Politically liberal science is bad science.

what if scientific evidence totally disagrees with your own "politicl lening"?
Its ok for you to call names but can you stand the light of inspection of your own "beliefs"

Your BELIEF now is that GMO Safety is "settled science"? Well, well many scientific institutions and biochemists disagree . Evidence of harm via GMO seed and substances are there. You seem to just wish to ignore them. I think you should red several sides of the issue andtry to be objective. You may be incorrect.
Im a stock and alfalfa farmer and I used to be a fan of GMO's. Not so much any more. The "expanding circle oof effect" concept is suggesting that much of the loss in beneficial insects and the increases of "superweeds" are a GMO product.
Lately, even Bt sustainability in the bird and mammalian gut needs closer research to assess potential harms.
I only (now) buy certifid non GMO seed of a Saranac variety of alfalfa. Yeh, Ive got leafhoppers and other insects that make my property a mecca for barn swallow invasions, However I dont have giant infestations of Roundup redy pigweed or wild indigo "Spikeweeds" (thats a local name).

The natural environment is an interlaced WEB of ependency (plants-animals- fungi-bacteria).

5 years ago, I would have agreed with you but science is hardly ever "settled"

Some people seem to be confused between debate and ad hominem attacks. Dismissing everyone's opinion by accusing them of political bias is a complete cop out, a weak and intellectually bankrupt alternative to actually debating an issue. You don't even bother to be consistent. Glenn is one of our more strident conservatives but you dismiss his views (without debate) because he espoused a liberal position. You say "what people at risk need is real, balanced information that gives all the facts without any political agenda" and then go on to present no information at all.

From all your posts it appears you think the answer is no and that completely excuses you from having to actually debate anything, get off your high horse or think outside your own belief system and consider someone else's position. Very convenient, not very useful.

Which scientific institutions believe that existing GMO products are unsafe? Compare this with the "scientific institutions" and "atmospheric scientists" who disagree about human caused climate change.

Either scientific debate can be resolved outside of political ideology or it can't. You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

I am not sure if you know what the term "ad-hominem" means.

Good science should be an objective way to answer questions that has nothing to do with political bias. That is the point I am making.

I have presented information from scientific institutions in many cases, and I have presented at length a set of objective criteria that I consider to be part of scientific literacy for deciding what the scientific consensus says.

- If leading organizations and the scientific community have a broad consensus. This would be NASA, APA et al in the case of global climate change, and the NIH, WHO et al. in the case ot GMOs

- If there has been well-designed, transparent research done by independent groups on the subject that is peer reviewed. Well-designed and transparent means that the metrics being used are clear, any issues with data collection are openly discussed and the data is available.

- All of the research on the topic is considered. A good understanding of science only comes when you consider research and results (that are well-designed, transparent from reputable groups) even when it questions your own ideology.

The advantage of science is that it can answer questions in a factual, objective way without the bias of political ideology.

There is a big difference between political ideology and good science.

Certainly scientists have an obligation to do what they reasonably can to see to it that science is not corrupted, and certainly scientists have generally failed at that. They have well earned the skepticism they receive from the masses just as other deeply corrupt fields do, for instance journalism and politics. I first noticed the problem back during the mid 80's when I watched politically motivated scientists saying "Dont talk about that, THAT is not productive!" to those who spoke unwanted truth.

I don't think I know what you are talking about, Hawkeye. I don't know which "politically motivated scientists" have said that a topic shouldn't be discussed.

Inside of the institution of science, there is a process of peer-review, there are standards of research, there are forums for open communication and debate, and there are ways to reach a consensus.

Unfortunately, science is a field that is necessarily done by experts. It takes 12 years of study to reach a point that most people can have any real part in advancing modern science.

Maybe it is a question of communication between scientific experts and the public at large. This is clearly a problem, and something that scientists have not been great at. Part of the problem is that a scientist says something to provide a simple summary of her work in terms that the public can understand. Journalists take this out of context and run with it... the science in the popular press is often horrible.

The scientific community does pretty well at fostering an internal discussion between scientists. It is the communication with the public at large. Part of the problem is that scientists aren't always good at communicating with non-scientists (and there is a difficulty translating scientific ideas in to everyday English without a misunderstanding).

But a part of this issue is that people with a political ideology take pop-science articles out of context. This means that there is a "liberal science" and a "conservative science"... people of different ideologies have deeply different ideas about what "science says".

Well go look for instance at how successful the feminists have been at making sure that areas that they dont want funded dont get funded, and likewise how the gun lobby for so long kept gun violence and suicide from getting funded. It was over 30 years ago that I first watched the pressure from inside science to constrict where science goes, I dont recall now exactly which fields I watched this happen in, but you can not I think deny that it happened. Sexual offender lists are another example, there was never any science that they are a good idea, though the feminists and the politicians who pushed these laws at the time claimed that there was. We could make long lists of such examples.

