Greenpeace Founder to Senate: "Man-Made Global Warming Unproven"

[angelatc]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/


There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.


Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.


“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony (http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03). “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”

[eduardo89]

Never believe a Canadian.


In all seriousness, I was just reading up on this guy and he seems to have found his sanity. He's pro-nuclear power, thinks wind farms are a waste of money, thinks that climate change is dubious at best and that we should spend money on adaptation instead of mitigation, and he's pro-GMO. Smart man.

[Danke]

Never believe a Canadian.


In all seriousness, I was just reading up on this guy and he seems to have found his sanity. He's pro-nuclear power, thinks wind farms are a waste of money, thinks that climate change is dubious at best and that we should spend money on adaptation instead of mitigation, and he's pro-GMO. Smart man.

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/main_photos/2011/November/Gore%201102.jpg

[AlexAmore]

Never believe a Canadian.


In all seriousness, I was just reading up on this guy and he seems to have found his sanity. He's pro-nuclear power, thinks wind farms are a waste of money, thinks that climate change is dubious at best and that we should spend money on adaptation instead of mitigation, and he's pro-GMO. Smart man.

The problem is would nuclear power exist as it does today in a free market? I doubt it. It's extremely risky, and with governments giving them liability caps it's suicidal.
I think being "pro-nuclear power" is ridiculous. Just be "pro-free markets" and let the market sort it out.

Same with GMOs. Do you really think GMOs would be same under a free market? You realize it's the FDA and EPA that regulates the safety of GMOs, correct? Does this not send a shiver down your spine? Can we really call this a neutral environment for real science to flourish?

[RJB]

Impossible! How can unfalsifiable hypothesis (climate change, either temp increase or decrease) be unproven :)

[angelatc]

Same with GMOs. Do you really think GMOs would be same under a free market? You realize it's the FDA and EPA that regulates the safety of GMOs, correct? Does this not send a shiver down your spine? Can we really call this a neutral environment for real science to flourish?

Considering that there have been literally thousands of studies on GMO foods, from government, institutions and private firms all over the entire world that have all come to the same conclusion about GMO foods, I think it is disingenious to try to pretend that the FDA is the only organization that has not found any evidence at all that GMO foods are at all harmful.

Global studies reaching a consensus from across the entire spectrum of scientific bodies - that can and does indicate that science is indeed flourishing.

The problem with this argument in this thread is that the same can be said for global warming. There is no debate about it in the scientific community, but yet their models don't seem to be accurate.

GMO food: Introducing a gene from a Brazilian nut into a soybean produced a soybean that triggered a nut allergy. The researchers were looking to see if that might happen, and it did. They built a model, tested a theory and got a result they suspected might happen.

Climate changers don't seem to be able to consistently build models that pan out, but yet the community is sold on the concept. I don't get the disconnect.

[eduardo89]

The problem is would nuclear power exist as it does today in a free market? I doubt it. It's extremely risky, and with governments giving them liability caps it's suicidal.
I think being "pro-nuclear power" is ridiculous. Just be "pro-free markets" and let the market sort it out.

Nuclear power isn't extremely risky. It's actually probably the safest and cleanest power source available. In a free market where energy producers really bear the true costs of their product nuclear would be a lot more competitive. You have to take into account the huge amount of subsidies that the petroleum industry receives, not just in tax benefits but also in limited liability in case of spills/accidents and the huge cost incurred by the federal government in protecting the Saudi and Kuwaiti oligarchies.

There have only really been 3 serious nuclear power incident. Chernobyl, which would never have happened in a free market, was caused by substandard designs, training, and maintenance. Three Mile Island which caused no deaths and Fukushima which was pretty much unpreventable.

[oyarde]

There is no such thing as mane made global warming . Right now , there is no warming of any kind .

[oyarde]

If there was a little warming , that could increase food production ....

[Uriah]

Hmm... interesting. Politicians will be fighting back and forth on this for years to come.

[eduardo89]

If there was a little warming , that could increase food production ....

That's one of the point the guy in the OP has made before. If we do have global warming we will see increased crop production, especially if couple with more CO2 in the air, and more arable land.

[jbauer]

The problem is would nuclear power exist as it does today in a free market? I doubt it. It's extremely risky, and with governments giving them liability caps it's suicidal.
I think being "pro-nuclear power" is ridiculous. Just be "pro-free markets" and let the market sort it out.

Same with GMOs. Do you really think GMOs would be same under a free market? You realize it's the FDA and EPA that regulates the safety of GMOs, correct? Does this not send a shiver down your spine? Can we really call this a neutral environment for real science to flourish?

Yes on nuclear and GMOs.

[jbauer]

If there was a little warming , that could increase food production ....

Or hurt it badly. Drought is the biggest fear for food production. All the recent food problems in the US have been caused by drought.

[angelatc]

Or hurt it badly. Drought is the biggest fear for food production. All the recent food problems in the US have been caused by drought.

So we probably need to develop some drought tolerant GMO crops?

[Acala]

The problem is would nuclear power exist as it does today in a free market? I doubt it. It's extremely risky, and with governments giving them liability caps it's suicidal.


Considering the very large total number of accident-free reactor-years we have under our belt (remember that the US Navy has been nuclear powered for decades) it would seem that the probability of accident is quite low with appropriate design and operation. However, it is also clear that while accidents might be very rare events, they can also be VERY serious.

[angelatc]

Considering the very large total number of accident-free reactor-years we have under our belt (remember that the US Navy has been nuclear powered for decades) it would seem that the probability of accident is quite low with appropriate design and operation. However, it is also clear that while accidents might be very rare events, they can also be VERY serious.

Indeed. A couple of years ago a tornado passed close enough to a nuclear plant in Michigan to rip siding off the plant. (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/storm_shuts_down_fermi_2_injur.html) It had run without incident for 20 years prior to that. I can't imagine a system that is 100% tornado proof, and the potential devastation from an incident like that makes it not worth the gamble to me.

[eduardo89]

Indeed. A couple of years ago a tornado passed close enough to a nuclear plant in Michigan to rip siding off the plant. (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/storm_shuts_down_fermi_2_injur.html) It had run without incident for 20 years prior to that. I can't imagine a system that is 100% tornado proof, and the potential devastation from an incident like that makes it not worth the gamble to me.

Solution: Put the reactor underground.

[Danke]

Fukushima which was pretty much unpreventable.

It seems if they had built the plant higher up, or at least had the emergency generators higher up, it would not have been a disaster. Also, taller walls, storage of spent rods, etc. Seems like it could have been preventable.

[eduardo89]

It seems if they had built the plant higher up, or at least had the emergency generators higher up, it would not have been a disaster. Also, taller walls, storage of spent rods, etc. Seems like it could have been preventable.

The costs of all that outweighed the potential risks.

[mosquitobite]

But....science? There is an overwhelming number of scientists who proclaim loudly that man-made global warming is SETTLED science.

How can so many scientists be wrong?

[Danke]

The costs of all that outweighed the potential risks.

Um, putting backup generators up on a surrounding hills cost much to a Nuclear power plant?

That bean counter is probably looking for work now.

[angelatc]

Um, putting backup generators up on a surrounding hills cost much to a Nuclear power plant?

That bean counter is probably looking for work now.

No, I don't mean the loss of power. I mean the potential fall out from radiation contamination if the plant was leveled by a tornado.

[Working Poor]

As per Angelatc's suggestion I started a new thread with the link that I am taking down right now.

[ZENemy]

http://youtu.be/d8oKv70WmdQ

wow!

[angelatc]

But....science? There is an overwhelming number of scientists who proclaim loudly that man-made global warming is SETTLED science.

How can so many scientists be wrong?

Speaking of lacking a reading comprehension., looks like my newest stalker has one.
Considering that there have been literally thousands of studies on GMO foods, from government, institutions and private firms all over the entire world that have all come to the same conclusion about GMO foods, I think it is disingenious to try to pretend that the FDA is the only organization that has not found any evidence at all that GMO foods are at all harmful.

Global studies reaching a consensus from across the entire spectrum of scientific bodies - that can and does indicate that science is indeed flourishing.

The problem with this argument in this thread is that the same can be said for global warming. There is no debate about it in the scientific community, but yet their models don't seem to be accurate.

GMO food: Introducing a gene from a Brazilian nut into a soybean produced a soybean that triggered a nut allergy. The researchers were looking to see if that might happen, and it did. They built a model, tested a theory and got a result they suspected might happen.

Climate changers don't seem to be able to consistently build models that pan out, but yet the community is sold on the concept. I don't get the disconnect.


And note I don't post a bunch of tripe trying to convince people that my opinion is right while the entire body of scientific consensus is wrong, insisting that everybody in the whole godammed world is on some secret payroll.

If that were true, that scientific consensus could be bought, then Big Oil would be producing study after study "proving"the climate was stable as the result of fossil fuel usage.

