In Defense of Human Beings: People are amazing and the world isn't about to end.

My side? What ******* side is that?

There's more than one school of thought on the subject, and if you weren't so concerned about petty point scoring you might actually be able to have a conversation.

George Monbiot said everyone should stop flying and become vegan.

Your ideas just scratch the surface. You need to remove the vested interests from government, and rejoin the Paris Accord.

All public transport should be free, costs to be born by polluters. There should be a pollution tax on produce taking into account method of production, air miles, packaging, recyclability etc.

We should all have at least one meat free day a week, and try to source locally. If possible I try to drink apple juice instead of orange juice because orange juice has to be brought over.

Massive reinvestment in the railways and cycle lanes, and in America you need to learn to start walking places. If it's less than a mile and no hurry, walk. That also needs infrastructure spending because American roads don't favour the pedestrian.

Micropower, give free solar panels to those in sunny states, wind generators to windy states.

Most importantly you need a sense of ******* urgency, not crossed fingers and rose tinted specs.

Part of the problem is that the issue of Climate change has been hijacked by a rather hypocritical political ideology. If Climate Change is really the issue... and not just an extremist version of neo-liberalism. then Nuclear Power and GMOs should be on the table.

Yes, science institutions (supported by most scientists) suggest that GM foods can remove a significant amount of the global warming gasses produced by agriculture. And... Nuclear power emits no global warming gasses.

If the political left is serious about addressing global climate change, then it is too important for them to use as a political wedge issue.

Solutions need to be inclusive. You solve global problems by including everyone in the conversation...everyone gets a voice. If the ideological left is serious, the first step is to stop using the issue as a cudgel to push a one-side ideological agenda.

Still causing doubt and claiming that those who want to say the planet are hypocrites. Both of your examples involve big business, why are you so worried about the rich man's future.

We have nuclear power already, generators are still being commissioned, surely we should try to increase renewables before commissioning any more.

As for GM groups over this side of the pond we feel more research needs to be done on long term effects before we start consuming them.

And all the licences/patents/seeds are in the hands of one big agrochemical company. **** that.

That's a big stickler for Brexit btw, Trump wants to offload a load of GM soy beans that aren't fit to be sold in the EU.

We don't want that crap.

The problem with an ideological narrative is that the facts don't always fit. Reality is a lot more complex than absolutists are willing to admit.

You can hate big business. And you can be serious about addressing climate change.

But what do you do with those times where big business has the key to reducing greenhouse gasses? If GM crops significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses... you are going to have to decide which of your ideological stands is more important.

I personally think that global climate change is one of the most important threats. This means I am willing to compromise on other issues to make progress on this one.

the problem with accepting popular science articles about "what the experts say" is different than seeing first hand the data.
While you say that GM meats an grains "may" be safe to consume, there is a totally different picture being painted about what HGT is capable of causing within the environment and among other species.
The entire proposal to do CRSPR editing to make trees have toma that will remain open and provide cooling via evapotranspired water vapor, is silent on what happens when HGT causes xeric plants to no longer close their stoma as a response to low humidities (like in a continental Arctic or Arboreal climate).
All the "possibilities of GM trees saving the planet" are recent grant proposals , not a major result other than past respiration observations made by silviculture scientists.

Ya gotta be critical of everything Max, youre stuck in this "happy groove", based on your recent position youve taken herein. Remember, trees transpire and store carbon in the presence of light. Guess what trees do at night?? Imagine stoma that dont follow the "rules" of evapotranspiration??

As a physicist, you should be asking questions that your craft deems important. Whenever research grants are proposed they get reviewed and commented upon. Ive sat on several study proposal committees sponsored by the DOE , where many proposals for the sequestration of CO2 had been ppresented us (after the first rounds of reviews by indiividual scientists of all strips)
I didnt ask my questions in the biological field, I posed them in the geochemistry arena .

the critical system in plants and trees that gets involved in sequestration is the respiration system. So far we only scratching the surface to the "what if's" and where certain things can go off the drawing board.
When nature causes adaptation to occur (or in this case, GM tranfer causes it), it is almost always for keeps, whether its to the benefit or to the detriment of the host, and an unknown response by the local environment ,and how fast is that local environment expanded?

we dont know, no matter what science reporters say


You are saying this for everybody except yourself right?? he he he.
I admit to a huge pile of my own ignorance, it only helps learning along.

