oil.

      • You are aware, I trust, that CO2 levels have been far higher throughout most of the planet’s history. Through ice ages and warm periods alike, CO2 levels are now at their lowest point ever.

        • Mackinz
          • We could certainly argue global-warming theory all day long Mackinz. But the fact remains that “Big Oil” is not bothered in the least by anything governments might do to try (in vain) to curtail it.

          • Mackinz

            Yeah, that’s why they are trying to confuse people like you with propaganda to encourage people to doubt the science of the matter.

            Puh-lease.

            Big Oil is using the same tactics as Big Tobacco did and as Big Organic is using now: FUD – Fear, Uncertainty, Denial

            If you were nearly as pro-science as you thought you were, you would not be thinking that climate science produced a myth.

          • Try to follow along Mackinz. Big Oil is solidly indifferent to global-warming theory.

          • David Smith

            That is a lie!

            The oil industry is puty in big bucks into organizations who are “climate change counter movement organizations”
            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7#

            The supplementary material even supplies lists of them and who they are funded by:
            http://link.springer.com/content/esm/art:10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7/file/MediaObjects/10584_2013_1018_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

          • People and corporations are free to fund whatever they want. The environmental movement as to stop trying to suppress free speech all the time. The fact remains that oil companies, just like cigarette and alcohol companies do not care one bit how much tax is applied to their products. People have no choice but to buy their products, so government can tax-away all they want.

          • David Smith

            “Popoff doth protest too much, methinks”

            You are proudly associated with at least two organizations that get oil industry money to be a “climate change counter-movement” with a “deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate change” (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7#)

            This includes: Heartland Institute and CFACT you are so proud to be associated with:
            http://heartland.org/mischa-popoff
            http://www.cfact.org/author/mischa-popoff/

            You can find this info in the supplemtary document to the article:
            http://link.springer.com/content/esm/art:10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7/file/MediaObjects/10584_2013_1018_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

          • Oil is the farmer’s friend. Before the tractor, farmers worked a 16-hour day and had to devote half of all their arable farm land to growing feed for work horses. There’s 20,000 man-hours of energy in a single barrel of oil. So you’ll be hard-pressed to find any significant number of farmers anywhere in the world – whether conventional or organic – who do not embrace oil.

          • usagoingbroke

            Big oil KNOWS the world is addicted to their product. It would be different if we were talking about raising taxes on Twinkies. People can live without Twinkies. But, there is no way humanity can operate without oil, gas, and coal. Any attempt to “tax into submission” the supply and use of these commodities will only hurt the population of the planet. It will NEVER hurt big oil because they’ll pass the increased tax burden cost onto the consumer and not even blink!

          • Quite right. Oil companies already pass along all the taxes they pay onto the consumer. Why would they have a problem passing along yet more tax?

        • David Smith

          Climate change apologist! Something seems fishy!

      • Eric Jennings

        “and 97% of publishing climatologists agree?”

        John Cook’s “97%” figure is generally regarded as the most debunked claim in global warming history. Here’s one of many, many articles on the subject:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/

        Any author or commenter who uses it is demonstrating to the world that he hasn’t done a lick of research on the subject and is merely following liberal dogma.

        Remember that “May Was The Hottest Month On Record” business? Think again.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

        And if anyone reading this has got a strong stomach, check out this jaw-dropper:

        http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/25/Green-global-governance-how-environmentalists-have-taken-over-the-world

        The bottom line is, so-called man-made global warming has been exposed for the ‘green’ fraud it is so many times at this point that it’s not even funny.

        • Mackinz

          Multiple analyses have confirmed a consensus percentage of more than 80% so, even if the Cook 2013 study is, as you claim, “generally regarded as the most debunked claim in global warming history”, you still have far more work to do.

          These other studies can be found on the Skeptical Science page I linked to previously (I believe). If they are not found on said page, please notify me and I will locate the correct SS page.

          In addition, you post a link to the blog of former TV weatherman “Anthony Watts” as if it means anything.

          http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

          And then you go claiming that the IPCC has falsified data. Funnily enough, the same Anthony Watts you linked to above criticized the same claims in a blog from Reason magazine. Mr. Watts is quoted as criticizing Mr. Goddard, the original source of said claims, for using poor methodology and points out the various flaws in the work.

          http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe

          Personally, I consider this an example of a stopped clock moment.

          Finally, you cite a Breitbart article. Here I thought you lot were above citing articles on conspiracy websites, but I guess I was wrong.

          Anyway, I actually agree with the assertion that environmental groups have too much sway. I feel that their influence should only be allowed if the science is in agreement with them. I don’t agree with groups like Greenpeace on everything, so bringing this article up as if it means anything to me leaves me puzzled.

          Anyway, I doubt anything I type will encourage you to actually look at the data instead of the spins produced by third-party media (like so many anti-“GMO”ers), so please feel free to ignore this reply. I personally feel I have a better chance teaching science to an anti on Monsanto’s Facebook page than I do a AGW cynic here.

      • Alan_McIntire

        And what do YOU do to eliminate your carbon footprint. Do you use solar power ( clothesline) to dry your clothes? Do you can and dry your food to avoid using a refrigerator? Have you cut back posting on the internet? (4% of US energy) . It appears that you CAGW ers use as much energy as we cynics use. Your “FAITH” in CAGW rather than your “Good Works” will save you.- bloody hypocrites.

        • David Smith

          Ouch! I hit a nerve!
          Actually I’m not a CAGWer! I just notice when people confuse the lies they tell with the truth!

        • Mackinz

          Excuse me? Hypocrite? That requires me to tell you one thing while I do the opposite, which I never even remotely did. I only stick to the data, and it is in no way hypocritical to trust in data.

          The one thing this unabashed attempt at an ad hominem tells me is that you do not care for the raw data or science of the matter.

          • Alan_McIntire

            I thinks smoking is bad. I don’t smoke, nobody in my family smokes, and we won’t permit smoking in our house by others.
            You apparently BELIEVE that 97% nonsense, say big oil is “BAD” yet YOU still use energy and rely on fossil fuel- else how were you able to post here? Yes you ARE a hypocrite.

          • Mackinz

            https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

            I don’t have to defend myself from your logical failure of an argument. If you cannot understand why your argument is garbage, you should refrain from any future discussions on science.

          • Alan_McIntire

            You say producing CO2 is bad. Just how much is acceptable per person?

          • Mackinz

            I don’t know. Seems very subjective. So many factors to consider.

            I prefer to stick to the objective stuff, like how virtually all evidence points to a hunan-induced shift in global climate.

          • Alan_McIntire

            So you don’t have any idea how much CO2 per person is acceptable, yet you think reducing current levels, which may or may not be acceptable, and is subjective, is a GOOD thing?

          • Mackinz

            Not knowing the subjective and variable theoretical limits on CO2 emissions that should be imposed on a situational basis is not nearly the same as realizing, according to virtually all climate science, that they should be reduced due to the outstanding circumstances that all coastal regions and the humans that the live will face as a direct consequence of not reducing them.

            It is not my area of expertise, not is it my job to determine or know exactly what rates that emissions are regulated at. Like “GMOs”, I am not a part of the picture except in a third-party way whereupon I advocate for people, like you and your circle of denialists, to listen to the people whose job it is to actually do so.

            So sit down, shut up, stop listening to people who cherry-pick data and commit logical fallacies to deny anthropogenic global warming, stop insulting people for your denial of science, get educated on the matter though people who actually know what they are talking about, and then discuss this.

      • Alan_McIntire

        Regarding the Doran , Kendall Zimmerman paper

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/pdf

        The two questions were push- pull “leading questions”

        1. Do you think mean global temperatures have risen since the period prior to 1800

        2. Do you think human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

        I’d have answere “yes” to both, we warmed after the little ice age, and building cities, and irrigating deserts certainly had an effect on downfall rain patterns in the case of cities, and on albedo and water vapor in the case of irrigated deserts. That biased “push- pull” questionnaire is probably why only 30% responded- one might argue that only 30% of scientists think CAGE is a very serious issue.
        to get the 97%, they had to rely on “cherry picking”, .

        Note that even with only two biased, leading questions, only 82% not 100% of the 3146 responders answered “yes” to the second question. By changing the emphasis to the 79 who had published AGW articles, , they fell into the “cherry picking” error.

        Once you decide on a question and a group to poll, breaking it down afterrwards is a “NO NO”.

        Example: You want to handicap horse races and figure that betting Post position 1 will make you money, since the horse on the inside of the track runs a shorter distance than the others.

        When you get the stats, you find out that your theory didn’t pan out,-results were insignificant at the 5% level, but if the inside horse was ridden by the winningest jockey at the track, for the season, the results WERE significant at the 5% level, so you go to the track and lose, not realizing that your final results were likely to happen

        5% (betting the inside horse at post position 1 shows significance at the 5% level by chance alone)

        + 95%(0.05) for a total of a 9.75% chance of getting positive results by dumb luck.