[mosquitobite]

Speaking of lacking a reading comprehension., looks like my newest stalker has one.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-greenthal/narcissism_b_4810518.html

And since I know you don't actually, you know, like to click on links because you're so damn smart already - I'll copy and paste for you. Because I love you so much! <3 <3



Some of the symptoms of narcissism include:

*Believing that you're better than others
*Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
*Exaggerating your achievements or talents
*Expecting constant praise and admiration
*Believing that you're special and acting accordingly

As you can see, narcissists live in a fantasyland of their own sense of exaggerated self-importance. When the world acknowledges them as young beauties, they are given the kind of attention the believe they deserve without having to do much to attract it to them. As they grow older, the loss of attention can wreak havoc. Because they hold a mirror up to the world to see who they are, this lack of attention can very well obliterate their self-worth.

[Danke]

No, I don't mean the loss of power. I mean the potential fall out from radiation contamination if the plant was leveled by a tornado.

?? Fukushima?

[eduardo89]

Um, putting backup generators up on a surrounding hills cost much to a Nuclear power plant?

That bean counter is probably looking for work now.

The generators probably not. I was talking about building the plant on higher elevation as well as building a higher, stronger tsunami barrier.

The Japanese are ones to skimp on safety and engineering.

[donnay]

?? Fukushima?


Reading comprehension--angelatc does have a problem with that.

[angelatc]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-greenthal/narcissism_b_4810518.html

And since I know you don't actually, you know, like to click on links because you're so damn smart already - I'll copy and paste for you. Because I love you so much! <3 <3
As usual, you insist on talking about me instead addressing a single fucking thing I said.

And you can't even use your own words? You have to go to a liberal site to get someone else's insults? Good Lord, that's pathetic.

[angelatc]

?? Fukushima?

That was not a direct it by a tornado, was it? I'd call that a warning shot across the bow from mother nature.

[angelatc]

Reading comprehension--angelatc does have a problem with that.

I am actually amazed that you were able to spell comprehension correctly.

I like how you adopted your new friend's talking point! It isn't true, as I routinely read the stuff you post and point out that it doesn't even say what you think it does, but that's ok. We know how far your formal education went, so nobody really expects too much.

[PRB]

Climate changers don't seem to be able to consistently build models that pan out, but yet the community is sold on the concept. I don't get the disconnect.

Really? where are the dissenting models that do pan out?

[PRB]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/

who is he? other than being a co-founder of an organization he's left for almost 30 years?

is he a scientist? or does he rely on any scientist's studies to form his opinion?

[angelatc]

Really? where are the dissenting models that do pan out?

The failure of other models wouldn't improve the success rate of the models that failed, so I'm not sure what you're getting it.

[dannno]

Really? where are the dissenting models that do pan out?

There likely aren't any because global temperatures are affected by too many different things.

[fletcher]

who is he? other than being a co-founder of an organization he's left for almost 30 years?

is he a scientist? or does he rely on any scientist's studies to form his opinion?

Yes, he is a scientist. He has a Ph.D. in ecology, which you would know if you read his testimony. Why not just read his testimony to find out about his opinion? Or you can read the chapter in his book that he points to.

[PRB]

The failure of other models wouldn't improve the success rate of the models that failed, so I'm not sure what you're getting it.

True, failure rate of other models don't prove the success rate of anything. But is there ANY model which currently has the highest success rate of prediction? That's where I am getting at, because I am pretty sure not all competing models are equally invalid.

[PRB]

There likely aren't any because global temperatures are affected by too many different things.

how many of which pass the test of correlation? correlation doesn't mean causation, but lack of correlation absolutely is lack of causation.

[fletcher]

Really? where are the dissenting models that do pan out?

You don't need a better model to prove the current ones are garbage. The models speak for themselves. They're totally worthless. Actually, they're worse than worthless because some people actually believe they are reality and want to make policy that will do great harm to the world based on them.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/models-vs-datasets.jpg?w=640

[PRB]

But....science? There is an overwhelming number of scientists who proclaim loudly that man-made global warming is SETTLED science.

How can so many scientists be wrong?

they can be wrong if they did bad research, which is proven wrong by better research. People "just asking questions" is not research, people saying "there's no proof" is not research. Moore's testimony largely relies on doubt without any alternative theory or testable hypothesis, which is typical for any creationist or pseudoscientist, to just ask questions and demand evidence he can't provide himself if asked the same.

[fletcher]

they can be wrong if they did bad research, which is proven wrong by better research. People "just asking questions" is not research, people saying "there's no proof" is not research. Moore's testimony largely relies on doubt without any alternative theory or testable hypothesis, which is typical for any creationist or pseudoscientist, to just ask questions and demand evidence he can't provide himself if asked the same.

It is the global warmists that don't have a testable hypothesis. To them every single event is the result of global warming. higher temperature: gw. lower temperatures: gw. drought: gw. rain: gw. snow: gw. no snow: gw. hurricanes: gw. no hurricanes: gw. tornadoes: gw. no tornadoes: gw.

[mosquitobite]

they can be wrong if they did bad research, which is proven wrong by better research. People "just asking questions" is not research, people saying "there's no proof" is not research. Moore's testimony largely relies on doubt without any alternative theory or testable hypothesis, which is typical for any creationist or pseudoscientist, to just ask questions and demand evidence he can't provide himself if asked the same.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444995-Can-You-Solve-This

[axiomata]

Indeed. A couple of years ago a tornado passed close enough to a nuclear plant in Michigan to rip siding off the plant. (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/storm_shuts_down_fermi_2_injur.html) It had run without incident for 20 years prior to that. I can't imagine a system that is 100% tornado proof, and the potential devastation from an incident like that makes it not worth the gamble to me.

Fortunately reactors are protected by 3 feet of reinforced concrete and not aluminum siding. Unlike most buildings, containment buildings are designed to resist tornadoes.

[mosquitobite]

As usual, you insist on talking about me instead addressing a single fucking thing I said.

And you can't even use your own words? You have to go to a liberal site to get someone else's insults? Good Lord, that's pathetic.

You're the one that insists on talking about others. I simply made a sarcastic comment which must have pushed a few of your buttons.

So science is only wrong when it disagrees with you.

Got it.

[AlexAmore]

Considering that there have been literally thousands of studies on GMO foods, from government, institutions and private firms all over the entire world that have all come to the same conclusion about GMO foods, I think it is disingenious to try to pretend that the FDA is the only organization that has not found any evidence at all that GMO foods are at all harmful.

Global studies reaching a consensus from across the entire spectrum of scientific bodies - that can and does indicate that science is indeed flourishing.

The problem with this argument in this thread is that the same can be said for global warming. There is no debate about it in the scientific community, but yet their models don't seem to be accurate.

GMO food: Introducing a gene from a Brazilian nut into a soybean produced a soybean that triggered a nut allergy. The researchers were looking to see if that might happen, and it did. They built a model, tested a theory and got a result they suspected might happen.

Climate changers don't seem to be able to consistently build models that pan out, but yet the community is sold on the concept. I don't get the disconnect.

I'm willing to read your side of things. I just don't even know where to begin. The problem is I don't trust a damn thing out of any government institution (look at the forum you're in). Also, I'm willing to bet a shiny nickel many of those private institutions got their funding through government grants or non profits with a public sector board of trustees (CERA).

I'm reading Monsanto's FAQs and they're pushing the government regulatory angle as my GMO safety net. Monsanto says "Independent scientists at regulatory agencies worldwide..."....Wait..."independent"? Like how FDA is "independent" even though Monsanto's executive runs it? Government never is a neutral body, they are lobbied to Hell.

Governments come out with food and health protocols all the time. We got the food pyramid that said to eat a shit ton of bread (we know that's a bad idea now, right?) and public school cafeteria food that is shipped in from the same companies that create prison food...nasty greasy pizza. Who's to say the government's premise of what is healthy is even accurate to begin with? But I'll yeild to the fact that I'm mostly talking about just the USA here. So...

All these studies are done on rats. Are we really supposed to extrapolate the long long term risks of GMOs and the special pesticides on humans using rats? For example, Aspirin causes birth defects in guinea pigs, but can't penetrate the human embryo. There was an antibody TGN1412 that was safely used on animals, but caused catastrophic organ failure in humans at 500x lower dosages.

[PaulConventionWV]

Never believe a Canadian.


In all seriousness, I was just reading up on this guy and he seems to have found his sanity. He's pro-nuclear power, thinks wind farms are a waste of money, thinks that climate change is dubious at best and that we should spend money on adaptation instead of mitigation, and he's pro-GMO. Smart man.

Pro-GMO, huh? His intelligence could be better.

[PaulConventionWV]

But....science? There is an overwhelming number of scientists who proclaim loudly that man-made global warming is SETTLED science.

How can so many scientists be wrong?

