GMO and Global Warming

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
It seems to me that these two things have something in common: by and large the scientific community confirms that GMO foods are safe and that global warming and climate change is happening. You do have small pockets of resistance saying no, denying them both. You have groups of scientists and special groups saying the evidence is false and that GMO is unsafe and global warming isn't happening.

I think in another decade the hate train for GMO will pass and we will all look at anti-GMO as absolute nutters.

tl;dr - if you believe in global warming and don't believe GMO foods are safe then you need to shut the fuck up, sit down, and let the scientists talk. If you believe GMO foods are safe but deny global warming, same thing applies.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,606
29,322
136
It seems to me that these two things have something in common: by and large the scientific community confirms that GMO foods are safe and that global warming and climate change is happening. You do have small pockets of resistance saying no, denying them both. You have groups of scientists and special groups saying the evidence is false and that GMO is unsafe and global warming isn't happening.

I think in another decade the hate train for GMO will pass and we will all look at anti-GMO as absolute nutters.

tl;dr - if you believe in global warming and don't believe GMO foods are safe then you need to shut the fuck up, sit down, and let the scientists talk. If you believe GMO foods are safe but deny global warming, same thing applies.
So you actually believe in global warming? I would have never guessed that about you. I'm pleasantly surprised. Maybe there is hope for you.
 

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,399
190
106
The problem is GMO encompasses a lot of foods. Thats like saying all drugs are safe since I can take a aspirin a day and not hurt me.

I have no problem eating GMO foods but like to know if they are GMO so I can do my own research to see how long they have been out and how they were modified. I don't think they should be banned based on what's out there.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Anti-GMO is the lefts anti-science nutters like the GW deniers are on the right.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Everybody believes in climate change (global warming has been canned as a cattle call). At least 97% of climate scientists do, this is where that number came from. The 97% is not of climate scientists who think that whatever a certain political side dreams up should be taken seriously as the answer to climate change.

The debate is on how much impact does man have on climate change and what are reasonable methods based on the effect of man on climate change to ensure we aren't making things worse or much worse than they otherwise would be.

The answer runs counter to everything the USA is trying to do. The answer is to consume less, much less.

If it has to be spelled out, here it is: Climate Change occurs with our without mans involvement, man is clearly not the sole driver of it.


This article spells it out a bit further
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

...
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
 
Last edited:

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
The problem is GMO encompasses a lot of foods. Thats like saying all drugs are safe since I can take a aspirin a day and not hurt me.

I have no problem eating GMO foods but like to know if they are GMO so I can do my own research to see how long they have been out and how they were modified. I don't think they should be banned based on what's out there.

No, being Anti-GMO is like being Anti-Medicine.

There is nothing bad about GMO it's self, now obviously it can be used to create something that is bad for you.
 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,307
0
71
People don't understand that GMO is NOT equal to biotechnology and often confuse the two. GMO is safe, biotechnology i'm not so sure...
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
The problem is GMO encompasses a lot of foods. Thats like saying all drugs are safe since I can take a aspirin a day and not hurt me.

I have no problem eating GMO foods but like to know if they are GMO so I can do my own research to see how long they have been out and how they were modified. I don't think they should be banned based on what's out there.

The anti-GMO movement is all encompassing though.
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
So you actually believe in global warming? I would have never guessed that about you. I'm pleasantly surprised. Maybe there is hope for you.

Surprised that there isn't a pigeon hole for me yet? I don't know how people can deny climate change. Of course, I don't necessarily believe humans are completely responsible for it. I think much of it is a natural process on the earth. But reducing emissions and being smart about pollution makes sense even if that doesn't cause global warming directly.

No, taxing people and creating economies around it is not the correct way to go about it.
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
Everybody believes in climate change (global warming has been canned as a cattle call). At least 97% of climate scientists do, this is where that number came from. The 97% is not of climate scientists who think that whatever a certain political side dreams up should be taken seriously as the answer to climate change.

The debate is on how much impact does man have on climate change and what are reasonable methods based on the effect of man on climate change to ensure we aren't making things worse or much worse than they otherwise would be.

The answer runs counter to everything the USA is trying to do. The answer is to consume less, much less.

If it has to be spelled out, here it is: Climate Change occurs with our without mans involvement, man is clearly not the sole driver of it.