      • Just call me Joe

        I will summarize some of the responses to your comment:

        You will not persuade anyone of anything when your first sentence is nothing more than the ignorant refrain of a known lie.

        • Mackinz

          It’s about as much of a lie as the claim that the vast majority of scientific bodies support “GMOs”.

          Even if the percentage is off, it is not just the Cook 2013 study purporting a wide consensus of climatologists. As detailed in the citations of the following Skeptical Science page, there have been a number of meta-analyses of climatology papers which all purport upwards of 80% agreement among active researchers.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=561

          And I’ll trust the people studying the science of climate (climatologists) well before I trust meteorologists (weathermen?) like Anthony Watts or the various science deniers at the Heartland Institute (funny thing, I recently read an article on how the Heartland Institute has teamed up with Answers In Genesis to fight back against science teaching standards) and other political organizations trying to refute the science of climatology.

    • David Smith

      Dude! You just scored an own goal! Quit while you’re behind.

      • No… Big Oil just scored on its own goal.
        Try to follow along now David.

    • David Smith

      “…the myth of anthropogenic climate change…”

      Let’s do this s-l-o-w-l-y!

      If you rubbish the idea that climate change is as a result of “human activity” due “anthropogenic contributions” as the “Independent scientific consensus” above states (as it appears you have done in your post) – then you also rubbish any statements the “Independent scientific consensus” may make about other things – oh let me see like GMOs!

      And by the way – your assertion that big oil isn’t fighting the concept of anthropogenic climate change is a great lie! (I’ll add more links if you need them):

      http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/

      http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

      http://io9.com/climate-change-denying-politicians-rant-about-fluoride-1602355173

      http://www.vice.com/read/us-congressman-opens-climate-science-denial-conference-with-rant-against-water-fluoridation-708

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

      http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up

      http://www.rtcc.org/2013/09/10/dealing-in-doubt-how-big-oil-funds-climate-denial/

      http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7#

      • Unlike most other supporters of GMOs, I have never defended GMOs on the basis that there is a consensus as to their safety or efficacy.

        Galileo Galilei, Nicolai Tesla, Albert Einstein and Steve Jobs; these are just a few of history’s great thinkers who failed to reach a consensus on their ideas until AFTER they went ahead and implemented them.

        • usagoingbroke

          Funny you should mention Galileo in your post. He is a perfect example of the minority that was being persecuted because he disagreed with the “consensus” of his time.
          Look who turned out to be right…….the minority position that went against the consensus and settled “knowledge” of the day.
          The exact same thing is happening today. Yes the Earth’s climate changes; it always has, and always will. But trying to attribute normal global changes in weather patterns, the rise and fall of the planets oceans, the advance or retreat of glaciers and sea ice pack…to human activity is unbelievably small minded.
          Yes, humans can have an impact on the environment, but control it to the point of reaching a new precise average temperature that we can dial up or down to meet our collective wishes? lol…….seriously? That’s what’s being proposed, radically change the worlds energy use behavior to see if we can alter the temperature of the planet.
          That’s beyond stupid.

          • Quite right. And yet, academics like Dan Ryder continue padding their career paths by perpetuating this stupidity.

            If he had any guts, he’d debate his ideas. But he doesn’t, and he won’t, as we can all see by his silence here in response to his article.

          • So, you’re saying that the increase in global warmth has nothing to do with humans? The same species responsible for burning of fossil fuels, and putting 200 million tonnes of CO2, CO3, and other pollutants like that into the air for about 200 years, that is merely a coincidence?

        • ronaldvr

          This is called the Galileo Gambit :

          The Galileo gambit, or Galileo fallacy, is the notion that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. It refers to Galileo Galilei’s famous persecution at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day (though some alternative medicine proponents use Ignaz Semmelweis instead of Galileo). People use this argument repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that more often than not they just don’t understand.

          It is freakishly common among creationists and global warming denialists alike against the evil scientific consensus.

          In reality, taking up the mantle of Galileo requires not just that you are scorned by the establishment but also that you are correct.[1] — that is, that the evidence
          supports your position. There is no necessary link between being
          perceived as wrong and actually being correct; if people perceive you to
          be wrong, you usually are wrong.

          • Fair enough. So who’s wrong when it comes to anthropogenic global warming in your mind?

        • Inti

          Citing Galileo is ridiculous because he didn’t go against scientific consensus, he went against religious dogma.

          • What we now refer to as religious dogma was the science of Galileo’s day. And I’ll bet you a steak dinner that the “science” of anthropogenic global warming will likewise be recognized as religious dogma… someday.

          • Inti

            You seem to ignore the very important detail of evidence. The dogma of Galileo’s day was not based on scientific evidence in any way; it was purely inspired by scripture. Climate change is based on solid, observed and undeniable scientific evidence.

          • You mean “evidence” like the fact that there has been no warming for the last decade?

          • Inti

            *sigh* Why do deniers always resort to that same tired argument every time? Short term, localized trends are not representative of an overall trend.
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm

          • Then what about the fact that CO2 levels have historically been much higher than in the present age, resulting in LOWER temperatures?

          • Inti

            That’s an oversimplification. Ancient climate is not today’s climate, and CO2 is not the only parameter. Look, I’m not a climate scientist, but that website I cited earlier has well-sourced info. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
            And it’s not the only one. But if you’re unwilling to accept the science and instead stick to a pre-conceived position, there’s just no point in discussion.

          • It wasn’t an oversimplification when the whole Global-Warming Movement began.

            Proponents of the Rio Summit and Kyoto Protocol assured us that rising CO2 levels would result in rising temperatures and lead the melting of glaciers and the polar ice caps.

            But now, years later, the facts aren’t matching the theory. So people like you have to pretend the theory is more complicated than what was originally asserted.

            It’s not my theory. I won’t defend it. But I will point out when it self-destructs.

          • Inti

            Science has always been more complicated and nuanced than how political players present it.

            The Rio Summit and Kyoto protocol weren’t scientific summits but political summits. They didn’t come up with the research.
            Stop misrepresenting science. Science corrects itself according to new observations. If that’s shocking to you, then sorry, that’s the way it works. The fact remains that we’re affecting the climate. But the public loves controversies, so like with evolution, they’re still debating it while scientists are a step ahead and discussing strategies.

          • The science says that higher CO2 levels results in stimulated plant growth and hence a greener planet. So labelling CO2 as a pollutant was deeply flawed right from the start.
            End of story old boy.

          • Inti

            Yes, end of story. No point in arguing with flawed arguments.

          • Thank you for coming to your senses Inti!

          • Inti
          • Inti
      • Hominid

        The science behind GMOs safety is solid, the pseudoscience behind AGW is not – ‘consensus’ has nothing to do with it.

        • David Smith

          Wow! Another own goal! How easy was that!

          So all the reports stating that there is a consensus with regard to GMO safety are correct but those stating that there is consensus with regard to anthropogenic climate change are wrong!

          So basically all the organizations in the table presented in the article above got it right on GMO safety but dead wrong on anthropogenic climate change???

          Wow! I’m amazed!

          • guest

            Well, to be fair, there is a slight difference between the two.

            AGW is an attempt to predict the future based on what we know now, which means if we’re missing any important variables our predictions could be wildly inaccurate.

            GMO research, on the other hand, is not predictive. It relies on detecting dangers and realizing benefits here in the present, which means we can detect the result even without complete knowledge of all the variables.

          • walleyekiller

            Great post, well said. Comparing the two “consensus” scenarios is impossible.

            In other words apples to oranges.

          • You’ve got that a bit wrong. AGW is looking at the past. That’s how you discover humans are the cause.

          • Just call me Joe

            Appeal to authority doesn’t work when (A) The audience knows the authority is lying (the “consensus” is absolutely proven lie), and (B) The audience does not trust that authority.

            The organizations are just as political as the general population. In many cases, a member that does not agree with the “official” position is not allowed to speak, and the organization counts him as agreeing anyway.

            It comes down to data. There is not a single death of a person that can be deterministically traced to ingestion of a GMO food. Not one. There are proven benefits, not just increased production and decreased pesticide use, but also in nutrition. Creating an economically viable GMO rice with vitamin A should be one of humanity’s goals.

            The data on global warming proves the climate models are wrong. And since all the bad things that could happen are based on those models, the predictions become nothing more than speculation.

          • Hominid

            You’re also scientifically illiterate.

          • Mark Stuber

            You’re amazed that anyone is sometimes right and sometimes wrong?

          • Matthew_Bailey

            I have said what I have to hear, and will no longer be responding to the brain-donors of Climate Denialism.

            They all seem to be using the exact same playbook as Evangelicals (which I suspect a few might be, trying to pretend otherwise – I’ve run into that playbook before).

            You are right to push-back against their warped use of “Consensus” on one issue only to totally reject it on another.