Yeah, angelatc, how can so many scientists be wrong? Is it possible that they're wrong on other things for the same reasons? Hmmm...

[PaulConventionWV]

Speaking of lacking a reading comprehension., looks like my newest stalker has one.


And note I don't post a bunch of tripe trying to convince people that my opinion is right while the entire body of scientific consensus is wrong, insisting that everybody in the whole godammed world is on some secret payroll.

If that were true, that scientific consensus could be bought, then Big Oil would be producing study after study "proving"the climate was stable as the result of fossil fuel usage.

The government can outspend any oil company. It doesn't take a secret payroll, either. It just takes discretion on who gets the money.

[eduardo89]

Pro-GMO, huh? His intelligence could be better.

Why's that?

[PaulConventionWV]

I am actually amazed that you were able to spell comprehension correctly.

I like how you adopted your new friend's talking point! It isn't true, as I routinely read the stuff you post and point out that it doesn't even say what you think it does, but that's ok. We know how far your formal education went, so nobody really expects too much.

Yeah, speaking of insults...

You're basically frothing at the mouth when it comes to that, so I wouldn't criticize too much.

[PaulConventionWV]

they can be wrong if they did bad research, which is proven wrong by better research. People "just asking questions" is not research, people saying "there's no proof" is not research. Moore's testimony largely relies on doubt without any alternative theory or testable hypothesis, which is typical for any creationist or pseudoscientist, to just ask questions and demand evidence he can't provide himself if asked the same.

The burden of proof is not on him.

[angelatc]

I'm willing to read your side of things. I just don't even know where to begin. The problem is I don't trust a damn thing out of any government institution (look at the forum you're in). Also, I'm willing to bet a shiny nickel many of those private institutions got their funding through government grants or non profits with a public sector board of trustees (CERA).
.


Every single scientific body on the whole planet has reached the same conclusion. But if you want to find science funded by people outside academia, business, non-profits or government, I seriously don't know what to tell you, aside from go back to school, study biology and chemistry, get a masters in Ag, then start doing your own experiments.

But the fact that you threw out funding over facts tells me that you need to brush up on how to research research, so if you really want a place to begin - this is it: http://www.knigel.net/look-smart-online/

[angelatc]

You're the one that insists on talking about others. I simply made a sarcastic comment which must have pushed a few of your buttons.

So science is only wrong when it disagrees with you.

Got it.


Uh, no, Ms Low Reading Comprehension: I didn't say science was wrong. I didn't say science was bought and paid for. I didn't say there's a huge conspiracy involved in conceaing the truth. I said I wasn't convinced because their models don't work.

Vaccines - the models work.
GMOs - the models work.
Climate predictions - the models don't work

Do you see me posting page after page of information that's been disproved by scientists, insisting that the whole world is wrong and I am right? No, you don't.

Because I am not an idiot.

[PaulConventionWV]

I have a question for everyone here who has witnessed the kind of uber-sciency, non-professional opinion displayed by angelatc and many others:

Does it not seem like the height of irony that some people will push the critical-minded process of the scientific method on you and then insist that any dissenting opinions must be wrong because the thinking has already been done?

Make no mistake, there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on here. People just don't want to give up faith, and they will try to pass it off as just about anything else in order to avoid that conclusion, worshiping logic blindly and encouraging blind belief in a group of experts instead of independent thought. You'd think someone who actually cared about the truth would not be so abrasive when confronted with opposing viewpoints.

[PaulConventionWV]

Why's that?

Perhaps the quality of the food he is eating might be affecting his thinking?

[angelatc]

I have a question for everyone here who has witnessed the kind of uber-sciency, non-professional opinion displayed by angelatc and many others:

Does it not seem like the height of irony that some people will push the critical-minded process of the scientific method on you and then insist that any dissenting opinions must be wrong because the thinking has already been done?

Make no mistake, there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on here. People just don't want to give up faith, and they will try to pass it off as just about anything else in order to avoid that conclusion, worshiping logic blindly and encouraging blind belief in a group of experts instead of independent thought. You'd think someone who actually cared about the truth would not be so abrasive when confronted with opposing viewpoints.


The scientific method is specifically designed to make "viewpoints" irrelevant.

[PaulConventionWV]

Every single scientific body on the whole planet has reached the same conclusion. But if you want to find science funded by people outside academia, business, non-profits or government, I seriously don't know what to tell you, aside from go back to school, study biology and chemistry, get a masters in Ag, then start doing your own experiments.

But the fact that you threw out funding over facts tells me that you need to brush up on how to research research, so if you really want a place to begin - this is it: http://www.knigel.net/look-smart-online/

Not every scientific body agrees on this. There have been studies, in fact, that have found the opinions differ quite a bit more than people think based on definitions, classifications, and so on. Come to think of it, has anyone actually seen this consensus people keep talking about? What are the numbers? We only hear people say there is a consensus, but there is never any confirmation that one actually exists.

[PaulConventionWV]

Uh, no, Ms Low Reading Comprehension: I didn't say science was wrong. I didn't say science was bought and paid for. I didn't say there's a huge conspiracy involved in conceaing the truth. I said I wasn't convinced because their models don't work.

Vaccines - the models work.
GMOs - the models work.
Climate predictions - the models don't work

Do you see me posting page after page of information that's been disproved by scientists, insisting that the whole world is wrong and I am right? No, you don't.

Because I am not an idiot.

How do you know the models don't work? Are you a scientist?

[PaulConventionWV]

The scientific method is specifically designed to make "viewpoints" irrelevant.

Way to avoid the question. Is "different evidence" a better way to phrase it? Perhaps I should just say "dissent." Getting warmer?

Or does the scientific method make dissent irrelevant, too?

[angelatc]

Not every scientific body agrees on this. There have been studies, in fact, that have found the opinions differ quite a bit more than people think based on definitions, classifications, and so on. Come to think of it, has anyone actually seen this consensus people keep talking about? What are the numbers? We only hear people say there is a consensus, but there is never any confirmation that one actually exists.

Yes, there is a consensus about both GMOs and climate change.

Maybe you don't understand what consensus means. Just because DonnaY's cranks think GMO vaccines are going to turn us all into lizard people with short life spans does not mean there is not a scientific consensus about vaccines.


Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked, there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.



The person that can prove them all wrong will likely be the person who gets remembered in history.

[eduardo89]

Perhaps the quality of the food he is eating might be affecting his thinking?

What makes you think he is eating bad quality food?

[donnay]

Flashback:

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, there is a consensus about both GMOs and climate change.

Maybe you don't understand what consensus means. Just because DonnaY's cranks think GMO vaccines are going to turn us all into lizard people with short life spans does not mean there is not a scientific consensus about vaccines.

I understand perfectly. Do not insult my intelligence. I am asking what the evidence is of this consensus. Saying there is a consensus doesn't make it so.



The person that can prove them all wrong will likely be the person who gets remembered in history.

A cute line, but it doesn't really mean anything. It assumes all motives are pure and that no structure exists to bias the operation. Because, I mean, who would want to control scientific consensus, right? Pffft. Who needs it?

[PaulConventionWV]

What makes you think he is eating bad quality food?

You make a good point, actually. I was going to say that he supports GMO, but I recall reading that many of those who support GMOs do not eat them themselves, including the likes of Mitt R-money.

[angelatc]

Way to avoid the question. Is "different evidence" a better way to phrase it? Perhaps I should just say "dissent." Getting warmer?

Or does the scientific method make dissent irrelevant, too?

You can't honestly dissent without facts. You can say "I don't believe that adding baking soda to vinegar actually makes a big fizzy mess!" but I can assure you that it will happen regardless of what you claim to believe.

You can form a hypothesis, test it and maybe even get the result you wanted to see. But if nobody else in your field can duplicate the results, then it isn't relevant. See cold fusion, for example.

[angelatc]

I understand perfectly. Do not insult my intelligence. I am asking what the evidence is of this consensus. Saying there is a consensus doesn't make it so.?

What evidence would you accept?

[PaulConventionWV]

You can't honestly dissent without facts. You can say "I don't believe that adding baking soda to vinegar actually makes a big fizzy mess!" but I can assure you that it will happen regardless of what you claim to believe.

You can form a hypothesis, test it and maybe even get the result you wanted to see. But if nobody else in your field can duplicate the results, then it isn't relevant. See cold fusion, for example.

Have you actually tested any of these things you claim to believe?

[eduardo89]

You make a good point, actually. I was going to say that he supports GMO, but I recall reading that many of those who support GMOs do not eat them themselves, including the likes of Mitt R-money.

If he did eat GMO, what makes you say it is low quality food that would affect his intelligence?

Patrick Moore has expressed support for GMOs such as golden rice, which helps prevent vitamin A deficiency in under developed countries, saving hundreds of thousands of people from blindness every year.

[PaulConventionWV]

If he did eat GMO, what makes you say it is low quality food that would affect his intelligence?

