Science Deniers are Everywhere

Yes, but not all. Our lab was funded by NIH, and visited by them. I still remember Sharon, a smart tech, dropping a beaker she was pouring from when they walked in our door. (We passed anyway). I get a bit sick with all this derision of science. My name is on a lot of papers, though never as head author, but that was appropriate.

It's one thing to deride real science and something else again to stand up to ones perverting it for money and power.

We never got into some company supporting us, my boss and others and me not going there, but this was in the seventies. We did have supplier pests, to try the latest immunology product. Me, being fetchingly lovely back then, attracted offers to go out to dinner. I only did that once, as he seemed not a slug, and he actually wasn't, just dinner and conversation.

This difference says far more about your own prejudices than it does about science. It is a standard practice to attack science when it questions your own political ideology. This is true whether the issue is GMOs. This is true when the issue is Climate Change.

There are people who accept the science of both GMOs and Climate change.

Strangly, I have never met anyone who rejects the science of both GMOs and Climate Change (i.e. thinks that GMOs are dangerous and that Climate Change is fake). I think both of these are strongly associated with one's political ideology.

I think you are slicing things rather thinly in an apparent effort to avoid facing the evident flaws in your argument.

In your last sentence above you reveal the flaw in your approach, You in effect define "deniers" as people who knowingly misrepresent and lie about the arguments of those they reject or deny. In general the inner motives of people are not knowable, certainly from afar. I think it very likely that at least some of his Inquisitors found Galileo to have misrepresented the Aristotelian logic of the conventional theory about the solar system, or at least who failed to understand some subtleties of Galileo's argument ( I say subtleties because in a simple two body problem, observers on both would see exactly the same motion - no objective observable difference).

Are all the critics of the prescriptions of AGW advocates real denier of CO2 induced warming? I don't think so, though you and others appear very quick to assign the undesirable motives above to all of them, without regard to the substance of their arguments. AGW advocates often fail to make a distinction between the scientific interpretation of the available evidence and the uncertainties attendant to it on one hand, and, on the other, the near certain effects on the economic welfare of the world's people of a forced imposition of the prescriptions they demand. Institutions or governments empowered to force such things might involve other more dangerous possibilities. Technological improvements and alternatives (such as nuclear power) might offer better alternatives. However anyone advocating these is also labeled as a "denier".

"Scientific consensus" is a somewhat poorly defined thing given the widespread use of the term to bludgeon the opposition on some issues. My impression is that the scientific consensus with respect to the Genetically modified seeds that you and Setanta have been discussing is decidedly with him. Are you therefore a "denier" and likely a liar and misrepresenter of scientific truth?

I have not attacked science. Just a company that uses scientists to perverted purposes.

Are you trying to pin climate change denial on me? You're scraping the barrel, now. I never addressed that issue at all, here.

No Edgar, I am comparing the denial of GMO science with the denial of Climate Change science.

And, I am noting that political ideology has everything to do with which of these two a person denies.

You're so full of **** I think you need a diaper change.

Exactly, Edgar!

These arguments are personal attacks based on political ideology. They not a real defense of science. It is all about attacking people with whom you disagree.

You are making my point far better than I am.

You are so busy attacking people based on personal prejudice, you have to be made to back off occasionally.

Lol. I am not attacking you, Edgar, or anyone. I am merely pointing that the term "science denier" is subjective, and that this partisan mud slinging is counter-productive. I object to the idea that "science deniers" are all on one side of the ideological fence. I am sorry this offends you so much.

I am happy to question my own beliefs, or to listen to someone else's point of view. And just because I disagree with someone on one issue doesn't mean that I can agree with them on another.

Once you start telling people that they are "full of ****", it makes it rather difficult to have any sort of rational dialog. It is a problem that rather than discussing these issues things often devolve into name calling. This is the reason we have such entrenched political bubbles.

Sorry, I am not backing off I am not going to join in on the silly partisan personal attacks, but I am not going away either.

They are not all in one side of the fence but a good chunck is Republican...
A better argument is that equally, a not so small number of Democrat voters are Science "believers" rather than science savvy...

You can tell all that from Portugal?

Herbicide resistant GMOs aren't reliant on herbicides to grow.

Your question isn't clear here. How do I know what, for sure?

Of course, but that was not the point. Pay attention. The real issue here is that actively and willingly disinforming the people is moralky reprehensible, and in some cases illegal.

For instance, science tells us that smoking is bad for your health. A smoker who keeps on smoking nevertheless is making a free and informed choice to disregard this scientific advice. I smoke, so this is my case and I evidently have no problem with ignoring a scientific advice.

Now, contrast this smoker with the owner of a cigarette factory, who would pay fake scientists to muddle the advice, to disinform people about the health risks posed by tobacco. That guy, IMO, is doing something immoral, and in some countries at least, illegal.

There's an important distinction to be made here. It is immoral to manipulate other people with lies, but it's not immoral to be incorrect or careless for oneself.

Of course I can do better than you. I have in fact acknowledged the study you linked to, although it was conducted on 5 subjects only. As you could very well aknowledge that you stated something factually incorrect about GR saving half a million kids a year.

You can do it. It's only a matter of courage.

Jesus, what a pathetic and inept liar. You linked that study, not me. You're doing all you can to avoid taking responsibility for a bullshit on-line trick, including, now, attempting to blame it on me.

At Fluther, you acknowledged that you only come on-line to argue. You have demonstrated that again and again, and you also demonstrate that you're a pathological liar, such as claiming that you are French.

I'm not playing your game any longer. Bye, bye, asshole.

I sometimes pretend I am Belgian ("My name is Henk, I'm from Leuven!"). It goes down quite well at parties, better if everyone has had a drink or two. I flatter myself I can do accents. I made a Dutch woman nearly pee herself once.

Can you say the same?