      • Mark Stuber

        re: “If you rubbish the idea that climate change is as a result of “human activity” due “anthropogenic contributions” as the “Independent scientific consensus” above states (as it appears you have done in your post) – then you also rubbish any statements the “Independent scientific consensus” may make about other things”

        That’s the biggest false dichotomy I have seen in a long, long, time. Basically, what you are saying is, you either have to accept all of the scientific consensus or none of it. That’s absurd.

        • Scientific consensus is for the week-minded Mark. The world is made up of right and wrong. Science is not directed by popular vote.

          • Hominid

            I get your point, but ‘right and wrong’ have nothing to do with science.

            Science tries to APPROXIMATE as usefully as possible the objective reality that lies outside the human mind.

            Science does not seek ‘truth’ or ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’

          • A fair point. And one which I’m sure you’ll agree rejects all-the-more-strongly the notion of advancing science by consensus. Whichever theory more closely approximates reality will win out in the end, unless activists get in the way.

          • Hominid

            The question of ‘consensus’ devolves into semantics – i.e., what does consensus mean. Of course, consensus is the foundation of science – if everyone doesn’t read the meter the same, the observation ain’t valid. That’s NOT the ‘consensus’ the AGW crowd is talking about – though they don’t know it.

          • Yes, sadly, the AGW crowd is really talking about forming a consensus on de-industrializing the West.

          • Hominid

            Exactly. AGW is political, not scientific. These are marxists – the antithesis of Americanists. They’re diabolically clever, dishonest, and ruthless – willing to do ANYTHING to advance their disgusting, corrupt cause.

          • Yes, they’re willing to do anything, right up-to-and-including putting at risk a new form of science called genetic engineering, saying basically, if you accept genetic engineering, you MUST accept AGW theory as well.

            Can you believe this Ryder guy is teaching our kids?

        • David Smith

          By the same authority – yes! The word you are looking for is not dichotomy by hypocrisy! You can’t argue something has authority because organization A, B and C agree with your point of view on one issue but then turn around and say the same organizations are wrong about this “other thing”….

          • Mark Stuber

            Your last post is a straw man argument.unless, i missed something David Smith posted.

            I did not read where David Smith as you put it, ” argue[d] something has authority because organization A, B and C agree with [jis] point of view on one issue but then turn[ed] around and [said] the same organizations are wrong about this ‘other thing’…

            No only did you put words in David’s mouth. You are attempting to add words to your previous post.

            You’re changing your tune now. You said, “You have to . . .” You did not first include the big IF you are adding on now. You did not say if if you advocate one thesis because of a stance of an organization then, you have to accept other stances of that same organization.

            You originally claimed if you reject an organizations stance on one issue you have to reject it on all others. Those are two different things.

            By the way, even if one cites an organization’s stance as supportive of a contention, that does not mean it’s the only reason one accepts a thesis. Therefore, if one cites an orginzation’s stance for accepting a thesis and that organization’s stance is not the sole reason for accepting the thesis, one can still reject other stances of that same organization without being a hypocrite. Besides, the goal isn’t to avoid being called a hypocrite, that word is throne around so casually now. It is to find the truth.

            .

      • GaelanClark

        You lost me at david suzuki…..what a laugh! Btw, when he goes to a speaking engagement, he really likes young girls….make sure they are in his room later or he will be real pissy with you.

      • Sims

        That’s a logical fallacy. Just because he disagrees with one conclusion science makes doesn’t mean he disagrees with every other one. That’s a fallacy of composition and a very common fallacy amongst 1st year undergrads.

        Also, by the formal rules of logic, in order to substantiate a claim (eg. that AGW is true) the burden of prove is on you, not on the person who negates it. Thus far, no one has proven it to be factual. I mean, no one has proven evolution to be factual either and the consensus is that it occurred, so formal logic is clearly taken with a grain of salt in the hard sciences (because some things happen over too long a period to be observed and thus you have to go with the balance of probabilities, which is what the God folk cling on to when they deny evolution and say earth is 6,000 years old (though we have PROVED the latter claim to be true)).

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    mackinz, after your brilliant use of an obscenity why do you bother to send a link to peruse? You have perhaps destroyed your credibility with this emotional outburst and revealed a good chance that you do not understand basic economics.
    Mischa, corporations do not pay taxes. This is a mythical farce dreamed up many moons ago to create the illusion that individuals can avoid taxes because corporations are being required to pay a little of their “fair share” In reality all taxes “paid” by businesses are passed on to employees in the form of lower wages or benefits, owners [perhaps your 4011 k] in the form lower profits, or customers in the for of higher prices. Worse, the non productive recordkeeping etc. that is forced upon the businesses also results in decreased efficiency. Which then further negatively effects the 3 groups of individuals mentioned previously. Also jurisdictions that have higher tax and regulatory requirements face businesses with lower sales and/or profits due to the decreased efficiency. In the extreme these businesses some times close or leave the jurisdiction.

    • Mackinz

      “mackinz, after your brilliant use of an obscenity why do you bother to send a link to peruse? You have perhaps destroyed your credibility with this emotional outburst and revealed a good chance that you do not understand basic economics.”

      😐

      You know exactly what I meant by “Big Oil”.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Yes and I recognized the f word as well. Classless.

        • Mackinz

          Because someone who asserts that one of the greatest threats to have ever faced mankind and virtually all life on Earth is a myth deserves to be treated with “class”.

          He’s lucky I used one curse word. I have a burning hatred for AGW denialists.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            “burning hatred” Why, if there is no creator the earth will end when either the orbit decays or the sun runs out of fuel. All life on earth will then end and Neither Mischa’s nor your opinion of global warming will matter one bit. your use of foul language merely marks you as unstable and the lack of class reflects on you. Just as the hypocrisy of accepting only the science they want to be true reflects on the mental state of those who oppose the genetic engineering of food based on their emotional instability and hatred of “big ” business.

          • Mackinz

            “Neither Mischa’s nor your opinion of global warming will matter one bit.”

            Perhaps when one has a view of however many billion years it will take for our sun to die, but it does matter in the short term of our life span and bringing up the extreme long term as if it means anything is one of the most logically dishonest arguments I have seen in a while.

            “your use of foul language merely marks you as unstable and the lack of class reflects on you.”

            Or, maybe, it could reflect my passion for science and how I hate liars? What does “lack of class” even mean? What benefit is there to having “class”? There is no objective measure of class, so you’ll have to inform me of your subjective standards for judging “class”. Apparently, it requires one to never use a cuss word in the English language, which means you’ve subjectively eliminated a vast majority of all English speakers on the planet from having “class”.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            So mentioning long term facts is dishonest? My pov on the G.W. issue is just to try to minimize any negative I might have, encourage others to do the same and then not worry about it. Also I did not claim one must never use obscene language. Come listen to what might occur if greenpeace criminals come to destroy my g.e. plants. I will be getting a few soy beans and cotton seeds to put in a garden just for spite and to jest about with neighbors. A benefit of showing class is that more folks will listen to you. A lot of terms are subjective. That does not mean they can not be used. Your use of the f word was unnecessary. Mischa just likes to discuss stuff. He does not deserve to be hated or cussed at. btw I saw several pictures of temp measuring stations used for global warming stats that have had their surroundings become urbanized over the years. Could urban heat island effect have altered their readings? Should I dislike the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Africans for the deforestation they are responsible for?

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Dan is my understanding correct, that you are using oil as an analogy and not literally? Therefore whether or not they are against the global warming theory. The real point is that with their far greater resources they can not buy the result they want. Therefore big ag [monsant can not either. This will greatly disappoint the “you must be a shill” folks.

  • David Smith

    In the next edition we’ll bring you a comparison between GMOs and yoga! And we’ll prove that yoga is bad!

    • mikehorn

      Science might be able to study yoga in the kineseology sense, ignoring the metaphysical woo, and has. The Army uses quite a bit of yoga to supplement traditional things like running, because yoga builds core strength that allows wearing 60 pounds of body armor every day, in ways that other exercises just don’t.

  • joshv

    I don’t trust scientists. I’ve studied the matter and on GMOs I believe the scientific consensus is correct. On climate, the consensus position is largely based on computer projections which have yet to be validated, projections which are increasingly in conflict with empirical observations.

    • Hominid

      Exactly. ‘Consensus’ – the extent of which is another Lib-Leftist lie regarding AGW – is not pertinent.

      In science, it’s the quality of the data, the soundness of the methodology, and the validity of the analysis that matter.

      Regarding GMO research, these scientific flagstones are solid; regarding AGW, they’re pluff mud.

      • David Smith

        Oops! You did it again!

        So when “lib-leftists” use the word “consenus” they are liars – but when used in context with GMOs it is ….???

        Just search this web site for the word “consensus”…

        “Regarding GMO research, these scientific flagstones are solid; regarding AGW, they’re pluff mud.”
        And you come to this conclusion how exactly???