Patrick Moore has expressed support for GMOs such as golden rice, which helps prevent vitamin A deficiency in under developed countries, saving hundreds of thousands of people from blindness every year.

You can believe that if you want. I'm just saying, independent thinkers know when they're being bullshitted.

[PaulConventionWV]

What evidence would you accept?

Gee, I don't know. Any evidence? Is there any evidence of it at all besides hearsay?

[eduardo89]

You can believe that if you want. I'm just saying, independent thinkers know when they're being bullshitted.

What are you being bullshitted about?

[PaulConventionWV]

What are you being bullshitted about?

So full of questions... all of which I think you know the answer to.

[Danke]

If he did eat GMO, what makes you say it is low quality food that would affect his intelligence?

Patrick Moore has expressed support for GMOs such as golden rice, which helps prevent vitamin A deficiency in under developed countries, saving hundreds of thousands of people from blindness every year.

Unpolished rice (non GMO) did that a long time ago.

[angelatc]

Gee, I don't know. Any evidence? Is there any evidence of it at all besides hearsay?

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience nor can it be adequately substantiated.

It is not simply something you didn't witness with your own two eyes.

So what evidence would you accept?

[angelatc]

Unpolished rice (non GMO) did that a long time ago.

No, Golden Rice is fortified with vitamin A. Unpolished rice is pretty much the same as white rice, it's just milled differently.

[eduardo89]

So full of questions... all of which I think you know the answer to.

No, I really don't. I honestly don't know your position apart from you don't seem to like GMOs. What don't you like about them and what are we being bullshitted about?

[Danke]

No, Golden Rice is fortified wit vitamin A. Unpolished rice is pretty much the same as white rice, it's just milled differently.

I don't have the western researchers name off hand.

But this was something done a long time ago. It solved a lot of heath problems in Japan and Asia by not eating the refined white rice.

[PaulConventionWV]

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience nor can it be adequately substantiated.

It is not simply something you didn't witness with your own two eyes.

So what evidence would you accept?

Yeah, thanks for defining hearsay. I would have been totally lost without that.

Why don't you try me?

On second thought, why don't you answer the other questions I have posed to you? This one I don't care so much about, but the others are the ones I am intrigued by. Go ahead and answer the questions you just deliberately tried to sidestep.

[angelatc]

I don't have the western researchers name off hand.

But this was something done a long time ago. It solved a lot of heath problems in Japan and Asia by not eating the refined white rice.

Golden Rice doesn't solve "a lot of health problems." It solves one very specific health problem, which is a vitamin A deficiency.

[angelatc]

Yeah, thanks for defining hearsay. I would have been totally lost without that.

Why don't you try me?

Because I want you to set the ground rules.

[eduardo89]

Unpolished rice (non GMO) did that a long time ago.

The aleurone layer (in unpolished rice) is usually removed by milling as it turns rancid on storage, especially in tropical areas; and the remaining endosperm lacks pro-vitamin A.

[PaulConventionWV]

Golden Rice doesn't solve "a lot of health problems." It solves one very specific health problem, which is a vitamin A deficiency.

Vitamin A deficiency can manifest in more than one way, depending on the person and their specific needs. You, one of the great critical minds of our time, should know this.

[PaulConventionWV]

Because I want you to set the ground rules.

Why don't we forget that question and go back to the other ones you tried to avoid? I'm not so interested in that one, but I'm intrigued by the others. You know the ones.

[eduardo89]

Vitamin A deficiency can manifest in more than one way, depending on the person and their specific needs. You, one of the great critical minds of our time, should know this.

The most common cause of blindness in the world is Vitamin A deficiency, which Golden Rice aims to address, and has done quite successfully when tested. Sadly, there are many sadistic people in the world who don't care that hundreds of thousands of children go blind every year due to lack of Vitamin A which has prevented the widespread use of Golden Rice.

[PaulConventionWV]

The most common cause of blindness in the world is Vitamin A deficiency, which Golden Rice aims to address, and has done quite successfully when tested. Sadly, there are many sadistic people in the world who don't care that hundreds of thousands of children go blind every year due to lack of Vitamin A.

Yes, but it has more than one manifestation.

[Danke]

Still can't find the exact researcher that I have read about many years ago, but from Wiki:

"In 1897, Dr. Christiaan Eijkman, a Dutch physician and pathologist, demonstrated that beriberi is caused by poor diet, and discovered that feeding unpolished rice (instead of the polished variety) to chickens helped to prevent beriberi. The following year, Sir Frederick Hopkins postulated that some foods contained "accessory factors" – in addition to proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and salt – that were necessary for the functions of the human body.[22][23] In 1901, Gerrit Grijns (May 28, 1865 – November 11, 1944), a Dutch physician and assistant to Christiaan Eijkman in the Netherlands, correctly interpreted the disease as a deficiency syndrome,[24] and between 1910 and 1913, Dr. Edward Bright Vedder established that an extract of rice bran is a treatment for beriberi.[citation needed] In 1929, Eijkman and Hopkins were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries."

[eduardo89]

Yes, but it has more than one manifestation.

The most common and widespread symptom of vitamin A deficiency is blindness. All other symptoms are secondary to that one.

[angelatc]

Why don't we forget that question and go back to the other ones you tried to avoid? I'm not so interested in that one, but I'm intrigued by the others. You know the ones.

No, this is about what I expected. I did not expect anything I said or did would convince you of believing anything you don't want to believe. That's not being a free thinker - that's actually just the opposite.

When asked to lay down some ground rules, you refused, because you knew it meant you wouldn't be able to move the goal posts. So you tried an end run.

I am done with you tonight.

[PaulConventionWV]

The most common and widespread symptom of vitamin A deficiency is blindness. All other symptoms are secondary to that one.

Define "secondary." Blindness is a symptom, not a disease in and of itself.

[PaulConventionWV]

No, this is about what I expected. I did not expect anything I said or did would convince you of believing anything you don't want to believe. That's not being a free thinker - that's actually just the opposite.

When asked to lay down some ground rules, you refused, because you knew it meant you wouldn't be able to move the goal posts. So you tried an end run.

I am done with you tonight.

I was honestly just trying to get you to answer the other questions. What do I have to say to get you to do that? You run and hide the first time you can find a sem-believable exit where you can save face.

Find me a study that says there is a certain percentage of scientists who believe in climate change, with clearly defined terms. There, those are your ground rules. Happy?

Now can we get you to answer the other questions that you deliberately tried to avoid? Is it too much to ask of you to simply answer the damn questions?

[eduardo89]

Define "secondary." Blindness is a symptom, not a disease in and of itself.

Secondary as in not as common and comes after.

Blindness is a symptom, the condition which causes it is vitamin A deficiency. It causes night blindness, xerophthalmia, and keratomalacia.

[PaulConventionWV]

Secondary as in not as common and comes after.

Blindness is a symptom, the condition which causes it is vitamin A deficiency. It causes night blindness, xerophthalmia, and keratomalacia.

I'm pretty sure that's not all that vitamin A deficiency causes. The body has systems, many of which are interconnected. If vitamin A deficiency is messing with your eyesight, it usually means there are other problems with the systems connected to the eyes. There are different types of visual problems, but not only that, the brain is usually affected if the eyes are because the visual cortex is directly connected to the rest of the brain. The point being that a problem, even if perceived as being minor and "secondary" can be a serious indication of poor health. If your eyes aren't working well, then your memory may be affected along with the systems that are interconnected with eyesight. There are a variety of symptoms that can arise, so yes, vitamin A can solve "a lot of health problems". Saying blindness is the only thing it solves is very narrow-minded.

[eduardo89]

I'm pretty sure that's not all that vitamin A deficiency causes. The body has systems, many of which are interconnected. If vitamin A deficiency is messing with your eyesight, it usually means there are other problems with the systems connected to the eyes. There are different types of visual problems, but not only that, the brain is usually affected if the eyes are because the visual cortex is directly connected to the rest of the brain. The point being that a problem, even if perceived as being minor and "secondary" can be a serious indication of poor health. If your eyes aren't working well, then your memory may be affected along with the systems that are interconnected with eyesight. There are a variety of symptoms that can arise, so yes, vitamin A can solve "a lot of health problems". Saying blindness is the only thing it solves is very narrow-minded.

Where did I say that?

What I said is that vitamin A deficiency is a direct cause of certain forms of blindness. Are you disputing that?

[Danke]

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/rice.php

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/MaeWanHo/rice.html

[angelatc]

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/rice.php

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/MaeWanHo/rice.html

So, they think that people that live in dirt huts in the desert should just eat more vegetables? Do they realize that there would have to be massive infrastructure improvements, like irrigation,distribution, soil management, agricultural education, and even overall economic development?

Rather than suggesting that those other technologies should collectively be used instead of biotechnology, it would be more logical to suggest that those technologies should be collectively used along WITH biotechnology.

