Politically liberal science is bad science.

@Jewels Vern,

So... Jesus was doing the devil's work? That's an original take on the story, I must say.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Max, you can't claim "this isn't good science" without any evidence, or you're just being as ideological as anyone else. The claim that soils are being eroded faster than they can regenerate is based on facts.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I am saying that science by political ideology isn't good science by definition. If what is accepted as science is determined by whether it fits a political ideology or not, then science has no definite.

We have a set of "scientific" facts accepted by political liberals. We have a completely different set of "scientific" facts accepted by political conservatives. That is the point I am making on this thread. Science should be object, it is true whether it fits an ideological narrative or not.

The claim was that all of the topsoil would be gone in 60 years (you changed that). You could be correct that "soils are being eroded faster" and the 60 year claim could still be wildly wrong. Or both of these claims could be wrong. There is a correct scientific answer for this... and if either of these claims is accepted by a consensus of soil scientists as determined by reputable non-biased, scientific institutions based on well-designed transparent reasearch, I will accept it as true.

The claim you are making "rings true". It fits a liberal narrative, and as such it will likely be accepted without much thought by liberals who read a single article on the internet. And will be reject by conservatives who read their article on their side of the internet.

And that isn't good science... not from either side.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

There is a set of objective criteria what can be used to evaluate all claims independent of political ideology.

- Is the science accepted by a great majority of scientists working in the field and validated by reputable, non-partisan scientific and academic institutions? (Of course there will always be dissenters as in Global Warming and GMOs, but you look for the general consensus).

- Is the science backed on well-defined, independent transparent research that is published and peer-reviewed.

If you accept these criteria... you will find that some actual scientific facts support the liberal narrative, and some do not.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Still, it is also bad science to reject a claim without studying it. Just because it 'sounds' superficially liberal doesn't make it untrue. In this specific case, googling where the claim comes from, I found this publication:
http://www.fao.org/3/ca4395en/ca4395en.pdf

You might wish to read it; table 1 and related text provide the sort of meta-analysis of research papers you are talking about. Seems all very scientific to me.

It has happened before: the Dust Bowl in the 1930s is a good example.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

This works in theory but doesn't in practice. In reality, everybody has got an ideology, including scientists. Therefore it is materially impossible for science to be "independent of political ideology". The best one can achieve in this respect is a balance of different views, i.e. when one sets up an editorial board.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

there will always be dissenters as in Global Warming and GMOs

And apparently there will always be people like you who simply ignore how those dissenters are blacklisted. I just showed you in no uncertain terms that that is what happened. And that's just not good science.

Here's some more:

Double standard:

Prominent Norwegian virologist Terje Traavik presented preliminary data at a February 2004 meeting at the UN Biosafety Protocol Conference, showing that:

1 -Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;

2 -Genetic material inserted into GM crops was transferred to rat organs after a single meal;

3 -Key safety assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into question the safety of using these viruses in vaccines.

The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr. Traavik, using the pretense that he presented unpublished work. But presentation of preliminary data at professional conferences is a long tradition in science, something that the biotech industry itself relies on. Ironically, three years later, biotech proponents sharply criticized a peer-reviewed publication for not citing unpublished data that had been presented at a conference.
________________________________________________

This is where you produce the long-term animal studies that prove the safety of GMOs.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

1. The claim was that there would be no topsoil left in 60 years. That is quite a bit different than saying topsoil erosion is a problem. The second statement can be true even if the first claim is ridiculous.

In science, each claim needs to be proven independently.

2. Scientific claims need to be proven (not the other way around). The burden of proof is on the person who is making the claim. There is nothing wrong with saying "we haven't studied this and we don't know). There is an old saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

Skepticism is a good thing in science. If someone says "This is true" It is good science to say "I don't think that sounds right, where is your proof? If you provide evidence I will change your mind".

3. I actually did look at the specific claim saying that all topsoil will be gone in 60 years. I posted the link up there somewhere.

1 Reply

I googled for "Filipinos living next to GM cornfield" to see what Glennns claim was about. This is what I found...

Quote:

“Before now, I didn’t sleep well when I planted corn in my field,” recalled Edwin Paraluman, a farmer from the Philippines. “I was always afraid that I would wake up one day to find my corn field destroyed by the corn borer. This is because the corn borer in the Philippines does not respect any season, it is always there in the corn field.”