        • Hominid

          By evaluation of the data, methods, and interpretations of the primary research – PhD from MIT and 30+ years as a PI.

          Rigorous scientists – of whom I know hundreds – have been laughing at AGW since it was first proposed.

          Only scientifically illiterate dupes and scoundrels with a political agenda buy into it.

          • Matthew_Bailey

            Then you are a liar of very stupid.

            It’s that simple.

          • Hominid

            Projection – it’s one of the common symptoms of Liberal Psychotic Syndrome.

          • Michael S

            “Only scientifically illiterate dupes and scoundrels with a political agenda buy into it.”

            Essentially all of the major scientific organizations in the world, from the Royal Society and National Academies to the AAAS and AGU have released statements [1] acknowledging that anthropogenic climate change/global warming is occurring. To give you some idea of the scope of expertise that these groups represent, the membership of the AGU alone includes not only a large number of climate scientists, but tens of thousands of scientists in essentially every area that’s even tangentially related to climate science, from remote sensing and biogeochemistry to physical oceanography and cloud physics. If it is true that, as you say, “[o]nly scientifically illiterate dupes and scoundrels,” understand that AGW is occurring, then you’re saying that basically every major body of scientists in the world are illiterate dupes and scoundrels. That’s ridiculous.

            “Rigorous scientists – of whom I know hundreds – have been laughing at AGW since it was first proposed.”

            I don’t doubt that you could find—and indeed, many have found—a minority of scientists who support nearly any view, from climate science denialism to anti-GM hysteria or even Biblical creationism. However, the vast weight of the peer reviewed literature does not support your position, which is probably why none of your “rigorous scientist” friends show up to present anything, much less laugh, at any of the major scientific conferences, from AGU to the AAAS—and it’s also why the vast majority of the scientists out there who are knowledgeable about climate science find climate science denial as laughably absurd as chemtrail hysteria or young Earth creationism.

            [1] For instance: http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
            http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

          • Hominid

            Those ‘endorsements’ are meaningless from a scientific perspective. They’re made as position statements by a few officers and do NOT represent any sort of experiments, analyses, or agreement by the overwhelming majority of their constituents. Many of those so-called scientific societies are third-rate or have a vested stake in selling AGW. Many scientist who endorse the warmists do so because they want to protect the reputation of the general scientific enterprise. Finally, rigorous scientists do not study climatology because it is soft pseudoscience that attracts only charlatans who could never cut it in competitive research.

          • Michael S

            Ha, ha, ha! That’s hilarious. You have no idea what you’re talking about. The major scientific associations of the world don’t just all happen to release position statements on important topics at random, without the support of their membership. That’s ridiculous! Nor are the National Academies, Royal Society, AAAS or AGU “third-rate.” These statements alone indicate, to anyone who is at all familiar with the major scientific associations, that you’re just making stuff up as you go along.

            Also, climatology is often used in two different senses. The general public often uses it close to the dictionary definition, to mean something like, “the study of climate” and people who study climate tend to use it, to mean, “the study of historical climate, often of a particular region and focused on statistics” (as opposed to RCM and statistical downscaling work).

            Using the second meaning, your criticism falls flat, because it isn’t just climatologists, in the stricter sense, who afford us our current understanding of the climate system, as I’ll discuss next. Using the first meaning, which includes the whole climate science community, you have no idea how many fields you are smearing as “soft pseudosciences.”

            For instance, picking a smaller research group: the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis includes climate researchers and modellers who are atmospheric physicists, like Nathan Gillett and Jiangnan Li, ocean physicists like Oleg Saenko and Ken Denman, as well as people with training in meteorology like John Fyfe and Jason Cole, a hydrologist/vegetation modeller, a statistician, a biogeochemist, etc. This is not counting post-doctoral and visiting researchers from a variety of areas, from applied math and computer science to glacier physics. —And this is a smaller climate research group. It’s obviously ridiculous to say that all of these fields are soft sciences, let alone “pseudosciences.”

          • Hominid

            You’re a clueless imbecile.

            You’re also a liar or can’t read – I never said the AAAS NAS, or Royal Society were third-rate. Try re-reading my post more slowly.

          • Michael S

            “You’re a clueless imbecile.”

            Ha, ha. No, you’re making idiotic statements that show that you know nothing about the field, I’m calling you on it and you’re reduced to childish insults (or, in other areas, political bile about “Lib-Leftists,” classy). Nice try, though.

            “I never said the AAAS NAS, or Royal Society were third-rate”

            All right, in response to my comment that essentially all of the major scientific organizations in the world have released statements acknowledging that anthropogenic climate change/global warming is occurring, you said, “Many of those so-called scientific societies are third-rate or have a vested stake in selling AGW.” Why don’t you name a few of the “many” third-rate major scientific organizations that have released statements on climate change, since it wasn’t any of the ones that I mentioned?

      • RocketScientist

        Cherry picking which science to believe. The scientific evidence is solid for both GMOs and AGW.

        • Hominid

          No, it’s not at all solid for AGW.

          • RocketScientist

            Nice avatar.

          • Hominid

            Thanx. It’s from my HS yearbook.

          • Nick

            Yes, it is

      • UtahTwisted

        wow… just wow

        • Hominid

          Now that’s a profound and compelling remark!

    • mikehorn

      If you think they are incorrect, do your own work, publish, put it up for scrutiny. Add to the discussion productively. Otherwise the people being productive deserve some respect for hard, usually honest work. I say honest because the ruthless system that produces consensus does not tolerate dishonesty long, and punishes it severely. Look at cold fusion or the more recent stem cell forgeries out of Asia. Careers are in the toilet; those people need entirely new careers now.

    • UtahTwisted

      If you don’t trust scientists who do you trust? Psychics? Shaman? Politicians?

      • joshv

        Yep. Because I don’t automatically genuflect before scientific authority, I must somehow be in the thrall of religious authority. If you cannot see how ridiculous that is, there’s no helping you.

        • UtahTwisted

          Your use of the phrase “scientific authority” shows that you do not comprehend what “science” actually is.

          • joshv

            Scientific authority is what I have been told I should defer to, by many, many people insisting that my skepticism is mistaken, and that I lack the knowledge, experience and training to make my own conclusions or to doubt the conclusions of scientists. I quite agree with you that “Scientific Authority” has nothing to do with “science”.

            It unfortunately however has been subverting science since time immemorial – see for example Feynman’s telling of the Millikan oil drop experiment, where the imminence of Millikan in the field led those who replicated his experiment to replicate his incorrect results, only slowly trending towards what we now know is the right answer: http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html (about halfway down, though the entire thing is a good read)

          • Matthew_Bailey

            And what corrected these problem?

            From what I can tell it was Science that corrected these problems and not an ideological bias, which is what seems to be driving the opposition to Climate Change.

            And from what you have written here, there are good reasons to doubt your knowledge, experience, or training.

          • joshv

            And you demonstrate your knowledge, experience and training with comments like “Bull.Shit”? What ideological bias do you imagine I have?

            As for science, it is indeed self-correcting, in the very long term. Scientific consensus has been incorrect for decades, even centuries.

  • James DiGriz

    I would love to see what the scientists who say GMO are safe feed their kids …and any article that uses ‘scientific consensus’ in the first sentence is suspect. My favorite retort is Michael Crichton’s:

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    —————-

    • mikehorn

      Your argument is based on an equivocation: scientific consensus is not the same as a city council, bar room, or living room consensus. Your fallacy is this, by first defining consensus with the non scientific version, then attacking scientific consensus by defining scientific consensus.

      Science more or less works as you describe, with one study (usually a few people) raising an issue. Consensus forms first through peer review, searching for basic methodology and other flaws that would skew the work, and also by the first batch of results reproduction. Then others take the work and either reproduce it independently or use it for further study, both of which help discover flaws that were previously missed. If the work stands up to scrutiny over time, then it can be called the scientific consensus.

      Crichton was known as a gadfly, a wolf-crier, doomsday predictor, like the fish in the Cat in the Hat. When someone goes to Crichton, my first reaction is that they don’t understand the subject.

      • Hominid

        More or less correct and that’s why the so-called ‘consensus’ on AGW is baloney.

        Consensus in the scientific sense requires REPEATED INDEPENDENT EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION as well as “scrutiny” and “agreement.” AGW does not have anything resembling that. GMO safety has plenty.

        “Agreement” can occur for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with scientific validity – for instance, a political agenda, a desire to support fellow scientists, a herd mentality, to mention a few.