[Danke]

So, they think that people that live in dirt huts in the desert should just eat more vegetables? Do they realize that there would have to be massive infrastructure improvements, like irrigation,distribution, soil management, agricultural education, and even overall economic development?

Rather than suggesting that those other technologies should collectively be used instead of biotechnology, it would be more logical to suggest that those technologies should be collectively used along WITH biotechnology.

Maybe nothing wrong with "brown rice" for vitamin A , I don't know. But it has been shown unpolished rice provided nutrition before GMO entered the picture.

[donnay]

If he did eat GMO, what makes you say it is low quality food that would affect his intelligence?

Patrick Moore has expressed support for GMOs such as golden rice, which helps prevent vitamin A deficiency in under developed countries, saving hundreds of thousands of people from blindness every year.


THE "GOLDEN RICE" HOAX -
When Public Relations replaces Science

by Dr. Vandana Shiva


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Golden Rice": A technology for creating Vitamin A deficiency.



Golden rice has been heralded as the miracle cure for malnutrition and hunger of which 800m members of

the human community suffer.


Herbicide resistant and toxin producing genetically engineered plants can be objectionable because of their

ecological and social costs. But who could possibly object to rice engineered to produce vitamin A, a

deficiency found in nearly 3 million children, largely in the Third World?


As remarked by Mary Lou Guerinot, the author of the Commentary on Vitamin A rice in Science, one

can only hope that this application of plant genetic engineering to ameliorate human misery without regard

to short term profit will restore this technology to political acceptability.

Unfortunately, Vitamin A rice is a hoax, and will bring further dispute to plant genetic engineering where

public relations exercises seem to have replaced science in promotion of untested, unproven and

unnecessary technology.

The problem is that vitamin A rice will not remove vitamin A deficiency (VAD). It will seriously

aggravate it. It is a technology that fails in its promise.


Currently, it is not even known how much vitamin JA the genetically engineered rice will produce. The

goal is 33.3% micrograms/100g of rice. Even if this goal is reached after a few years, it will be totally

ineffective in removing VAD.


Since the daily average requirement of vitamin A is 750 micrograms of vitamin A and 1 serving contains

30g of rice according to dry weight basis, vitamin A rice would only provide 9.9 micrograms which is

1.32% of the required allowance. Even taking the 100g figure of daily consumption of rice used in the

technology transfer paper would only provide 4.4% of the RDA.

In order to meet the full needs of 750 micrograms of vitamin A from rice, an adult would have to

consume 2 kg 272g of rice per day. This implies that one family member would consume the entire

family ration of 10 kg. from the PDS in 4 days to meet vitaminA needs through "Golden rice".


This is a recipe for creating hunger and malnutrition, not solving it.

Besides creating vitamin A deficiency, vitamin A rice will also create deficiency in other micronutrients

and nutrients. Raw milled rice has a low content of Fat (0.5g/100g). Since fat is necessary for vitamin A

uptake, this will aggravate vitamin A deficiency. It also has only 6.8g/100g of protein, which means less

carrier molecules. It has only 0.7g/100g of iron, which plays a vital role in the conversion of Betacarotene

(precursor of vitamin A found in plant sources) to vitamin A.

Superior Alternatives exist and are effective.

A far more efficient route to removing vitamin A deficiency is biodiversity conservation and propagation

of naturally vitamin A rich plants in agriculture and diets.

Continued... (http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html)


Vandana Shiva
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva

[angelatc]

Nothing wrong with "brown rice" for vitamin A. But it has been shown unpolished rice provided nutrition before GMO entered the picture.
\

http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why3_FAQ.php

Why not eat unmilled (brown) rice?

The natural oil-rich outer layers of the rice grain—the bran and the aleurone—are rich in some important nutrients, including vitamin B, and yet rice is generally consumed in its milled form, i.e. with the outer layers removed. If not removed, the oils in those layers undergo natural oxidation processes and the grain becomes rancid, affecting smell and taste very rapidly, particularly in tropical and sub-tropical climates. Milling improves the long-term storability of rice without loss of taste.

http://www.goldenrice.org/image/why_grain.jpg

Most people prefer to eat white rice

White rice is the most commonly consumed form of rice. Golden Rice will be more like white rice in that it will be consumed as milled or polished rice. But as opposed to brown rice, it will be capable of providing its health benefits even after milling. Golden Rice grains have a pleasant bright yellow or orange colour, although its appeal in rural areas remains to be investigated. Coloured rice landraces are eaten in many places, and coloured spices, like saffron, are often part of traditional cuisine. Sensitive social educational programs will be an integral part of Golden Rice deployment. Rice varieties with superior agronomic characteristics, i.e. that grow and yield well, will be not less important for the farmers who will grow the rice. Hence the importance of introducing the trait from the genetically modified lines into varieties grown locally by farmers in VAD areas. The trait is transferred from one rice plant to the another using conventional breeding techniques.

[angelatc]

THE "GOLDEN RICE" HOAX -
one

can only hope that this application of plant genetic engineering to ameliorate human misery without regard

to short term profit will restore this technology to political acceptability.



She's one of the biggest eco-grifters in India. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/01/29/vandana-shiva-anti-gmo-celebrity-eco-goddess-or-dangerous-fabulist/) I am surprised it's taken you this long to cite her as an expert, but I knew it was coming. If there's a some grifter fishing for suckers, you always find your way onto their hooks. And when they're advocating for a position that will kill children, you double down.

The rice is given away for free, so it's pretty hard to imagine how "short term profit" factors into it at all.



Is Golden Rice a “hoax,” as Shiva claims?


Almost 700,000 children under the age of 5 die every year from Vitamin A deficiency disease. Golden Rice has been genetically engineered with enhanced production and accumulation of β-carotene in the grains. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reports (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/6/1776.long) that Golden rice contains up to 35 micrograms of β-carotene per gram of rice. A bowl of ~100-150 grams of cooked Golden Rice can provide as much as 60% of the recommended nutrient intake (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2012/07/31/ajcn.111.030775.abstract) of vitamin A for 6-8 year old children. As little as 20% of the recommended daily allowance can mitigate or eliminate clinical symptoms such as blindness. Golden Rice also has a better conversion ratio for Provitamin A (http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why1_vad.php) (which is turned into Vitamin A in our bodies) than leafy vegetables, carrots and other crops.


Shiva’s alternate proposed solution for promoting a ‘diversity of diet’ has not worked for the very poor who cannot afford to buy vegetables or fruits, or cannot devote the land on their subsistence farm to grow more of them.


Golden Rice is a product of the public sector with the realistic hope of saving the lives and sight of millions of children in the developing world (http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why1_vad.php). Despite its promise to help alleviate hunger, blindness and malnutrition, the vitamin enhanced rice has been met with significant opposition from environmental and anti-globalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization) activists, including Shiva. In August of 2013, activists converged on an experimental field trial (http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2013/08/activists-destroy-golden-rice-field-trial) of Golden Rice in the Philippines and violently ripped up the plants.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/01/29/vandana-shiva-anti-gmo-celebrity-eco-goddess-or-dangerous-fabulist/

[Danke]

http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why3_FAQ.php

Why not eat unmilled (brown) rice?

The natural oil-rich outer layers of the rice grain—the bran and the aleurone—are rich in some important nutrients, including vitamin B, and yet rice is generally consumed in its milled form, i.e. with the outer layers removed. If not removed, the oils in those layers undergo natural oxidation processes and the grain becomes rancid, affecting smell and taste very rapidly, particularly in tropical and sub-tropical climates. Milling improves the long-term storability of rice without loss of taste.

http://www.goldenrice.org/image/why_grain.jpg

Most people prefer to eat white rice

White rice is the most commonly consumed form of rice. Golden Rice will be more like white rice in that it will be consumed as milled or polished rice. But as opposed to brown rice, it will be capable of providing its health benefits even after milling. Golden Rice grains have a pleasant bright yellow or orange colour, although its appeal in rural areas remains to be investigated. Coloured rice landraces are eaten in many places, and coloured spices, like saffron, are often part of traditional cuisine. Sensitive social educational programs will be an integral part of Golden Rice deployment. Rice varieties with superior agronomic characteristics, i.e. that grow and yield well, will be not less important for the farmers who will grow the rice. Hence the importance of introducing the trait from the genetically modified lines into varieties grown locally by farmers in VAD areas. The trait is transferred from one rice plant to the another using conventional breeding techniques.

Brown rice may be the panacea in modern farming. I'm just stating this vitamin deficiency was solved long before GMO crops.

[angelatc]

Brown rice may be the panacea in modern farming. I'm just stating this vitamin deficiency was solved long before GMO crops.

Not in Africa and parts of Asia it wasn't.