Paraluman said his endless worries and precautions did very little to curtail the huge losses arising from the corn borer problem. “I would always lose when I planted corn and it came to a time when l had to stop planting corn and shifted to vegetables. I planted squash, string beans, other crops,” he added.

That was a disturbing course of events for Paraluman, who had been planting corn with his parents since childhood and continued the practice when he started his own family.

So his “joy knew no bounds” when he learned there was a technology that could deal with the corn borer in his country. Paraluman was among the first farmers in Philippines to embrace this new technology and plant the genetically modified pest-resistant Bt corn.

https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/01/gmo-corn-transforming-farmers-lives-philippines/

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I have to admit that my knowledge of the safety of the food products produced by genetic ENgineering is only what Ive read .
HOWEVER, since most of the GMO research universities etc are mostly sponsored financially by the Cargills and Unite Fruits of the world, I need to see some effect from longr term reserch.

I am, however, quite aware of the results of plant engineering (mostly for convenience, like weed control etc), has been NOT SO GOOD.
I dont use ANY GMO seed because if it is used in a program of making Bt the "pest control" bullet, the concerns to pollinators , fish,and beneficial insects, as well as the "unnatural selection" for superweeds etc is something that the researchers clam up over.

Now whose funding research to look at long term effects. Apparently only a sources.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Well Farmerman,

1. Scientists are quite upset about Golden Rice. This is rice that has been engineered to solve a real world problem with nutrition. The research shows that it would save lives... except the political pressure is stopping its use.

2. The Climate change deniers have a very similar argument. Liberals are rejecting scientific research because "sponsored by big business". Conservatives are rejecting scientific research because "sponsored by political correct elites".

It doesn't matter the excuse people give for rejecting science, the real reason is because it doesn't fit with their political ideology.

3. I have no problem with non-GM farming, or organic farming or or anything else that people in the first world want to buy.

There are 7 billion people in the world, most of whom will never see the inside of a Whole Foods. They simply don't have the resources to buy organic food.

We need to figure out how to feed them. Crops that provide more nutrition or resist lost from common pests is an awfully good thing for many people.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I have no problem with non-GM farming, or organic farming or or anything else that people in the first world want to buy.

Were pitchin but you aint catchin.
The effect of GMO seed in the environment is often hazardous to the environment (It usually takes several generations of targeted species to show these effects. Raisng chickens that grow humongous breasts, may often involve genetic engineering that affects the chemical waste system of the fowl and this may trnslate to biochemicals that generate fooreign chemicals that affect the human hepatic /pqncreatic systems. Long term monitoring has NOT been resulting in "settled science" Its like only the first inning.

Im quite aware of the seed issues. Anytime we snip and insert other genes or even prions into a stable ystem , we need to understand the Mandelbrot routes before we clim "Victory"

Its not Conservative or Liberal, Its questions that need answers among colleagues.

As far as "Sponsored by big businss" I can hope you see the point.
We had an entire cigarette inustry that everyone believed there "WASNT A COUGH IN A CARLOAD" (my dad would say). Sponsored research by the tobacco industry hd been lying to us all along.

Glyphosate itself was NEVER a carcinogen as neither was Chrome 6 or Arsenic.

Bandwagonning is what science should NOT be about.

I have my own opinions about things, id just like to see you continue the arguments substantively, not do this dwelling on whether science needs to follow YOUR rules.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

1. Total ideological BS. No government is opposed to olden rice is simply not good enough, as cultivars go, with yields too low to be a valid agronomic proposition. In general, the idea of biofortification (e.g. breeding plants with more vitamins in them, or more oligo-elements) is receiving far more money and attention (in particular from America) than it deserves, from a purely economic or technical standpoint. The option of diversifying diet to include fruits, veggies and animal-source food (milk, eggs, meat, etc.) is much more realistic and promising to fight against micro-nutrient deficiency than trying to "fortify" staple foods.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

1. This claim can be true without the other claims being true. (Or the other claims can be true without this one being true). Each scientific claim should be independently verified.

2. The opinion that there should be long term monitoring is supported by most scientists.

3. You are wrong about using tobacco companies to discredit science. It didn't happen that way, scientific journals and institutions said that smoking was a health risk from the beginning of research. This was a failure of politicians... not of scientists.