      • James DiGriz

        Hi Mikehorn – I’ll admit to not understanding GMO’s (or does de-tasseling hybrid corn in Nebraska count?) at the biology level. I’ll also say I’d rather eat food that isn’t processed – either from the farm (genetically) or some food packaging facility that boasts “all the nutrition you need” …meanwhile Americans are getting fatter and fatter because the ‘consensus’ told us that “fat makes us fat” (and this is something I do understand) and we should eat more ‘whole grains’ (in other words carbs) and we shouldn’t eat eggs …or should we eat eggs now? What exactly is the consensus on eggs today? I’m confused.
        I brought up Crichton (and I agree with the wolf-crier part, but we don’t really know yet do we? What about the guy who wrote the original Robocop? Who’d thought he’d get the Detroit bankruptcy right? But I digress …) because he has a point when it comes to consensus and science – especially as it is practiced today. Fifty years ago, respected scientists weren’t tried, convicted and shunned by their peers for disagreeing with the consensus (at least no where near the degree today …but it did happen …see the above on fat makes you fat).

        Debate is healthy and should be encouraged.

        • mikehorn

          GMO is an incredibly broad title. I equate it to those claiming to cleanse “toxins”. What are we talking about, both in substance and concentration? It is so vague as to be useless.

          We have many ways to genetically alter plants and animals, and we have been doing it for at least 10,000 years, more in the case of dogs/wolves. In hindsight we’ve even altered ourselves, in the case of lactose tolerance, which was done twice with two different genetic solutions (N Europe and once in Africa). The corn, wheat, bananas, almonds, cow… Most of what we eat was radically altered from its natural form by breeding, and often over very short spans. Breeding remains our most powerful genetic tool, taking sometimes as little as a couple years to achieve radical results.

          As you note about eggs among others, consensus changes through research and argument. Usually the key to what is helpful or harmful is dosage, combined with mitigating factors. You can drink so much water it kills you – military basic training has to work to avoid this. Your body has a limit to how fast it absorbs water, and more than that is a medical problem. Water loss is not a factor. For weight, I’ve struggled with mine, but the only useful solution is less food and more activity (can be exercise straight up, but could also be just walking around and physically doing things).

          As for Detroit, the trend was clear in the first oil crisis in the 1970s, and every one since, where Detroit refused to work on better products. Add that Germany and Japan finally had enough time to get their post war industry online, and suddenly Detroit had competition they lacked the creativity to deal with properly. I knew this growing up, and that movie only illustrated what isaw

        • mikehorn

          About eggs, I’d also cite crappy journalism about science, where breathless unsupported claims, crotchety peanut gallery sniping, and other non-issues, grab headlines without deserving them.

  • obadiah_edomite

    As proved by history, the consensus is usually wrong. This is especially so with science. Know-it-all scientists clutter the Internet with their robotic nonsense. They are even more delusional than religious tyrants. Safety of GMOs and predictions of climate change are suicidal delusions.

    • guest

      No anti-GMO advocate can explain why carefully splicing in a single well-known gene is inherently more dangerous than randomly swapping hundreds of genes via conventional breeding or randomly mutating them via irradiation. Yet they don’t get mad about those technologies.

      If you think GMOs are inherently more dangerous than so-called “natural” crops (many of which are only a few ill-fated mutations away from being inedible, and/or producing toxins such as cyanide), you clearly don’t understand genetics or biology.

      • Hominid

        Bingo! The posters here are not scientifically literate, in general, or familiar with molecular genetics, in particular.

        It never ceases to amaze me that people who wouldn’t dare to instruct their cardiologist on their treatment regimen or even their auto mechanic on engine repair will pipe up like fools regarding technically difficult scientific questions.

      • obadiah_edomite

        I don’t understand nuclear engineering or Internet packet routing but I can observe Fukushima and an Internet that is heading toward catastrophe.

    • RocketScientist

      Right. Consensus backed by empirically verifiable facts is just not trustworthy. What are you going to believe, your own preconceived beliefs or your lying eyes (with apologies to Groucho Marx)?

  • realheadline

    You seek to conflate the pseudo-science of global warming with legitimate GMO research? Here’s a look at some of the ‘further evidence” which “has become only more supportive.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-s2-0-s0921818112001658-gr11.jpg

  • Just call me Joe

    There is a bit of asymmetry between the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and GMO science. But those that believe AGW and do not believe in the safety of GMO are consistent, in that their thinking has nothing to do with science, and only with fear. They quote the alarmist climate researchers because it feeds their fear, but not the GMO researchers because it doesn’t.

    The asymmetry is that AGW is computer model driven and nothing that is observed today proves without a doubt the alarmism. Climate researchers have a miserable track record of getting predictions right. Time after time, they prove to be wrong. The Arctic Ocean was not ice free in 2013, sea level rise rate has not increased, it has decreased, hurricanes and tornadoes are not increasing in frequency, they are decreasing, temperatures are not continuing upward, but have plateaued for the past 17 years.

    GMO is largely empirical. Cycles of experiments are run over the course of months to a year, whereas in climate research, an observational data set requires decades, by which time most people forget that the prediction made didn’t occur.

    People have to decide whether to trust the data or the models of unproven claims. The models contain plausibility, but are unproven. Time and again, scientists trust the data on GMO that prove it is safe, but many choose the models for AGW, even when data is contradictory. Those that believe GMO is bad and AGW is happening merely have predisposition to fear from human activity. Many in the population with these beliefs also believe that nature is pristine and man is a corrupting influence. Few would survive a week in “pristine” nature.

    GMO is far more advanced as a science than AGW is. The climate is far more complicated and contains important natural phenomena inputs ranging in scale from microbes to galaxies. It is no where near the maturity necessary to rely upon it.

  • Historybuff

    If this author believes the “Global Warming aka Climate Change” pablum… then it is hard for me to believe anything else he may intend to convey.
    HB

    • Ivan

      it’s not about author, it’s about logic: if you trust an organization on issue 1, you have to trust them on the similar issue 2.

      • Patrick Sheehan

        That’s not logic, that’s a logical fallacy. Especially when you consider that many of the organizations quoted don’t have any technical expertise relevant to the topics.
        It’s like saying “My doctor knew why the moon changes shape everynight so when he says my car is getting bad mileage because I haven’t been putting sugar in my gas tank, he must be right, because he’s a doctor.”

  • illumati

    When we are told to trust scientists who are humans who lie and have their own agendas as evidenced by the climate-gate scandal of falsified evidence, claiming to trust scientists these same scientific organizations on GMOs because the science is in, is like sticking your head in the sand and hoping your farts don’t stink.

    • Hominid

      You’re correct that scientists suffer from all the flaws that all humans do. But, remember to distinguish between scientists and science – the former may be seriously flawed; the latter is ultimately self-correcting.

  • keithpridgeon

    Because Greeniacs are actually luddites, they hate humanity and love Ghia. They do not want to feed the excess humanity currently inhabiting this globe. And they consider the entire third world as excess.

    • mlebauer

      Actually, it’s Gaia, Ghia is an old VW.
      But you’re otherwise spot on.

      • BlueBoomPony

        Gaia is just sitting there waiting to be made a car name.

        (Googles)

        Oops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Gaia

        • mlebauer

          Good one!
          Note that the Gaia was replaced by the ISIS. Any relation to the group mass-murdering Iraqis and Syrians?
          Lefties do have a soft spot for terrorists.

  • devnullzzz

    Why not create an inaccurate, predictively valueless model of a human being using a computer, then run a simulation using false data to produce false results showing the dangers of GMO. Then, based on the results of an erroneous computer simulation model, with erroneous data input, conclude from that, that GMO is a critical issue.
    Then claim the “science” is “settled” because the results from a specious, sparse, and proven inaccurate model being fed with bad data form an entirely non scientific, non proven, “consensus” that gmo will kill half the planet in 100 years? And if anyone disagrees or has any other conclusion, chastise and insult them, possibly threaten them with jail, death, or loss of their jobs….
    That is basically the kind of “science” this “scientist” author seems to swallow…… if he believes the phony baloney garbage the AGW “scientific consensus” consists of.

  • mlebauer

    Obvious answer to your question. Ideologues (especially of the leftist variety) have never won prizes for consistency.

  • The Truth

    Only scientists who promote your political point of view can be believed

  • BlueBoomPony

    Why? Ideology – the mind killer.

  • “Man-made global warming” and “Climate Change” are both hoaxes.
    there is NO KNOWN Scientific definition to either hoax.

    Look it up – no SCIENTIFIC definition exists
    so no phenomena exists

    so stop talking about comparing hoaxes to anything but another hoax…..

    • maodeedee

      You’re omitting an important timeline. Global Warming became so suspect that it’s advocates had to start calling it “Climate Change” instead, because that way it covers all possibilities even if global “warming” is proved to be false.

      So on balance, we’re dealing more with convenient lies rather than inconvenient “truths”.

      Those seeking control over others often use psychological ploys to gain momentum their agendas or causes. When jungles were being cut down in south America, The battle cry did not become “Save the Jungle” It had to be changed to “Save the Rain Forest” because the term rain forest sounds so appealing.

      Same thing with having control over “wetlands” No one would have taken “Save the Swamps” seriously, so it became save the wetlands, which is better yet because it allows the Leftist big government Greenies to classify virtually anything as a “wetland” allowing them to tax and regulate it.