[donnay]

Flashback:

Genetically Engineered Rice Promoters 'have gone too far'
Special report: GM debate

Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Saturday February 10, 2001
The Guardian (UK)

Claims by the biotech industry and some US politicians that genetically
engineered "golden rice" would save the sight of 500,000 children a year are
exaggerated, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, which is funding the
rice's development. The project, which has been used worldwide by
supporters of genetically modified crops as a justification for the technology,
appears likely to generate only a fraction of the additional vitamin A intake
it once promised. Vitamin A helps prevent eye disease.

If consumers were on a diet of 300g (11oz) of the GM rice a day - the
average consumption of an Asian adult - it would provide only 8% of the
required daily intake of the vitamin, according to independent scientists.

An adult would, in effect, have to eat 9kg of cooked rice (the equivalent of
3.75kg of uncooked rice) a day to satisfy the required intake and a pregnant
woman would need twice that amount.

The Rockefeller Foundation says that the public relations campaign based on
golden rice has "gone too far".

Syngenta, the agribusiness company which owns many of the patents on the
rice, has in the past claimed that a single month of marketing delay would
cause 50,000 children to go blind.

The main deficiency problem is found in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia,
Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines where the lack of vitamin A in a rice
diet causes childhood blindness and up to 1m deaths a year. Adding
beta-carotene to rice, which the body turns into vitamin A, turns it yellow,
hence the name golden rice.

The rice's development has provided a powerful propaganda tool for the GM
industry. The then US president Bill Clinton said last year: "If we could
get more of this golden rice, which is a genetically modified strain of rice
especially rich in vitamin A, out to the developing world, it could save
4,000 lives a day, people that are malnourished and dying."

Continued... (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2001/feb/10/gm.food)

[Danke]

Not in Africa and parts of Asia it wasn't.

What?

I know people that did not have GMO crops in both continents. They are healthy and have had no cavities until moving here and exposed to our diet.

[donnay]

She's one of the biggest eco-grifters in India. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/01/29/vandana-shiva-anti-gmo-celebrity-eco-goddess-or-dangerous-fabulist/) I am surprised it's taken you this long to cite her as an expert, but I knew it was coming. If there's a some grifter fishing for suckers, you always find your way onto their hooks. And when they're advocating for a position that will kill children, you double down.

The rice is given away for free, so it's pretty hard to imagine how "short term profit" factors into it at all.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/01/29/vandana-shiva-anti-gmo-celebrity-eco-goddess-or-dangerous-fabulist/


See how much you pay attention?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?443173-GM-Golden-Rice-yet-another-quack-science-fraud&highlight=Vandana+Shiva

[angelatc]

What?

I know people that did not have GMO crops in both continents. They are healthy and have had no cavities until moving here and exposed to our diet.

"Anecdotal evidence is real, says some guy on the internet."

You haven't seen the pictures of starving children in Africa? Seriously?

[angelatc]

See how much you pay attention?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?443173-GM-Golden-Rice-yet-another-quack-science-fraud&highlight=Vandana+Shiva

I do indeed try to ignore you as much as possible, but you post so much absolute garbage from the most ridiculous sources it is impossible to overlook it all.

You cling to her, you're clinging to a woman who lies about how many papers she's had published, a woman who lies about her education, woman who rewrites history and facts to suit her agenda, which is one of killing children.

Typical.

[donnay]

I do indeed try to ignore you as much as possible, but you post so much absolute garbage from the most ridiculous sources it is impossible to overlook it all.

You cling to her, you're clinging to a woman who lies about how many papers she's had published, a woman who lies about her education, woman who rewrites history and facts to suit her agenda, which is one of killing children.

Typical.

You're running out of steam. You have no proof other then some hit piece from Forbes. :rolleyes:

Oh and by the way, please put me on ignore so you stop stalking me. Thanks!

[donnay]

One more piece of information:


Pro-vitamin A ‘golden rice’

Lack of essential vitamins and minerals causes as many problems as lack of protein or calories.
The biotech industry promises solutions to these problems with crops modified to contain vitamins
and minerals.

The most highly publicized of these GM crops is ‘golden rice’. As the ‘acceptable face’ of GM, it is
used to persuade consumers of the benefits GM can bring, even though it is still only at the research
stage. Thousands of children die every year of vitamin A deficiency. Scientists have engineered
genetic material into rice to make it rich in beta-carotene, which is converted in the body to vitamin
A. However, to reach the recommended intake of vitamin from this GM rice, 9Kg of cooked rice
would have to be eaten every day!v.

Developments such as ‘golden rice’ fail to address real poverty issues such as the lack of a varied
diet which contributes to malnutrition. They also distract from more accessible and affordable
approaches advocated by the World Health Organisation such as promoting breastfeeding, food
fortification, and eating more fruit and vegetables.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1048102.files/may2_AgainstGMOs.pdf

[angelatc]

You're running out of steam. You have no proof other then some hit piece from Forbes. :rolleyes:

!

It isn't a hit piece if it is full of facts.

Like this one:
“ I am also a scientist… a Quantum Physicist”, she writes (http://www.navdanya.org/blog/?p=744) on her Navdanya website. The speakers bureau that represents her identifies her (http://www.kepplerspeakers.com/speakers/?speaker=Vandana+Shiva) as “a trained physicist.” Hundreds of organizations and prominent journalists, from universities to Bill Moyers (http://billmoyers.com/segment/vandana-shiva-on-the-problem-with-genetically-modified-seeds/) toNational Geographic (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/06/cheap-food/bourne-text)(which referred (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/06/cheap-food/bourne-text) to her asa “nuclear physicist turned agro-ecologist”), have represented her that way. But those representations are incorrect. According to the University of Western Ontario, where she received her PhD, her doctorate is not in the discipline of physics, as she claims, but in philosophy.

Which part of that is a lie, DonnaY?


Shiva also claims to have written more than 300 papers—a factoid echoed in almost every article or news release about her, including on Beloit’s site. A query of Thomson Reuter’s Web of Science (http://wokinfo.com/) (research platform for information in the sciences, social sciences, arts and humanities) returns only 42 records of peer reviewed papers or publications authored by Shiva since 1980.

Which part of that is a lie, DonnaY?


Shiva subsequently abandoned her formal pursuit of philosophy, switching her focus to agriculture, plant breeding, genetics, biology, toxicology, microbiology, nutrition, social sciences and economics—subject areas about which she has no academic training and has not done any formal research.

Which part of that is a lie, DonnaY?


“The danger that the terminator may spread to surrounding food crops or the natural environment is a serious one,” Shiva has said (http://www.navdanya.org/attachments/Food_Sovereignty4.pdf). “The gradual spread of sterility in seeding plants would result in a global catastrophe that could eventually wipe out higher life forms, including humans, from the planet”.


One problem with Shiva’s argument: terminator genes have never been developed; they are a fiction of the anti-GMO movement, perpetuated by Shiva and her followers and the journalists that enable her.

Which part of that is a lie, DonnaY?

[Danke]

"Anecdotal evidence is real, says some guy on the internet."

You haven't seen the pictures of starving children in Africa? Seriously?

Um, I lived many years in Asia, and my brother has lived many years in Africa. He is an anthropologist.

[angelatc]

One more piece of mis-information:


http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1048102.files/may2_AgainstGMOs.pdf

Fixed it for you.

If you actually read what I posted, you'd already know that they do not need to reach the West's daily recommended amount of Vitamin A to prevent the roblems that the Golden Rice will prevent.

But of course you didn't, so you don't.

Here's more on the topic for you not to read:


In many countries vitamin A deficiency leads to large numbers of vision-impaired people and increased mortality due to a weakened immune system. Many more cases of ailments caused by sub-clinical deficiency levels go undetected. This map of Southeast Asia shows the regions most affected by VADD.


In the United States, the Dietary Reference Intakes are given as three numbers: (1) an estimated average requirement (EAR); (2) a recommended dietary allowance (RDA); and (3) an upper level (UL). For developed countries, the EAR —and thus the RDA (the RDA is derived from the estimated average requirement: RDA = EAR ± 2 standard deviations)— have been derived from the amount of vitamin A needed to provide four months of body stores of the vitamin to a person. For developing countries, the estimated average requirement (EAR) was established as the amount needed to prevent VAD from occurring, measure in terms of how much vitamin A would be required to prevent night blindness. The average amount to prevent a deficiency state is one-half of that needed for adequate storage in the body (which amounts to 150 μg per day).




t is expected that in countries with high per capita consumption of rice, a locally adapted variety producing less than 30 μg of β-carotene per gram of rice would be enough to maintain appropriate levels of vitamin A in the body. Bioavailability studies indicate that regular consumption of Golden Rice will be able to provide the RDA in rice-based societies.

http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why1_vad.php

[angelatc]

Um, I lived many years in Asia, and my brother has lived many years in Africa. He is an anthropologist, hardly Anecdotal.