4. Can you show an independent scientific confirmation of GMO seeds harming the environment? You are making the claim... you have the burden of proof.

There was a story about GM Bt resistant corn harming monarch larvae that was widely discredited by independent labes. Science needs to be testable and reproducible.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

we calls it "Transgenic Introgression" the reearchers who evelop the new crops have a financial interest to get it into the market(golden rice). Then when the Bt genes are Horizontally transferred into surrounding rice paddsy plants, we get superweeds .Then the seed developers got you by the shorties to make you buy THEIR brand of weed killers that will also impart resistance in several generations.

THE Bt method of making super-seed accompanied by germ from triticali is one of the dumb headed ways to impart seed resistance to insect and weed damage.

Remember Jurassic Park I?? "nature will find a way". This is so damned true.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Filipinos living next to GM cornfield

Um, you didn't address the health issues, did you. I'll do that for you.

In July 2003, a farmer living in a small village in the south of Mindanao Island of The Philippines, found himself and his entire family suddenly falling ill with fever and respiratory, intestinal and skin ailments. They were not alone; at least fifty-one residents of Sitio Kalyong (Barangay Landan, Polomolok, South Cotabato Province) had similar complaints at around the same time. They all lived within 100 m of a field planted with GM maize, and their illnesses coincided with the GM maize flowering time.

Another resident of Sitio Kalyong, said [1] that the GM-maize pollen made him dizzy, gave him severe headaches, chest pains and caused him to vomit.

The field in Sitio Kalyong belonged to a local official who bought five bags of Monsanto's Bt maize seed (Dekalb818YG with Cry1Ab from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis ), enough to plant 5 hectares. He paid 4 500 pesos per bag, which was more than twice as much as the non-GM variety at 2 200 pesos per bag. The premium price included the promise of a small vehicle if the harvest turned out to be good, as it was supposed to. In the event, the promise was broken on both counts: the harvest of 93 sacks compared poorly with the usual 150 sacks per ha, and the small vehicle was never delivered. The local official stopped planting the Bt maize after 2003.

As part of an investigation to determine what made the villagers ill, one of the farmers was “volunteered” to venture inside the Bt maize field in the presence of more than 10 witnesses, as he explained to me via an interpreter. “Within 5 minutes, I could not breathe and felt something extraordinary on my face,” he recalled. The others could see that his face had swollen up and remarked that it was “very dangerous”.

In fact, the farmer is ill to this day. Every now and again, he feels weak in his limbs and numb in his hands and feet. He held up the back of his right hand to show me the index finger. A yellowish-brown discoloration and thickening of the fingernail had developed since he was exposed to the GM pollen.
_________________________________________________

Now, let's get back to those blacklisted researchers and how that comports with the scientific approach. And how about you producing those long-term studies that prove the safety of GMO foods.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Well, if you claim that the theory that there would be no topsoil left in 60 years is ridiculous, then that's your claim, and you need to own it and will be expected to prove it. Just saying "it doesn't sound right" is not enough.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

we calls it "Transgenic Introgression" the reearchers who evelop the new crops have a financial interest to get it into the market(golden rice). Then when the Bt genes are Horizontally transferred into surrounding rice paddsy plants, we get superweeds .Then the seed developers got you by the shorties to make you buy THEIR brand of weed killers that will also impart resistance in several generations.

THE Bt method of making super-seed accompanied by germ from triticali is one of the dumb headed ways to impart seed resistance to insect and weed damage.

Remember Jurassic Park I?? "nature will find a way". This is so damned true.

This is all speculation on your part. This has been researched, and the research is outlined in the National Academy of sciences report to which I linked.

Jurassic park is a Hollywood movie designed to play on social fears. You know that it is fiction, right?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

You are being silly. It doesn't work that way. The person making the positive claim has the burden of proof.

- I don't have to prove that there will be topsoil left in 60 years (although actually I provided a link debunking this claim anyway).

- I don't have to prove that George Bush didn't orchestrate 9/11.

- I don't have to prove that lizard people aren't controlling the world governments.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You're being silly. I provided a link to a report substantiating the claim. I brought the horse to water, but it won't drink.

Quote:

actually I provided a link debunking this claim anyway

Haven't seen that.

0 Replies

Politically liberal science is bad science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know