  • Billions of dollars of government grants are riding on continued parroting of the (Progressive) party line of “global warming.” The same is not true of GMOs. Follow the money.

    Further, GMOs aren’t the incendiary political issue that “global warming” is. The climate change crowd wants us to blow trillions of dollars “fixing” their imaginary crisis, and seriously diminish our life-styles. Neither side of the GMO issue is demanding anything so drastic.

    It’s just too convenient that proponents of Big Government tend also to demand Big Money to grow their Big Governments in order to address their imagined Big Crisis. “Climate change” is just a convenient excuse to promote their politics.

  • i trust very little that comes from government funded “science”, especially when it comes to things that have a direct impact on bad partisan policy

  • GaelanClark

    The author is grasping at two unrelated straws…neither of which do I believe the “consensus” upon.
    Firstly, how can anyone “know” the long term consequences of altering the genetic composition of an organic material that has new chemical constituents built in as a result of the modification? Will these new food items, like many “safe” drugs so many years after the fact, be found to be cancerous or in some other way life threatening? How can you “know” this to not be true without decades of research?
    Secondly, the climate mongering being bandied about is simply not “unbiased”. That is an absurd notion to harbor, especially when “climate” scientists are caught red-handed in bias.
    Waving your hands over any “consensus” is at its core unscientific.

  • Girtupyourloins

    One of the leaders of the Marxists/Statists (I refuse to call them Progs or Libs) crowd, Paul-shifty eyed- Krugman gave us thier game plan. He said once that: “…the country needs to be attacked by an alien race from another planet. Then we would pool our resourses and wealth to fight off the enemy. Like we did in WWII.” AGW or CC is the “alien” they want us to pool our resources against. A sophisticated boogie man. Total fabrication.

  • thesafesurfer

    The author’s premise that “Big Oil could not buy these organizations on climate change, or influence them by means of inserting a few biased members. But this means neither can Monsanto, with its tiny resources by comparison. (Exxon-Mobil’s net profits are 20 to 30 times Monsanto’s!)” ignores the most powerful corruptive forces- massive government research grants bestowed through corrupt political processes. To understand how government corrupts science the author should simply watch a congressional committee hearing on climate change or GMO’s.

    • Zaoldyeck

      You mean those hearings when Republicans ask why they should continue funding science in the first place, where a guy like Paul Braun sits on the House Committee on Science and Technology who has directly stated “Evolution and the Big Bang are lies straight from the pits of h-ll”.

      … It seems to me that few members of congress understand science, and fewer still actually care about it. If I were seeking government funding, I’d be pretty scared telling congressmen “yeah your big oil buddies are lying to you” because ultimately, it’s not the ‘solar’ lobby which is successfully getting people like Braun elected.

      https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00028986&newMem=N&cycle=2012

      ACTUALLY, this is fun. Lets look at other members of the house that scientists have to talk to when they have to seek grants.

      There’s Lamar Smith, one of the most truly vile representatives in congress who also has a habit of introducing legislation to try to break the internet. (This guy is evil) He also famously denies global warming and to top it all off he’s the Chairman of the committee!

      Who does he get his funding from?

      https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00001811&newMem=N&cycle=2014

      Tv/Media (Which is why he has a habit in drafting really REALLY bad telecommunication legislation) and oil and gas. Surprise surprise. Yet this guy chairs the committee that decides how science funding goes.

      Imagine saying anything that the Oil Lobby which supports him doesn’t like. You really think ‘global warming is happening and your supporters are the cause’ is how scientists think they get funding? Wow, scientists really *must* be idiots to you.

      Jim Sensenbrenner interestingly enough doesn’t get a ton of money from oil and gas, just a few tens of thousands here and there for each election cycle, but he seems to be happy to spin the same kind of lies about global warming as his fellow members of the committee.

      https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00004291&type=I&newmem=N

      Another chair, Ralph Hall, who gets to direct funding, has actually said that Scientists are in it for the money during the climategate nonsense.

      He’s no longer going to be in office but guess where his funding came from.

      https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2012&type=I&cid=N00005645&newMem=N

      You can bet his buddies in oil and gas were telling him “damn those scientists, they’re trying to scam you for money, you’re smarter than them, they already are paid too much!”

      What kind of rational reason would any scientist who seeks funding want to say to people like that “the earth is warming, and fossil fuels are the cause” to the government committee that gets to set funding and allocation!

      “Global warming is real, and a human caused threat” is NOT what congressmen want to hear. Yet scientists still say it. They’re doing this because they’re paid by the government? Telling the government something it doesn’t want to hear is now going to get you extra money?

      Finally, I think it should also be important to note that you’re not just saying that scientists have control of the government… you also are saying that scientists in Canada have done the same.

      The person who wrote this article is an assistant professor at UBC. It seems scientists all over the world say the same thing to their respective leaders, but their respective leaders are the only ones who want to keep saying “it’s a conspiracy, they just want money!” … As oil companies hand them fat election checks.

      • thesafesurfer

        How naïve of you to insinuate that Democratic representatives are any different than Republican representatives when it comes to science.
        I hate to break the news to you, but they are the flip side of the same plutocratic coin.

        • Zaoldyeck

          My larger issue is that the people that scientists have to report to in order to ensure their discipline gets funded are not the type of people who are naturally inclined to care about either science or the environment.

          Those who deny the overwhelming concensus get promoted more often than they should in congressional hearings because of the rather obvious “the people selecting who gets to talk on those panels have vested interests to make it sound like there’s as much of a controversy as possible”.

          Scientists don’t have government in their pocket. Scientists don’t stand to make tons of money in grants by telling the government something it doesn’t want to hear.

          The only thing to be gained by saying stuff others don’t want to hear is honesty.

          If government corrupts science, it’s exactly by saying “GMO’s are bad, global warming isn’t real”, not the other way around. Scientists don’t make tons of money by telling the government unfortunate facts.

          • thesafesurfer

            I would argue that if scientist made true, verifiable discoveries of importance it doesn’t matter who they report to. Their discoveries would address a real problem the population cared about and it would resonate.
            Science produces verifiable results. Today unverifiable theories get reported to the public as scientific facts.
            Government corrupts everything it touches and always has. This isn’t anything new.

          • Zaoldyeck

            “Their discoveries would address a real problem the population cared about and it would resonate. Science produces verifiable results. Today unverifiable theories get reported to the public as scientific facts.”

            The public doesn’t care what’s verifiable or not. The population has always been the LAST to accept what scientists have known for many many many decades (or longer)

            Consider biological evolution! Not only does Paul Braun (who sits on that nice little panel) deny evolution (which hardly makes his comments on climate change seem very reasonable) but we have roughly 40% of people in the united states who ALSO reject evolution and consider it “not verifiable”.

            Incidentally creationists require the same type of staggering scientific conspiracy perpetrated by the entire worldwide scientific community in order for them to claim the science is still up for debate. So naturally creationists, and climate deniers, tend to spend a lot of time arguing “they’re just saying this for the money” no matter how little either climate scientists OR biologists actually make.

            Science reporting is hard, and it’s a lot easier to make a sensationalist popular press article rather than one which states for the thousandth time “Scientists have confirmed, yet again, what they already confirmed a year ago, or two, or three, etc etc”.

            Scientists can lie, but arguing that the entire scientific community is engaging in a massive cover up is a bit more extreme.

          • thesafesurfer

            You make statements claiming assumptions, “the public doesn’t care….” that have no support whatsoever.

          • Zaoldyeck

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx

            Even among Democrats you have about 40% who accept Young Earth Creationism. You have somewhat scary levels of basic scientific ignorance in the population at large.

            http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/22/publics-knowledge-of-science-and-technology/

            It seems people don’t really care what science says so long as it continues doing useful stuff for people.

            Why would you expect the public to care what scientists have to say about climate change any more than they care about what scientists have to say about evolution, or the big bang?

            Literacy among the public in any area seems lacking.

            http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AP-GfK-March-2014-Poll-Topline-Final_SCIENCE.pdf

            Seriously, 51% don’t accept the big bang.

            If the public cared about science, they’d be better informed about it.

          • thesafesurfer

            Are you claiming that Gallup polls produce scientific results?

          • Zaoldyeck

            Are you saying their methodology, listed, was flawed? Is there a reason to suspect that, say, landline phones will oversample people who reject evolution and thus skew the numbers?

            I fully grant you that I don’t really trust Gallop’s numbers when it comes to elections, because trying to distinguish between ‘likely voter’ populations is difficult and there *ARE* sampling differences between generations (younger are more likely to have cell phones and vote Democrat, so Gallop actually undersamples them by omitting cells)

            If so that’s possible, but those numbers really don’t seem to change very much regardless of who conducts the survey, or how.

            http://tnjn.org/content/relatedmedia/2009/03/03/Science_evolution_2006.pdf

            Published by Science. That 40% number doesn’t change very much.

