9
   

Monsanto name to become Bayer

 
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2018 09:44 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
.You, like most citizens, are convoluting real science with con men


The only difference is that one supports your ideological views and the other doesn't.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2018 10:47 pm
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Weigh the good science has done against the bad and the good outweighs the bad exponentially.


When I was growing up, "exponentially" was generally used to describe the way a quantity grew over time. Recently, non-science types have started using the term to describe the difference between two fixed quantities. I always wince when people use it with that new meaning, which has nothing to do exponents.


Cool story.

Do you agree with what I’m trying to say? How about if you replace “exponentially” with “many times over”. How about a little my basic and use “by a lot”.

Or do you want to argue over dictionary words?
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2018 10:54 pm
@maporsche,
Someone who doesn't use "exponentially" correctly shouldn't mock others as unscientific. That's what i think.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 04:19 am
@maxdancona,
There you go with that ideological talk again. That's for people such as yourself. I go with the practical.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 06:34 am
@Kolyo,
Oh you’re just a peach. Haha

If I were writing a scientific paper I may agree with you but here on an informal message board I’m going to be a little bit looser with my speak.

I probably misuse commas now and then too; maybe you think I’m illerate.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 06:38 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

There you go with that ideological talk again. That's for people such as yourself. I go with the practical.


You’re al over the place Edgar.

When it comes to science you say being practical is best.
When it comes to political elections, practically is worthless and you must stick to your idealltlgies and vote for Sanders.
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 06:43 am
@maxdancona,
"Scientists" are no more moral than anyone else. Putting them on some incorruptible pedestal of morality isn't an argument against the dangers of fabricating food.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 08:02 am
@maporsche,
Edgar is doing the Trump thing... like when Trump talks about fake news. Edgar is taking a valid criticism of his behavior and turning it on others.
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 08:22 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Not every scientist agrees with you about Monsanto

That is correct. Here is an open letter signed by over 800 world scientists addressed to all governments. I will post only a tiny portion of it, but the rest of it, plus a list of the names and credentials of the scientists who signed it, can be seen here:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php
________________________________________________

We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.
Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals.

GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on food, which is driving family farmers to destitution, and preventing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and health around the world.

The hazards of GMOs to biodiversity and human and animal health are now acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments. Particularly serious consequences are associated with the potential for horizontal gene transfer. These include the spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes that would render infectious diseases untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer.

In the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol negotiated in Montreal in January 2000, more than 130 governments have pledged to implement the precautionary principleand to ensure that biosafety legislations at the national and international levels take precedence over trade and financial agreements at the World Trade Organization.

Successive studies have documented the productivity and the social and environmental benefits of sustainable, low-input and organic farming in both North and South. They offer the only practical way of restoring agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic practices, and empower small family farmers to combat poverty and hunger.

We urge the US Congress to reject GM crops as both hazardous and contrary to the interest of family farmers; and to support research and development of sustainable agricultural methods that can truly benefit family farmers all over the world.

We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.

1 Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals(1). Life-forms such as organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes are discoveries and hence not patentable. Current GM techniques which exploit living processes are unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable, and do not qualify as inventions. Furthermore, those techniques are inherently unsafe, as are many GM organisms and products.

2. It is becoming increasingly clear that current GM crops are neither needed nor beneficial. They are a dangerous diversion preventing the essential shift to sustainable agricultural practices that can provide food security and health around the world.

3. Two simple characteristics account for the nearly 40 million hectares of GM crops planted in 1999(2). The majority (71%) are tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides, with companies engineering plants to be tolerant to their own brand of herbicide, while most of the rest are engineered with bt-toxins to kill insect pests. A university-based survey of 8200 field trials of the most widely grown GM crops, herbicide-tolerant soya beans - revealed that they yield 6.7% less and required two to five times more herbicides than non-GM varieties(3). This has been confirmed by a more recent study in the University of Nebraska(4). Yet other problems have been identified: erratic performance, disease susceptibility(5), fruit abortion(6) and poor economic returns to farmers(7).
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 08:54 am
@Glennn,
Here is another article I pulled off Google (just as you did) showing over 500 scientists who doubt evolution.

https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/

You can cherry pick whatever you want. That doesn't change the scientific consensus.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:00 am
@maxdancona,
Calling you on bullshit is all.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:02 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Here is another article I pulled off Google (just as you did) showing over 500 scientists who doubt evolution.

https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/

You can cherry pick whatever you want. That doesn't change the scientific consensus.

But it's okay for you to cherry pick your version of consensus.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:08 am
@edgarblythe,
How's this for some consensus?

The GMO Safety Debate is OVER
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2016/05/gmo-safety-debate-is-over/
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:14 am
@maxdancona,
Max. Can you see the complete idiocy of your argument?!
Only you are allowed to pick cherries re science/Monsanto?
Your egocentrism on this topic is astonishing.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:23 am
GMOs aren't safe.
Vaccines aren't safe.
Evolution is fake.
Climate change is a hoax.
Contrails are poisoning everyone.
Hospitals and medicine are evil.

https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/filestorage/its-sad-that-modern-children-still-have-to-suffer-the-bullshit-of-racists-religious-perverts-and-anti-science-conspiracy-creeps-5c1a3-share-image-1489683421.png
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:24 am
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcs8gtNElRvy09A8pEwnPNtfh5p8J1cvZSv37q1F4OYpjLI6fp
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:33 am
@Lash,
The scientific community has academia, jounals, research organiztions, and a system of peer review with the people who have done the work and the research.

They are in the best position to determine what science says. I accept this whether their findings support my ideological beliefs or not.

This is the opposite of egocentric.

You and Edgar attack any science that doesn't confirm to your ideology.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:36 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Here is another article I pulled off Google (just as you did) showing over 500 scientists who doubt evolution.

If only we were talking about evolution.

Now where are those studies you were asked to produce that will show that GMOs have been thoroughly tested?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:40 am
@maxdancona,
This is precisely what you do.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:43 am
@maporsche,
You and Max are the conspiracy theorists.
“Manufacturing fake food is healthy for the public.” <—— crazy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 05:36:29