I am not posting "popular science articles".

I am looking for the consensus opinion from major scientific institutions. You do this for global climate change. I do this consistently for all issues regardless of whether they fit any political ideology or not.

I know that you have criticisms of the NIH and academic researchers, the great majority of whom support GM foods.

But these are professional independent scientists writing professional papers... not journalists writing popular science. At least the facts straight.

Concept went over yer head, completely miss the point again. You seem to "end" any scientific discussion at a point where some report supplies you underpinning. When Boeing made the 737 Maxes, they claimed it the safest plane made and lotsa tech data and experts agreed.

Well guess what?

Science never ends at a single POINT. I predict that biological GM and CRSPR data will be amassed and there will be lots of "good news bad news". As I said before, youre stuck in a happy groove to the total denial of anything else.
Ive said over and over, It appears that meats and grains GM may be safe for consumption by humans (we dont have trans generational data yet). WE DO, howvere have much environmental and adaptational data that GM aint all its cracked up to be and may be a cause of really altering the ecosystem (much to the benefit of a few multinational ag business companies).









night

That's fine, as long as you make the same argument for science regarding issues that fit a politically liberal narrative... i.e. Global Climate Change. The point is that your political ideology shouldn't determine which parts of "scientific discussion" you choose to accept.

This thread is about the Malthusian strand of the political liberal narrative.

Allowing big business to licence the only future viable food products is an invitation to dictatorship.

That is my big problem with GM, that and the rush to market stuff before it's been adequately tested.

You're the one with the ideological narrative making up your own facts as you go along.

You are going to have to pick your battles, you can't take the ideological position without bending on any issue.

If GM is a significant way to lower greenhouse gasses, what do you do?

https://vimeo.com/56093731

your insistance that Im politically motivated is getting annoying because its awfully repetitious without any base in fact.

right now its only a swris of proposals to evaluate transferrance of transpiration structures . No vidence that supports anything yet.

trees with big stoma also will transpire CO2 AT NIGHT . Will they become nighttime CO2 pumps??

The respiration chemistry needs to be looked at critically.

You didn't even google for evidence, did you.

If it is, and it's a big if, the licensing system needs to be changed, or done away with altogether.

Why are you obsessing about that instead of committing to going meat free one day a week?

The things you can do right now don't seem so attractive as all this prevarication.

Actually... I thought the goal was to eat meat only one day a week. I go meat free at least one day a week (not to brag, but that is just how our family has always been). I am not a strict vegetarian... but your bar is pretty low for my family.

We are again at the point where political liberals are unwilling to even consider a scientific claim that doesn't match their narrative. I will do the googling for you (but I really shouldn't have to)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033196/

I think it's an Atlantic thing, the overwhelming consensus over here is to subject GM to far stricter tests. You don't want to use global warming as an excuse to drop standards.

The point is that having the political extremes fight each other for ideological points is not a good way for humanity to address a serious problem.

We, as humanity, have to make a choice. We can work together to address a serious problem. This mean compromise on all sides. This means putting the common goal over ideological squabbles.

If Global warming is really an existential threat, then you should be willing to compromise on other issues. If the world breaks down into ideological camps, nothing will get done... you will continue to block nuclear power and GM crops, and they will continue to block restrictions on economic growth and consumption.

You can either push an ideological agenda... or work together with your traditional opposition and compromise to solve a problem.

Extremism is not a good way to make progress on an issue that requires buy in from all sides.

Making sure adequate tests are carried out is not a political extreme, it's common sense.

This is you all over, every position taken, other than your own, is one of political extremes. In your desire to appear centrist and pragmatic you go round polarising everything.

The "crown of creation" doing what it does best:

Climate Change Threatens the World’s Food Supply, United Nations Warns

Yup, people are amazing all right.