            Would you care to show me a citation that challenges the statistic, and shows creationism is in fact a fringe belief? (It would actually be rather awesome to learn that Americans aren’t as stupid as previously believed)

          • thesafesurfer

            You have difficulty answering straightforward questions. If Gallup produced scientific results the would be verifiable and repeatable so no Gallup doesn’t produce scientific results regardless of their methodology.
            Your assumptions based on Gallup polls that “Americans don’t care about science” (whatever that ambiguous phrase means) suffers from the fact that poll data isn’t scientific.
            I.E. none of the polls predicted Cantor’s loss.

          • Zaoldyeck

            “If Gallup produced scientific results the would be verifiable and repeatable”

            What the hell? By fact that their numbers are EXACTLY in line with other polling firms, from NBC to Pew, to the numbers I gave you in the Science paper published by Eugene Scott which cites MANY different polls… how on earth do you claim that the result wasn’t verifiable or repeatable?

            Gallop’s number was literally the same as Pew’s, or the number that Science provided. That to me is the literal definition of it being verified BY replication. Other polling firms have conducted the same study and found nearly identical numbers. What more could you possibly want for verification?

            Did you bother to read those other links or did you just stop at “gallop”?

            “Your assumptions based on Gallup polls that “Americans don’t care about science””

            No, if I had to pick a single one of the polls that I cited to best sum up “Americans don’t care about science” it would actually probably be the AP-Gfk poll which asked more broad questions than just Gallop’s evolution poll, and was also in line with the same rough percentages that Pew found when they asked similar scientific literacy questions (also cited previously and ignored because you seem to hate gallop)

            “I.E. none of the polls predicted Cantor’s loss.”

            First off, you meant “e.g.”

            “I.E” is ‘that is to say’, whereas ‘e.g.’ is ‘for example’ in an inexhaustive list.

            I.E. you are using the term ‘I.E’ improperly.

            My pet peeve dealt with, this has NOTHING to do with a poll’s ability to determine overall understanding of basic scientific literacy.

            Likely voter models are hard. Polling firms ALWAYS have a hard time predicting outcomes, and meta polls or polls of polls are always far more accurate than individual polls. Predicting future behavior is very hard and the fact polling firms can do it at all is a testament to the triumph of statistical probability theory in describing reality at all.

            … However ‘we would like to ask you questions regarding your scientific beliefs’ is not nearly as hard a topic to get right. Given that the numbers have been confirmed by different polling firms, and we aren’t trying to predict future behaviour… how good or bad someone does in predicting election turnout from different demographics doesn’t really change their ability to conduct a general basic statistical survey of scientific literacy.

            Political surveys are just about the hardest thing a polling firm has to do. Scientific literacy surveys are just about the easiest.

          • thesafesurfer

            Now you claim that polling forms are in line with one another.
            You do not know what scientific evidence is, and you ceaselessly make unsubstantiated claims. This is a waste of my valuable time. Good luck to you.

          • Zaoldyeck

            “Now you claim that polling forms are in line with one another.”

            Yes, because I posted links to ones above, that you have still seemingly ignored, all of which indicating the exact same roughly 40% percentage, all from different samples.

            Is there a problem with your reading comprehension? Did you not read any of the links I gave you?

            “You do not know what scientific evidence is, and you ceaselessly make unsubstantiated claims.”

            Again, did you not read any of the links I provided for you? This sounds a lot more like you just really REALLY want to dismiss any and all polls, regardless of where they’re published (Cause to you Science published by the AAAS seems not to count as ‘scientific evidence’.

            If this is a waste of your time, it’s a miserable squandering of mine given that you ask for evidence, then forcing me to find citations which you refuse to even acknowledge it when confronted.

            It’s like arguing with a young earth creationist. “Oh, that polling firm isn’t scientific, cause I can just reject it and any concensus and any publications confirming it from fiat declaration”.

            If the AAAS’s Science doesn’t qualify as “scientific evidence” to you, nothing will.

          • thesafesurfer

            A quick example to illustrate my point that corruption of science occurs from all sides. A sociologist researching the divorce rates of same sex couples in Europe published his work in a peer reviewed journal, stated in the article the limitations of his evidence, included his data, and call for future research to go beyond the limits of his own work.
            He was attacked ceaselessly by interest groups who did not like his results. His work fit the exact definition of science.
            Scientists get corrupted on the front end by money, everyone needs to make a living. Theories get presented as science which discredits everyone involved. Finally, properly conducted scientific research gets assailed by politically motivated interest groups who find the science disturbing to their ideologies. All of these problems exists on both sides of the political aisle.

          • Zaoldyeck

            “He was attacked ceaselessly by interest groups who did not like his results. His work fit the exact definition of science.”

            … Yes, in that IT WAS PUBLISHED.

            Interest groups who “don’t like results” attack results time after time but unless they’re publishing their own papers in the same types of journals pointing out errors or omissions, it’s simply noise. Same as the noise against climate science, same as the noise against physics, same as the noise against biology… if people are saying “oh my god what a bad paper” but the paper isn’t challenged by other academic papers, it seems like posturing by people with motivations other than science.

            But much like you don’t get creationists publishing terribly many papers (and why they promote the few people who have *ANY* academic background at all) you don’t get many climate change denialists publishing terribly many papers. That’s because the models we have make sense, and people trying to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian don’t have very strong data.

            “Interest groups” can influence science, but we’re talking about needing a massive scientific conspiracy for something like anthropogenic climate change to be wrong.

            “All scientists are engaging in a massive conspiricy and William Dembski or Michael Behe are the only honest man among them!”

            The names are easy to mix/match between creationists and climate change deniars, since few creationists also accept climate change. (One would hope that those accepting climate change accept evolution… evolution *IS* an older subject, but oddly enough, not *that* much older.)

          • thesafesurfer

            You don’t seem to comprehend the nature and effect of the attacks on the author at all.

          • Zaoldyeck

            Whereas you appear to not understand the process of how science builds a concensus, and why that concensus stands outside of whatever the public OR government think about academic findings.

            Hint, when you need conspiracies to justify why “they’re all lying, it’s big money influence, just bias of working for government institutions” when even applied to UBC philosophy professors, you are going against a well established concensus. Creationists often claim the exact same thing. In fact, a rather loathsome worm, Ben Stein, created a ridiculous ‘documentary’ about their persecution complex. I’m surprised no similar climate change ‘documentary’ has been published yet.

          • thesafesurfer

            You failed to reply to my post and changed the subject.
            The author was attacked for the results of a classic scientific study. The attacks did not come from the groups you consistently identify in your posts as anti-science, Republicans/Conservatives/the Right/ etc., the attacks came from the groups at the other end of the political spectrum.
            If you want to ignore the fact that science gets attacked by groups who find the studies inconvenient to their ideologies that is your choice.

          • Zaoldyeck

            The author was writing a piece how there is a concensus on GMO’s just like there is a concensus on Climate Change, and it’s just as silly to think that GMOs will cause cancer as it is to think humans activities aren’t directly causing the planet to warm.

            No amount of government forces changes the fact that there is an overwhelming scientific concensus, all over the world (sometimes standing in direct opposition and the scientists own financial interests… plenty of them in Australia and Canada right now have found themselves out of work)…. on both of these issues.

            Working for a university and doing studies does open you up to bias but the whole point of science is that the *aggregate* arrives at the correct conclusion, and no amount of money changes the overwhelming face of evidence on all sides.

            No matter how big an industry, or how much government influence there is… the overall scientific community *has* to pay deference to data first.

            It may take decades for a concensus to emerge, especially if there are entrenched issues… (and GMO studies are certainly newer than climate science) but on both of these issues a strong concensus has emerged.

            Oh, incidentally, before I’m accused of shilling for ‘big agriculture’, I have my problems with GMO usage, but mostly as it relates to how I feel the types of genes we select for are used for farming methods that aren’t good for long term sustainability OR long term productivity. I am a big fan of permaculture.

          • thesafesurfer

            The author didn’t write about GMO’s in the article mentioned in my post. What are you talking about?

          • Zaoldyeck

            I am talking about this article, written by a UBC professor, comparing climate change denial and GMO denial as roughly the same thing. The article you are commenting on.

            You never cited any other article in your posts. You made some casual reference to some researcher writing about divorce rates attacked by unnamed interest groups published in an unnamed journal trying to compare it to how interest groups impact major scientific concensus.

            … Which they don’t. Interest groups have a vested interest in denying climate change, but the scientific concensus has emerged regardless. Interest groups have a vested interest in denying evolutionary biology, but the scientific concensus has emerged regardless. This paper, the one by the UBC prof, indicates that even if interest groups have a vested interest in saying “GMO’s are safe” they have such little power compared to the bigger GMOs that if scientists don’t listen to ‘big oil’ why would they listen to ‘big Monsanto’? Monsanto isn’t nearly as powerful.