As for peer review:

Sydney Brenner , Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002.

https://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/03/nobel-prize-winner-calls-peer-review-very-distorted-completely-corrupt-and-simply-a-regression-to-the-mean/

As for the knowledge siloing ya that is a huge problem as we have chosen to empower those who spend their lives getting very good at a very small thing, which almost always means that they dont understand the context of their knowledge, because they rarely to never look outside of their silos. We need more generalists such as myself, people who understand how this world works, people who travel far and wide and go anywhere that truth takes them.

Back to some more concerns that need further study before on calls something "settled science".
Horizontal gene transfer is a transfer of whole or portions of genomes at the lowest structural level, within somatic cells or within the genome or as insertion as epigensis That mens that disease structures carried within a splicd gene can be transferred, and such less acute but more possible occurences of such stuff as allergies and anaphalaxis .(The EU is holding off industry run flg waving and is restricting much GMMO foods for these areas that really need reserch.
In the US, Land Grant Universities are actually subsets of the AG INDUSTRY. So even if your college magazine has all sorts of articles about "Safety of GMOS" , be a skeptical scientist, and dont use a term(settled science) that all of us may have to eat many times

The point I am making in this thread is that good science is not based on political ideology. It is not good for us as a society to have a set of scientific facts believed by political liberals, and a different set of scientific facts believed by political conservatives.

Do you agree with this point Farmerman?

This watched the corporate set invade and corrupt the land grand colleges while I was at Michigan State mid 80's. Actually invade is not the right word, they were invited in by administrators who were looking for new revenue streams to milk as they vastly ramped up the University Bureaucracy, which is expensive given how much these parasites take home in their compensation.

The failure of the American Universities has been catastrophic, on the magnitude of the failure of the journalists and also the failure of the political class.

Really bad times are coming.

BUCKLE UP!

this I can agree with, but if that was your point, you missed its clearer presentation at the outset. Youve argued that GMO is "settled science" and I disagree. Its neither an L or a C issue. Its a public Health, Ecology, and Environmental issue. Many conservative colleagues dont argue the Global Warming issue, although many do and Im sure many Liberals argue the affirmative.
Science , if its not allowe to run free and make mistakes and discoveries, wont make ground.
Russia is still in the vestiges of Lysenkoist Biology an , because of it, there wont be a bio revolution there.(China , on the other hand, is gonna eat our breakfass, lunch, supper and snax)

Damn right in so many ways. And look at how we shoved Russia and Iran to join up with China....we are so fucked....and look too at how few of these Modern Morons we have running around and running their mouths as our self appointed betters have figured this out to this point.

We have science that we are getting stupider, not that we need that, cause it is obvious.

It is hilarious to see another assault on those whom he calls liberals by Max, who nonetheless continues to allege that he is a liberal. That taken aside, I'll just point out that this is and for centuries has been a cautionary issue in historiography. It even has its own name--cui bono, which roughly means who benefits. It would be beneficial in reviewing scientific pronouncements to approach them with the same caution.

Maybe he is an old school liberal like me and Dave Rubin and a bunch of others, either tossed out by the newly regressive left or else who left voluntarily because we could no longer take the stench of all of the lying, and desire to abuse the American people on the road to Utopia!

Ah, the stench of self-delusional horseshit. You and Max should get a room.

There are a lot of us now, and more every day thanks to the fact that the Failed University Ruined By Regressive Left Indoctrination Tech Elites have not been able to deplateform those who speak off script not approved by our self appointed betters ideas fast enough to stop the what is the cancer to them of ideas they dont approve of spreading against their will.

These abusers who have long had almost unquestioned and ever growing power cant figure out WTF happened.

The Great Canadians Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad (as well as others) tell me so.

The following was in response to your declaration that the FDA says that GMOs are okay. It proved that you were talking bullshit. You have yet to produce the research you've been talking about? Where are those experiments and transparent data you spoke of? You've been asked several times to produce it, but so far, you've failed to do so and decided to abandon that thread. And now here you are in another thread pushing the same bullshit, which amounts to nothing more than an appeal to authority; one of which is the FDA. Well I gotcher FDA right here:

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/
_________________________________________________

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, do you have anything to refute the above, or not? You might start by pointing me in the direction of where the testing of GMOs took place, and how they were tested.

Marked for later reply.

I accept this criticism as valid. I am being overly broad. I made the point in my initial post; good science involves evaluating each claim on its own merits rather than seeing if it fits a narrative.

GMOs are an example of area where liberals accept disproved claims as true because they match an ideological narrative.

This is from the New York times



The science behind GMOs is a little more complicated that I was suggesting (I accept the criticism). However there is no scientific backing to the idea that current GM crops are a threat to human safety.