Here, let me show you a map:

http://www.goldenrice.org/image/VADD_SEA.jpg

[Danke]

Here, let me show you a map:

http://www.goldenrice.org/image/VADD_SEA.jpg

lol, where is Africa? Anyway, the westerner I was referring to did his study in Japan, absent from you chart as having a deficiency now. As most first world Asian countries.

And Korea, China, etc.

Why isn't India benefiting for brown rice?

[angelatc]

lol, where is Africa? Anyway, the westerner I was referring to did his study in Japan, absent from you chart as having a deficiency now. As most first world Asian countries.

And Korea, China, etc.

Why isn't India benefiting for brown rice?

First world Asian countries aren't the target for this rice - it is being specifically developed for use in developing nations. And nobody is claiming that it's the Utopian end to poverty - it's just a tool. Like I said above, they seem to think that the long term development of these countries will indeed need to include a lot more food diversity.

If you click the link and read it, there are a lot of answers there. India is apparently still too poor to effectively manage food programs.


Golden Rice has the potential to complement existing efforts that seek to reduce blindness and other VAD induced diseases. Those efforts include industrial fortification of basic foodstuffs with vitamin A, distribution of vitamin supplements, and increasing consumption of other foods rich in vitamin A. Those programs are successful mainly in urban areas but still around 45% of children around the world are not reached by supplementation programs. Moreover, these programs are not economically sustainable. Small countries, like Nepal or Ghana, require about 2 million dollars every year to run the campaigns, in spite of the negligible cost of the vitamin A capsules. A large country like India cannot afford to run country-wide food programs, because the costs become prohibitive. There is no guarantee that donors and governments will be able to carry on funding those programs year after year (UNICEF, Micronutrient Initiative). Biofortified crops, like Golden Rice offer a long-term sustainable solution, because they do not require recurrent and complicated logistic arrangements once they have been deployed.

[angelatc]

And it looks like I was wrong about Africa:


Although rice is eaten in many parts of Africa and South America, there is no active work to develop Golden Rice in those places because other staple crops such as maize and sweet potato are much more widely grown and eaten. Work to develop high beta-carotene varieties of those crops to combat vitamin A deficiency is being led by HarvestPlus. (http://www.harvestplus.org/)

http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/in-which-countries-will-golden-rice-be-available

[PRB]

The burden of proof is not on him.

it is if
1) it's an extraordinary claim
2) it's a claim which will affect policy
By the way, there's a difference between "I don't believe global warming is caused by CO2" and "I don't care if it is, I just don't want carbon taxes"

[PRB]

It is the global warmists that don't have a testable hypothesis. To them every single event is the result of global warming. higher temperature: gw. lower temperatures: gw. drought: gw. rain: gw. snow: gw. no snow: gw. hurricanes: gw. no hurricanes: gw. tornadoes: gw. no tornadoes: gw.

lower temperature, if global, and accounted for with La Nina/El Nino cycles, would be proof against global warming
drought vs rain
snow vs no snow
hurricane vs no hurricane
such comparisons would be a matter of whether the abnormalities are predicted, and whether the locality normally has such conditions.

Again, what do non-warmists predict?

[eduardo89]

"Anecdotal evidence is real, says some guy on the internet."

You haven't seen the pictures of starving children in Africa? Seriously?

This is what the anti-GMO crowd doesn't care about:

http://i.imgur.com/fshHgcS.jpg

"It's his own fault, he should have just eaten more vegetables"

[PaulConventionWV]

Where did I say that?

What I said is that vitamin A deficiency is a direct cause of certain forms of blindness. Are you disputing that?

I'm sorry, it was someone else. I think Danke said it cured other things, then angelatc said it was just blindness, and I pointed out that it could manifest in other ways, and that's where you came in. If that's not your point, then I'm afraid I don't know what your point is. Are you just playing devil's advocate?

[PaulConventionWV]

it is if
1) it's an extraordinary claim
2) it's a claim which will affect policy
By the way, there's a difference between "I don't believe global warming is caused by CO2" and "I don't care if it is, I just don't want carbon taxes"

No, the burden of proof is the person making the positive claim. The people who claim that it is happening can't immediately shift the debate and demand that the deniers prove that they're wrong. They first have to prove that they're right before anyone can debunk them.

It doesn't matter if it affects policy, and no, "extraordinary claim" doesn't enter into it, at least not the way you want to use it. Some person doesn't bow down to the scientific establishment and all of a sudden denial is an "extraordinary claim"? I don't think so. Saying that CO2 is going to warm the planet into a crisis, I would say, is a pretty extraordinary claim. Let's focus on keeping the burden of proof where it is REALLY supposed to be... on the people making the positive claim, not the ones making the negative claim. Capiche?

[PaulConventionWV]

lower temperature, if global, and accounted for with La Nina/El Nino cycles, would be proof against global warming
drought vs rain
snow vs no snow
hurricane vs no hurricane
such comparisons would be a matter of whether the abnormalities are predicted, and whether the locality normally has such conditions.

Again, what do non-warmists predict?

They don't have to predict anything. They simply don't believe all of the extraordinary claims being made by the warmists. By the way, the temperature has been decreasing for the past 15 years, and this year looks to continue the trend, so far.

[PaulConventionWV]

This is what the anti-GMO crowd doesn't care about:

http://i.imgur.com/fshHgcS.jpg

"It's his own fault, he should have just eaten more vegetables"

Appeal to emotion doesn't make you right. It just makes you a pathetic tear-jerker.

[PaulConventionWV]

Hey angela, I'm still waiting for you to answer the dozen or so questions that I directed at you and you deliberately avoided. I even gave you your precious ground rules for the most recent questions, and you still refuse to answer even one.

[juleswin]

"Anecdotal evidence is real, says some guy on the internet."

You haven't seen the pictures of starving children in Africa? Seriously?

Pictures of starving refugees is just that, pictures of starving refugees displaced from their lands due to war. GMO or no GMO, you will continue to see pictures like that coming from these war torn regions.


Just saying

[PaulConventionWV]

Pictures of starving refugees is just that, pictures of starving refugees displaced from their lands due to war. GMO or no GMO, you will continue to see pictures like that coming from these war torn regions.


Just saying

Yay! Reason and logic trump "science" whores!

[oyarde]

The only thing I found rice useful for was making liquor and baiting ducks .

[oyarde]

Um, I lived many years in Asia, and my brother has lived many years in Africa. He is an anthropologist.

You should have your Brother on this board .....

[PRB]

No, the burden of proof is the person making the positive claim.

so the person who says gravity doesn't exist is making the negative claim and has no burden of proof? nonsense. burden of proof is on the person making the unestablished, less supported, less understood, new and extraordinary claim (which, sometimes often can be worded into a new positive claim).

[PRB]

By the way, the temperature has been decreasing for the past 15 years, and this year looks to continue the trend, so far.

No, it hasn't.

You got that from these kinds of new stories
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

they arbitrarily pick 15-17 years to find a less than upward trend and claim "see? there's no upward trend here", then media reporters spin that into "warming has stopped since 15 years ago" and later on "it's been cooling for 15 or more years!".

[angelatc]

Pictures of starving refugees is just that, pictures of starving refugees displaced from their lands due to war. GMO or no GMO, you will continue to see pictures like that coming from these war torn regions.


Just saying


If anybody would actually click the links I post, they'd see that this is addressed. They are not claiming that this will end starvation across the entire globe. They're only saying it is one of many tools to be used the immediate problem of malnutrition.


While Golden Rice is an exciting development, it is important to keep in mind that malnutrition is to a great extent rooted in political, economic and cultural issues that will not be solved by a technical fix. Yet Golden Rice offers people in developing countries a valuable and affordable choice in the fight against the scourge of malnutrition.

[fletcher]

so the person who says gravity doesn't exist is making the negative claim and has no burden of proof? nonsense. burden of proof is on the person making the unestablished, less supported, less understood, new and extraordinary claim (which, sometimes often can be worded into a new positive claim).

No one is claiming the climate doesn't exist, so your analogy is wrong. The climate changes, and has always changed. It is the warmists' claim that climate change, as well as basically everything weather related (snow, no snow, rain, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes, the sunset, etc.) is due to humans. It is up to them to prove their claim.

[PaulConventionWV]

so the person who says gravity doesn't exist is making the negative claim and has no burden of proof? nonsense. burden of proof is on the person making the unestablished, less supported, less understood, new and extraordinary claim (which, sometimes often can be worded into a new positive claim).

No. Think about it, would you listen to someone who simply said "gravity doesn't exist"? Of course not. You might, however, listen, if they replaced it with another interesting theory which they, then, would have to prove.

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. We can't just equate any theory we want with theories that we're sure about because that's false equivocation. If that were the case, anybody could just tell people to f*** off because their theory is "like gravity."

That's the way it's been done for a long time, and it's not about to change because you think GW is pretty much like the theory of gravity. It's not, and far from it.

In any case, GW is FAR, FAR, FAR from being an established theory like gravity, so you can't just rush it into the safe zone just yet.

