Today, it is humans who are the asteroid

In other twisted logic, you make a almost point.

I welcome those who come to actually try to get something other than malice from a thread.

This isn't about science "preaching its findings". This is about science being highjacked by a political ideology to the detriment of science.

I fully accept the science on climate change. This thread from the top of the first post makes the claim that we are on the brink of the collapse of human civilization.

It is not a good thing for science to be used as a pawn for one political ideology to attack another. Neither political bubble really cares about science.

The same can be said of you max. In truth, of many of us. Human nature and emotion often says these things to each of us as individuals. This is why people must take a deep breath and examine before leaping to a conclusion.

No Sturgis,

I accept science. There is an objective set of criteria that makes for good science. For studies that meet those criteria, I accept the science whether it matches any political ideology or not.

Good science is peer reviewed, reproducible, transparent (the metrics and data should be provided as well as design limitations). I can point out scientific studies that I accept that support both sides of the political chasm. I judge all claims from the left and the right on the same objective criteria.

It is possible to be scientifically literate.

It's not who agrees with me that determines if a scientist has sold out. Just follow the money and the results of that scientist's work.

I accept all settled science regardless of which political ideology it favors. If someone only accepts settled science when it corresponds with a political ideology, there is no point to science, you will get the same results with your political ideology.

For the sake of this discussion, lets define settled science as...

- Accepted by major scientific organization (NASA, NIH, etc.)
- Based on peer reviewed research
- Based on experiments and data that are transparent (the data and metrics are available) and reproducible.

I am alone in this? Does anyone else think that settled science should be accepted regardless of which political ideology you subscribe to?

The Safety of GMOs is settled science by these criteria. This has been based on independent research. The NIH, and the World Health Organization and other organization have all stated that after research they detected no health issues with GM foods.

The existence of human caused global climate change is settled science by the exact same criteria. NASA, the APA and other organizations have all stated that after research they have concluded that it is clear that human activity is causing climate change.

Edgar accepts one, but no the other. That it corresponds with his political ideology is likely not a coincidence.

Anyone who really believes in science will accept both.

Where is this research you're talking about? Where is this transparent experiments and data you speak of?

which is showing tht you have a misunderstanding of what the science is actually showing.
There is no act in nature that does NOT hqve some consequence in an indirect but related matter.

Without consulting sources, just memory, the GMOs with built in insect killing ability kill bees. Monsanto is banned in many other countries. Roundup is getting into everything. It's not tonic.

yep, and many other complete metamoorphoses insects, many of which are the pollinators that are already in a decline due to diseases from veroa mites . Of cpurse thats just scientific explantion I must hav read about in some screaming hair burning ag journal.
We have an overabundance of incomplete metamorphoses bugs, amny of which LOOVE to dine on the juices of our plants. and the competition from certain wasps is receding because these wasps are being only decimated .

We have other GMO's that are "roundup Ready" plants. The continued use of which, and the reduction in Rounup fficacy is also resulting in C4 weed plants gaining resistance to Roundup

Now Roundup has been suspected to be a force in the development of kidny and pancretic cancer and NH.

Here are FDA documents showing that they ignored GMO safety warnings from their own scientists.

EXCERPT:

The FDA's records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to be
safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts--all the while
claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal
reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly
cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail
different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and
(2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who
crafted the agency's current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the
same as natural ones.

Besides contradicting the FDA's claim that its policy is science-based,
this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act in allowing genetically engineered foods to be marketed without
testing on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by
qualified experts.

http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/FDAdocuments.html

Here is something called the Monsanto Papers which show released internal emails which show that Monsanto was less than honest in their determination that Glyphosate was safe.

http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/monsanto-documents-chart-101217.pdf

Sample:

MONGLY02060344
6/24/2015

Documents Released: 8/1/2017
Email Showing Communications Between Monsanto and EPA in Furtherance of Avoiding Roundup and Glyphosate Testing

This document contains email correspondence between Jack Housenger, Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA), Daniel Jenkins (Monsanto), and Dr. William Heydens (Monsanto). Mr. Housenger reports to Mr. Jenkins that he has spoken to individuals at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), one of whom, the branch chief, Henry Abadin, “ended up saying that they would put glyphosate on hold holding the OPP risk assessment.” at *2. Dr. Heydens acknowledges with respect to the ATSDR decision to not review glyphosate: “hopefully that keeps them from doing anything too stupid.” at *1.

http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/56-Email-Showing-Communications-Between-Monsanto-and-EPA-in-Furtherance-of-Avoiding-Roundup-and-Glyphosate-Testing.pdf

Here is a more comprehensive look into those emails as they pertain to a lawsuit against Monsanto's Roundup.

https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents-page-two/

So the FDA says that GMOs are OK. Some conspiracy theorists on the web say they aren't. But that is not the point.

Is there anyone here (except for me) whose opinions about what science says aren't in lockstep agreement with their political ideology?

Again the question is... if science always matches your political ideology, what's the point of science?

Cognitive dissonance at its best. Did you not see this:

Here are FDA documents showing that they ignored GMO safety warnings from their own scientists.

EXCERPT:

The FDA's records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to be
safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts--all the while
claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal
reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly
cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail
different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and
(2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who
crafted the agency's current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the
same as natural ones.

Besides contradicting the FDA's claim that its policy is science-based,
this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act in allowing genetically engineered foods to be marketed without
testing on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by
qualified experts.

http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/FDAdocuments.html
_______________________________________________

And where is this research you're talking about? Where are these experiments and transparent data you speak of?

It is an essay from a student ripped from a conspiracy website.

The essay is correct that the FDA "declared genetically engineered foods to b esafe" and that it says there is a "broad scientific consensus".

I do not believe this conspiracy theory any more than I believe the conspiracy theories about 9/11.

In its 1992 Statement of Food Policy, the FDA asserted:

“Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”

But wait! According to biotech-giant Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications,

“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
_______________________________________________

It would appear that your assumption concerning the FDA's testing of GMOs has been shown to prove only how gullible you are.
___________________________________________________

"One thing that surprised us is that US regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review... The picture that emerges from our study of US regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp ‘approval process’ designed to increase public confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods."

– David Schubert, professor and head, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute, commenting on a comprehensive peer-reviewed study of US government’s regulation of GMOs that he co-authored.
__________________________________________________

“The FDA has placed the interest of a handful of biotechnology companies ahead of their responsibility to protect public health. By failing to require testing and labeling of genetically engineered foods, the agency has made consumers unknowing guinea pigs for potentially harmful, unregulated food substances.”

– Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety
___________________________________________________

Now, And where is this research you're talking about? Where are these experiments and transparent data you speak of?

As I said before, you just have to follow the money and the actual results.