            If a researcher is ‘attacked’ what ultimately matters is how well supported in the academic literature is their data. No amount of ‘look interest groups don’t like someone who publishes a paper on gay divorce rates’ matters in establishing a scientific concensus.

            Interest groups will always have their statements, ultimately, it’s the overall literature that matters.

          • thesafesurfer

            It is never clear what you are talking about. I enjoy clarity in conversation and since your are not providing it I will go in search of it. Good luck to you.

          • Zaoldyeck

            It’s hard to provide clarity to someone who refuses to remove their head from a mountain of red herrings.

            I doubt you’ll find clarity anywhere you search.

  • Julie

    The creation of genetically engineer food is not the danger and never was. It is the purposeful pairing of a GMO crop with an herbicide it is resistant to, this is where a potential monster is created. Especially when the long term consequences of saturating land with that herbicide are unknown. No real excuse for creating these duos and spreading them far and wide without enough information. Scientists could absolutely predict that herbicide resistant weeds would emerge and therefore the need for yet another next generation super herbicide paired with a new partner GMO crop would become necessary. This is the unethical and inexcusable actions of some big Agra and it should be stopped. They have created their own self perpetuating problem that only they can solve. With new herbicides and new GMO partner. On and on. I think unethical is a mild word for the behavior of companies that are making money this way.

    What could they be doing instead? Genetically engineering plants to grow without herbicides, better flavor, better nutrition, drought resistant, etc, etc… But then the money stream would be so much smaller… Only the crops…

    • There is no “monster” being created. Herbicide resistance is a challenge of modern agriculture and has been for a century. The situation with GMOs is no different nor more serious. Some countries that extensively use GE have experience relatively little resistance as the result of crop rotations and other advanced management practices. No fields are “saturated” with chemicals…just the opposite. You need to do more research from non-biased sources and understand how farming really works. Here is a good start: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/03/myth-gm-farmers-drown-crops-in-dangerous-glyphosate-fact-farmers-use-eye-droppers/
      It appears you oppose the use of chemicals and fertilizers which have resulted in a 5 fold increase in global farming yields over the past 50 years. Unethical is not continuing to innovate in the face of escalating world food needs as poorer people increase their standard of living and calorie demands.

  • Julie

    The creation of genetically engineered food is not the danger and never was. It is the purposeful pairing of a GMO crop with an herbicide it is resistant to, this is where a potential monster is created. Especially when the long term consequences of saturating land with that herbicide are unknown. No real excuse for creating these duos and spreading them far and wide without enough information. Scientists could absolutely predict that herbicide resistant weeds would emerge and therefore the need for yet another next generation super herbicide paired with a new partner GMO crop would become necessary. These are the unethical and inexcusable actions of some big Ag companies and this should be stopped. They have created their own self perpetuating problem that only they can solve. With new herbicides and new GMO partners. On and on. I think unethical is a mild word for the behavior of companies that are making money this way.

    What could they be doing instead? Genetically engineering plants to grow without herbicides, with better flavor, with better nutrition, drought resistant, etc, etc… But then the money stream would be so much smaller… Only the crops….

    • hyperzombie

      The only difference between GMO herbicide tolerant crops and conventional is when you apply the herbicide, not how much. In Europe where growing GMOs is restricted, they still use just as much Round-up.

      All Herbicides have resistant weeds, this is not new. It will continue until farmers have new tools to combat weeds.

      Genetically engineering plants to grow without herbicides, with better flavor, with better nutrition, drought resistant, etc, etc…

      Coming Soon to a farm near you, even crops that self fertilize are being tested.

  • Blair Daines

    What a hack.. assume a bunch of BS that is not proven but act like it is.. fortunately the climate has not cooperated with his or his idiot buddies and has not warmed for 17 years and counting, something not one model of the “scientist” over-educated crackpots predicted! Goes on to claim that this is somehow the same as GMOs.. WHAT A HACK!!

    • Zaoldyeck

      Or I think he’d just point you to the rapidly warming oceans, which hold the majority of heat capacity for the earth.

      Even basic thermodynamics makes this pretty clear-cut. “The oceans are warming, and the atmosphere is staying either constant or slightly warmer over the past decade”=”the planet as a whole is getting warmer”.

      You can either argue “well the atmosphere has been getting much colder”, which will make this a citation war you will lose very rapidly, “the oceans aren’t warming up”, which will also be a citation war you will lose very rapidly, deny basic energy conservation, or you must admit the planet is warming.

      Even in the popular debate, denying the planet is warming at all is rather unsupported. Perhaps you might want to try the “human activities aren’t the cause!” but there you’d still be in rather bad luck with facts like “why does the planet warm more at night than in the day, and why are we observing stratospheric cooling”? These were predictions made long before we ever started measuring strong robust increase in temperature, because they’re based on basic thermodynamics.

      Scientists having a hard time modelling the energy transfer between the world’s oceans and its atmosphere is very different from scientists being able to understand basic energy conservation. “Humans are heating the planet” is easy to determine, “how heat flows through the earth” is much harder to model.

      • Mark Stuber

        re: “the planet warm[s] more at night than in the day,”

        What kind of silly claim is that? Do you realize there is never a time where the entire planet is in the night and there is never a time where the entire planet is in the day? Do you realize the earth always has one half of its surface in a state of being night time and one half of its surface being in a state of day time?

        By the way, except on very rare occasions, where I am at,, the temperature drops at night. Do you want to start a citation war on that?

        • Zaoldyeck

          “What kind of silly claim is that?”

          About the same kind of claim as saying “birds are dinosaurs”. It’s counter-intuitive, but when you look at the underlying systems and mechanics it makes perfect sense.

          “Do you realize there is never a time where the entire planet is in the
          night and there is never a time where the entire planet is in the day?”

          Yes, that’s kinda the point. Temperature data carries time stamps, so we can know what the temperature is versus the day, and night in a region. We can then plot the average daytime temperatures over time versus the average nighttime temperatures over time. If the planet didn’t have predictable time dependant daytime/nighttime cycles, we could not make the claim that the planet is warming more at night.

          “Do you realize the earth always has one half of its surface in a state
          of being night time and one half of its surface being in a state of day
          time?”

          Yes. Yes I do.

          “By the way, except on very rare occasions, where I am at,, the temperature drops at night.”

          VERY GOOD!

          Daytime temperatures are hotter than nighttime temperatures but WARMING is occurring faster at night, minimum temperatures at night are becoming less and less common (whereas maximum daytime temperatures haven’t had a major change in relative frequency) which is exactly what we’d expect from warming due to greenhouse gases. That’s because greenhouse gases don’t actually “trap sunlight” but rather than trap the blackbody of earth, they re-radiate the infrared radiation released by the earth as it cools. In the daytime, because the earth isn’t cooling, this doesn’t have much effect. But at night, as the earth is radiating, the greenhouse gases prevent it from cooling as much, thus, nights are warming faster than days.

          “Do you want to start a citation war on that?”

          Gladly, since I happen to know what scientists have published on the subject.

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040736/pdf

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999RG900002/full

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL019998/full

          You could look up the term ‘diurnal warming’ yourself and see that it’s an asymetric trend. Or if you’re still not convinced, why not just go to the NOAA data yourself?

          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records#records_look_up

          Hell, this isn’t even really questioned anymore, instead, scientists are trying to find out how life is reacting to the increased night temperatures.

          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7465/full/nature12434.html

          … This by the way doesn’t even include the obvious other major important factors I mentioned like stratospheric cooling, which happens because as I said, “greenhouse gases” trap earth’s blackbody, so they re-radiate it down, meaning that less heat is escaping into the stratosphere and thus the stratosphere is cooling. For anyone who says “well maybe the sun is causing warming” you’d expect exactly the opposite effect, since increased energy output would from the sun be heating the stratosphere as well as the earth.

          • Mark Stuber

            So what you meant to say is that the average night time average temperature is rising? Because, in spite of all the data you posted, you’re original statement still makes no sense.
            There is never a point in time where the whole earth is in a state of night, so it is impossible for the earth’s temperature as a whole to warm just at night time.

          • Zaoldyeck

            “The planet is warming more at night” is pretty easy to understand. We observe some minor, though not much, increase in maximum temperatures during daytime, but we observe a rise FASTER during the night.

            If you don’t like me phrasing that as “the planet is warming more at night than in the day” fine, but what matters is how that relates to radiative physics, and why we’d expect such an asymmetry in diurnal temperature increase given anthropogenic greenhouse causes.

  • “GMOs are safe for our health and for the environment.”

    How is that statement consistent with the two that follow?

    “RoundUp herbicide tolerance in weeds is currently a problem, and encourage diversifying agricultural approaches (including alternative GMOs) to solve it.”
    “They agree that many herbicides and insecticides have toxic effects.”

  • the links in this article are dead

  • Overton

    Hm, appeal to authority combined with non-sequitur to bring balance to the debate?