THEY are the ones claiming that something is about to change dramatically on our planet, not the people who say maybe this is all part of a normal range of temperatures that the planet goes through. They're saying there's a drastic departure from the norm. Surely you can see now where the burden of proof lies even according to your own standards... right?

[PaulConventionWV]

If anybody would actually click the links I post, they'd see that this is addressed. They are not claiming that this will end starvation across the entire globe. They're only saying it is one of many tools to be used the immediate problem of malnutrition.

Still waiting for you to answer my questions way back on page 2.

Why don't you want to answer the questions?

[PRB]

No one is claiming the climate doesn't exist, so your analogy is wrong. The climate changes, and has always changed.


just like nobody claims the Holocaust didn't happen, they just use the word to mean something most don't. Sorry, if you use a phrase to mean something other than what's conventionally agreed and understood, you're not affirming it.



It is the warmists' claim that climate change, as well as basically everything weather related (snow, no snow, rain, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes, the sunset, etc.) is due to humans. It is up to them to prove their claim.

the claims are these:
there's a recent increase in overall global temperatures (since the past 50 years)
the primary cause is human activity (specifically CO2)
all other candidates for causing global temperature increase have failed to account for them, as well as fail to predict patterns
it's the warmists who make the best predictions for extreme weather patterns, droughts, floods, hurricanes, snows. Not meteorologists and skeptics who just ask questions. If you have a person with better predictions than warmists, let me know.

[PRB]

No. Think about it, would you listen to someone who simply said "gravity doesn't exist"? Of course not. You might, however, listen, if they replaced it with another interesting theory which they, then, would have to prove.


So I shouldn't take global warming skeptics seriously, since they can't and haven't given an alternative theory for which they're willing to test, is that right?



The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. We can't just equate any theory we want with theories that we're sure about because that's false equivocation. If that were the case, anybody could just tell people to f*** off because their theory is "like gravity."


the claim "PaulConventionWV is a non-criminal and law abiding citizen" is that a positive claim?



That's the way it's been done for a long time, and it's not about to change because you think GW is pretty much like the theory of gravity. It's not, and far from it.

In any case, GW is FAR, FAR, FAR from being an established theory like gravity, so you can't just rush it into the safe zone just yet.

THEY are the ones claiming that something is about to change dramatically on our planet, not the people who say maybe this is all part of a normal range of temperatures that the planet goes through. They're saying there's a drastic departure from the norm. Surely you can see now where the burden of proof lies even according to your own standards... right?

agreed, the question "is this temperature change within or beyond the norm" is a simple one which can be settled if 2 people simply agree on what is the norm. if the norm was defined as -100F to 500F, then you're right, we're totally in the norm and not departed at all.

[juleswin]

No, it hasn't.

You got that from these kinds of new stories
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

they arbitrarily pick 15-17 years to find a less than upward trend and claim "see? there's no upward trend here", then media reporters spin that into "warming has stopped since 15 years ago" and later on "it's been cooling for 15 or more years!".


While you're at it, please tell the alarmist scientist to stop making statements like "the last decade was the hottest decade in recorded history". If 17 yr trends are insufficient then, so is a 10 yr trend.

[PaulConventionWV]

So I shouldn't take global warming skeptics seriously, since they can't and haven't given an alternative theory for which they're willing to test, is that right?

No, stop obfuscating the issue. I think you know very well that the burden of proof has always lied in the hands of those making the positive claims. Don't run from it. Face it. You know this to be true.

You're still assuming that GW is just as good as gravity, which we all know it's not. Stop pretending and face the facts.


the claim "PaulConventionWV is a non-criminal and law abiding citizen" is that a positive claim?

No, that's the normal presumption. You're turning a negative statement into a positive statement via sentence structure and passing it off as something out of the ordinary, which it's not.


agreed, the question "is this temperature change within or beyond the norm" is a simple one which can be settled if 2 people simply agree on what is the norm. if the norm was defined as -100F to 500F, then you're right, we're totally in the norm and not departed at all.

Right, but the irony here is that GW proponents are pretending this demonstrably ambiguous question is already settled just as well as gravity. Let's stop making false equivocation, then we can get to the real issue.

[PaulConventionWV]

I guarantee you won't see angelatc in this thread anymore. She has simply refused to answer any of my questions even though I've met all of her terms for engaging in a logical discussion. She can't handle the heat and she should be known as a coward henceforth.

[PaulConventionWV]

Here are a few of the questions that angelatc has refused to answer since way back on page 2:


Way to avoid the question. Is "different evidence" a better way to phrase it? Perhaps I should just say "dissent." Getting warmer?

Or does the scientific method make dissent irrelevant, too?


How do you know the models don't work? Are you a scientist?


Have you actually tested any of these things you claim to believe?

I have utilized several means of contact to get her to answer these questions and she has refused to take part in any further discussion, even knowing that I had complied with all of her conditions and let her know multiple times that I was seeking an answer.

Angelatc shall be known henceforth as a coward who is running from a reasonable discussion. She did a typical cop-out by claiming I wouldn't set the ground rules for one particular question, which I have since done multiple times and she still refuses to answer any of the questions. She's afraid of the truth and cares more about saving face than finding the truth. Is she a paid mole? The type of cognitive dissonance she regularly takes part in would behoove us to believe that something is off, whatever it is. In any case, the poster known as angelatc should no longer be trusted.

If you see angelatc post in any other threads, I would encourage you to point out her record of intellectual dishonesty and avoidance of a discussion so that she is no longer heeded as a reasonable voice anywhere on these fora.

[fletcher]

just like nobody claims the Holocaust didn't happen, they just use the word to mean something most don't. Sorry, if you use a phrase to mean something other than what's conventionally agreed and understood, you're not affirming it.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Climate change exists. Find me one person that claims the climate has never changed.



the claims are these:
there's a recent increase in overall global temperatures (since the past 50 years)
the primary cause is human activity (specifically CO2)
all other candidates for causing global temperature increase have failed to account for them, as well as fail to predict patterns
it's the warmists who make the best predictions for extreme weather patterns, droughts, floods, hurricanes, snows. Not meteorologists and skeptics who just ask questions. If you have a person with better predictions than warmists, let me know.

You're not making any sense. Any other hypothesis is irrelevant to the hypothesis of the warmists. They could have the only hypothesis and that still wouldn't make them correct. They claim that humans cause warming. To test their hypothesis they have created models that use human activity to change the climate. The models have completely failed. Right now the best hypothesis is the null hypothesis. The climate changes, and always has. Maybe someday scientists will figure out why the climate changes, but that day has not come. And their predictions for 'extreme' weather patterns is just as bad. There has been no increase is hurricanes, no increase in tornadoes, no increase in droughts. Ten years ago some climate scientists were claiming snow would be rare. Now that that prediction that been found to be completely wrong, they have changed it to be an increase in the amount of snow.

[PRB]

While you're at it, please tell the alarmist scientist to stop making statements like "the last decade was the hottest decade in recorded history". If 17 yr trends are insufficient then, so is a 10 yr trend.

a decade to decade comparison is not the same as a 10 year trend

[PRB]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Climate change exists. Find me one person that claims the climate has never changed.


when people (especially scientists and policy makers) say climate change, they don't mean simply "the climate has changed", in fact, such a statement would be meaningless until you define what is the norm. To change assumes there is a static/default/native state. Climate has always changed? so is any change abnormal?

I know you're trying to say the climate has never changed beyond what is normal and expected and if there's any change, it's not caused by human industrial CO2 output. So I don't need to find a person who says "climate has never changed", I only need to find a person, which is you, who uses the phrase to mean different than what scientists are saying.

[PRB]

There has been no increase is hurricanes, no increase in tornadoes, no increase in droughts. Ten years ago some climate scientists were claiming snow would be rare. Now that that prediction that been found to be completely wrong, they have changed it to be an increase in the amount of snow.

Have there been increase in severity of each? who were those who said snow is rare and what are they predicting next? are all climate scientists wrong? or are some more vindicated than others? who is "they" who changed "it" to be an increase in snow (and is the snow local or global)?

[PRB]

No, stop obfuscating the issue.
No, that's the normal presumption. You're turning a negative statement into a positive statement via sentence structure and passing it off as something out of the ordinary, which it's not.


and that's the point, you can make any claim a "positive claim" if you wanted to, therefore the better test of burden of proof is whoever has the EXTRAORDINARY AND LESS SUPPORTED, LESS ACCEPTED claim. "Normal presumption" is exactly right, the person doesn't have the burden of proof for claiming the widely accepted common sense.

[PRB]

Yeah, angelatc, how can so many scientists be wrong? Is it possible that they're wrong on other things for the same reasons? Hmmm...

Yes, it's possible. But not so fast. Let's first establish which scientists are wrong about what. Or whether there is a consensus to serve as a null hypothesis or testable claim.