This article spells it out a bit further
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

A lot of people don't believe in it. I believe in climate change, but I also believe humans have little to do with it. I still think it is a good idea to regulate pollution and get on alternative energy. I don't think it will necessarily help with climate change, but it certainly won't hurt.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Being anti-GMO is the lunatic fringe of people who want to live a certain way, but are too lazy to actually do it themselves, so they want the government to force everyone to conform to their beliefs. I can understand the desire behind wanting to eat only the purest of mother Earth's bounty, but if that's what you want to do, go to a farmer's market, or just get a little plot of land and grow your own food. Don't try to pass laws that dictate that everyone else has to pay more for produce because you're frightened of scientific advancement that's made crops have higher yields and less spoilage, you selfish jackass. If you can't be bothered to control what you're putting in your body, that's on you, not the government.
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
Why can't the anti-GMO crowd be happy with things that are labeled non-GMO? Here is a hint - GMO is a huge marketing area, just like gluten free. If something doesn't say non-GMO then assume that something in it is GMO.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,836
49,539
136
Basically every food anyone eats is a GMO food. For some reason people who are against it draw distinctions between genetically modifying a plant or animal through selective breeding and genetically modifying it in other ways.

Science has spent a lot of time studying GMOs. There is no indication whatsoever that they are harmful. People who avoid them are denying science much like the people who dispute AGW are denying science.

That's the thing about accepting science, you don't get to believe it only when it tells you what you want to hear. Anti-GMO people and AGW denialists are cut from the same nutty cloth: they only hear what they want to hear.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,836
49,539
136
A lot of people don't believe in it. I believe in climate change, but I also believe humans have little to do with it. I still think it is a good idea to regulate pollution and get on alternative energy. I don't think it will necessarily help with climate change, but it certainly won't hurt.

You realize that this position is at odds with the science on climate change, right? It seems a bit odd to hold such an opinion in your own thread about accepting science.
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
You realize that this position is at odds with the science on climate change, right? It seems a bit odd to hold such an opinion in your own thread about accepting science.

See above posts where scientists are at odds over how much man contributes and that climate change is affected by many, many factors other than man. I think we are a drop in the bucket and many other factors contribute to climate change, but I don't think that gives us an excuse to be irresponsible.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,836
49,539
136
See above posts where scientists are at odds over how much man contributes and that climate change is affected by many, many factors other than man. I think we are a drop in the bucket and many other factors contribute to climate change, but I don't think that gives us an excuse to be irresponsible.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...78462813553136

While scientists may be at odds as to exactly how much humans contribute, they are not at odds with the idea that humans are responsible for more than a "drop in the bucket". Such an opinion is anti-science.
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
While scientists may be at odds as to exactly how much humans contribute, they are not at odds with the idea that humans are responsible for more than a "drop in the bucket". Such an opinion is anti-science.

How about this: humans are not solely responsible for climate change and while changing our behaviour makes good sense to help stop climate change we also need to realize it is inevitable no matter what we do and prepare for it (such as by not building cities below sea level.)
 

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,399
190
106


I guess you missed this part...

"Opinion"

"Bast and Spencer reference one thoroughly debunked “Petition Project” with 31,000 supposed signatures. The project contains numerous false signatories and its organizers have admitted “there’s no way of filtering out a fake.” The project is run by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which in the past has argued that nuclear weapon dangers have been exaggerated and that the Y2K bug would end the world. Its leader Art Robinson is skeptical of evolution, HIV-AIDS and believes that nuclear waste should be used to “enhance” Oregon’s drinking water."

Your "opinion" piece has been debunked as junk.
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,606
29,322
136
Surprised that there isn't a pigeon hole for me yet? I don't know how people can deny climate change. Of course, I don't necessarily believe humans are completely responsible for it. I think much of it is a natural process on the earth. But reducing emissions and being smart about pollution makes sense even if that doesn't cause global warming directly.

No, taxing people and creating economies around it is not the correct way to go about it.
Oh, there it is. Nevermind. You are exactly what I thought you are. Scientists confirm that man is responsible for it.
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
I guess you missed this part...

"Opinion"

I guess he is just bullshitting about everything in there and making up names?

I guess this can be a global warming thread. I didn't come in to debate who it causing it (I am not a climate change scientist) but came in to point out that many on the left seem to hate GMO and deny it is beneficial in the same way many on the right deny climate change altogether.

Who and what is causing climate change is still a debate. Just like with GMO foods, you cannot deny that on the whole they are beneficial for the world, while I suppose you could debate whether it is a good idea to mix animal genes with plants.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
While scientists may be at odds as to exactly how much humans contribute, they are not at odds with the idea that humans are responsible for more than a "drop in the bucket". Such an opinion is anti-science.

This, and that you believe what you do makes this thread that much better hahaha.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,836
49,539
136

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,836
49,539
136
How about this: humans are not solely responsible for climate change and while changing our behaviour makes good sense to help stop climate change we also need to realize it is inevitable no matter what we do and prepare for it (such as by not building cities below sea level.)

Nobody argues that humans are solely responsible for climate change.

Your statement that humans are a "drop in the bucket" for the increasing temperatures we have seen is at odds with science every bit as much as the anti-GMO nutters are. This makes your thread kind of ironic, don't you think?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |