Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 Next
Comments 19601 to 19650:
-
nigelj at 09:56 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Joe @19, I wasn't off topic. The article is rather general about what Trump has just done and why, and I simply added to that. I admit you didn't raise that issue in your post, but I added ot on any way as its relevent to the article and might have been of general interest.
Economic growth is just an increase in economic output, ie the production of goods and services. A big push towards renewable energy certainly has the potential to increase the rate of economic output, just like a big push to build more roads etc. It will also create jobs, and become stimulatory for the economy as a whole.
Your efficiency argument is something completely different. As has been pointed out by others, you have to evaluate that aspect, by considering costs and efficiencies of renewable energy against the full costs of doing nothing, etc.
Moderator Response:[DB] The user to which you are responding to has recused themselves from further participation here.
-
nigelj at 09:27 AM on 3 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
I submit that Linkelau @1 is hugely off topic.
And the heat absorbing properties of C02 are not derived simply from theoretical speculation, and definitely not from modelling the future. They are derived from laboratory experiments:
agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/
-
nigelj at 09:06 AM on 3 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Very well said.
However one criticism, you say "My view is, it would be better for us to leave the agreement so we cannot sabotage it from the inside. But, only time will tell."
Well I thought that initially as well, but America can be pretty obstructionist outside the agreement , maybe even more vocal and critical, and could structure policies to try to sabotage countries within the agreement who are setting a good climate example. I just struggle to see any overall up side to America leaving the agreement.
I think you are right in your summary of reasons for climate denial and how this often relates to politics and social groups. However I think there are also a range of reasons for climate denial that I have observed with various people, and some do operate more at an individual level as well: Sometimes its just lack of knowledge about the science, (as opposed to ideology) and clearly oil companies have vested business interests regardless of the politics of the people involved, and we mostly all have automobilies, so its not unreasonable to want to be convinced that renewable energy is viable. I think the case is proven on the science and renewable energy, and people will come around to this with a little time and explanations.
But there are also reasons for climate denial to do with clear political and ideological dimensions and associated groups that seem to be paramount in the debate, and very divisive and entrenched. This is obvious when you read peoples comments and talk to people, as well as the surveys you mention. It's basically a suspicion of excessive government powers, and divides liberals and conservatives.
Liberals and conservatives are probably equally intelligent. Any big difference would have been identified by now, and if there is some small difference, it doesn't really get us anywhere dwelling on that.
But liberals and conservatives do see the world differently, and I have seen published science claiming this is at a deep possibly genetic level or brain hardwiring level, (but that people are also able to change their world view to some reasonable extent, at least on an intellectual level). Here are a couple of sources:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160331105728.htm
Clearly observations tell us liberals are more open to change, accepting of government rules on business and environmental matters, and acceptance of people who are different. I personaly think liberals also have very flexible world views based more around pragmatism and evidence. Conservatives are clearly more traditionalists, cautious about people who are different, and very sceptical about government rules in respect of environment and business. I have personally observed that conservatives are very "belief focussed".
But when you think about it that way, do you not see merit in both world views? This suggests we are forced towards a middle ground. I think it becomes a case of whether either ideology is getting irrational, or extreme, or damaging. For example government rules often make sense, yet can sometimes become excessive and petty. Yet the suspicion of government rules can become a huge roadblock to things that are desperately and obviously required, like reducing emissions.
The worst thing is happening. In America liberals and conservatives are finding the issues complex to resolve, and dividing into two warring, emotive tribes that over simplify the issues, when what is really needed is more of a consensus that happened earlier last century.
Reducing emissions relates more to the tragedy of the commons problem. This is mainstream economc theory. I would have thought conservatives would accept this means there are solid grounds for action on climate change related to some government level measures.
Unfortunately many conservatives in America are clearly hunkering down in a bunker mentality, where certain beliefs on a range of matters have now become non negotiable. However this is more evident in government perhaps than the population as a whole, and as pointed out many republicans are concerned about climate change.
But the republican politicians are certainly very one sided and mainly sceptical about climate science, and its becoming an entrenced belief (money in politics is probably a factor here as well) but they are also very firmly of a mind on various social and economic "beliefs". But beliefs are beliefs only, and are not at the same level as scientific laws or truth.
-
LinkeLau at 09:04 AM on 3 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
John,
Climate change is real, it is measured, it is factual. But that CO2 is the main cause is more or less a matter of "opinion". It is however an opinion based on theoretical arguments (e.g. Radiative forcing) and data drive models. But there is no such thing as a causal experiment, so causality is still weak from an academic point of view. Although I admire the very extensive and data driven IPCC models there are still too much unknowns to be quit sure that CO2 is the main cause of the warming measured over the past few decades. For example, extremely important greenhouse variables such as cloud formation and humidity are not measured well enough to include in the models and also higher order effects are largely unknown. Furthermore, there is no such thing as THE temperature. Developments of surface temperature, ocean temperature and higher atmosphere temperature might differ and might even show different signs. So, although I "believe" CO2 is a driver I am far from sure when it comes to the magnitude of its effect on temperature as well as its long term effects.
Moderator Response:[JH] Fact-free sloganeering snipped.
-
RedBaron at 08:57 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Joe,
You said, "For example this forbes article points out that solar employs more people than oil gas and coal combined. How efficient is renewable when it employs more people to produce less than 3% of the electricity and power of gas, coal and oil. GNP goes down, not up, when costs of production go up."
Flawed economics. That's the economics of the plutocrasy. IE The richest man sitting on the pile of excrement. He's happy because even though the rest of the society is going to hell in a hand basket, at least his pile of bull shit is tallest.
The rest of the country is happy as hell to have a good paying job in solar and/or wind. And economically it's far more beneficial to society to have a workforce employed in meaningful jobs like this. Just in reductions of external hidden costs it far exceeds the fat cat sitting on his pile of wealth making sure almost no actual working families gain any benefit at all.
The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats
By NICK HANAUER July/August 2014 -
bjchip at 08:46 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Ouch... sorry guys... that link should have been done using the tool here...
-
bjchip at 08:44 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
#19 Joe
What is the comparison base? Are we comparing the economic growth assuming that not only we do nothing to mitigate but also that, in contradiction of every scientific and economic evaluation of what is happening, there will be no climate related damage to the economy?
That is what Forbes and you just did.
The use of CO2 emitting sources of electricity is going to be incredibly un-popular when the consequences start happening. This year we have the State of Georgia in difficulty with its Peach crop, a trend that is just a continuation of the reality that the t-rump and his advisors deny. A trend that is scientifically quite certain.
http://jaybookman.blog.myajc.com/2017/05/31/opinion-georgia-climate-no-longer-very-peachy/
As long as we maintain that "nothing bad will happen" it makes sense to do nothing to prevent it. As soon as we recognize that there is a problem we no longer can use the "status-quo" is the basis for comparison. When the use of Fossil Fuels becomes unacceptable, the alternatives we build now will be orders of magnitude more valuable, and their absence (in comparison with more foresighted nations) will be incredibly costly to our economy.
Basically, your comparison is false because your assumptions going in are false. What is going to happen, is that there will, in 2030 to 2040, be a massive usable energy shortage and a realization that the t-rump, his advisors and the people who paid them were criminally irresponsible fools lacking ethics, logic and common sense, pursuing an ideological goal to the detriment of future generations.
If they are remembered, it will be as criminals. If they are still alive they will be prosecuted, bankrupted and imprisoned... and the only reason that might not happen would be if the destruction being done to the USA as a result of this is more abrupt and complete than I personally expect.
What has been done is effectively treason, and the t-rump, his advisors and his allies in the Senate and House are guilty.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:33 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
joe @19, the Paris Agreement, as its critics are quick to point out, is non-binding. It follows that it is not a treaty. Its' legal standing in the US as a means to constrain government policy has always been non-existent, and that would not have changed even if it was called a treaty and the Senate ratified it because the asperations are non-binding.
What Trump has done is simply told the world that he, as President, will not even aspire to reduce greenhouse emissions. There is reason to question the title of this article, as if a purely symbolic gesture can make his record significantly worse when he as already taken the practical measures that will ensure that, so far as federal legislation goes, he is committed to massively increased emissions. Arguing, however, that a non-binding, asperational statement is a treaty as if such a statement could have legal effect even if ratified is just silly.
-
joe - at 08:17 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Nigelj - Trump provides no evidence renewable energy destroys jobs. Renewable energy has already created jobs, in the governments own statistics, and if anything can get the 3% gdp growth Trumps wants, renewable energy would be that thing.
Nigelj - you brought up a subject which is off topic - However, how do you get an increase in GDP using renewable energy when the man hours is 20-30 times more than to produce the same quanity of energy using coal or gas.
For example this forbes article points out that solar employs more people than oil gas and coal combined. How efficient is renewable when it employs more people to produce less than 3% of the electricity and power of gas, coal and oil. GNP goes down, not up, when costs of production go up. www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#8ce00928000b
-
joe - at 07:39 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Moderator - [DB] First, please provide the appropriate citations requested of you in this comment earlier.
1) I cited Article II Section II of the US constitution. Any first year law student would recognize the citation as valid.
2) The paris agreement is a treated as acknowledged in the first sentence of this very article.
3) your reference to providing a citation in comment #6 dealt with a different subject matter.
Moderator Response:[DB] All parties: This user has recused themselves from further participation here.
-
nigelj at 07:34 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Joe @15, you have missed the point. Nobody is really criticising Trump for making use of exective powers here today (although this may be raised in due course). They are calling him irresponsible for pulling out of the agreement, because of how this harms both America and global interests.
Are you familiar with the concept the tragedy of the commons? The climate does not recognise international boundaries. When one country acts in a way that alters the climate, everyone potentially suffers. It's "neighbour from hell" material. This scenario has logically lead to the Paris agreement.
In addition, Trump claims America gets a bad deal, and it hurts american business. This doesn't even remotely stand up to scrutiny, for example the study he quotes finding trillions in costs was funded by business and oil industry interests, and is based on all sorts of cherry picked data and assumptions, and has huge vested interests.
Trump provides no evidence renewable energy destroys jobs. Renewable energy has already created jobs, in the governments own statistics, and if anything can get the 3% gdp growth Trumps wants, renewable energy would be that thing.
-
nigelj at 07:12 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Joe @9, you appear to be claiming the paris agreement is really a treaty.
Personaly I feel agreements like this should "ideally" be considered treaties, in an "ideal" world, with a vote in Congress or the senate. Alternatively maybe even a binding public referendum, if that is possible in your American system of government.
However the senate would have obstructed Obama,and so he used executive powers "because he could" just as Trump has made huge use of executive powers, because he could.
There is nothing in the constitution that says international agreements must be treaties. It only says that the president has the power to make treaties if he wishes.
It is also debatable whether the Paris agreement is really a treaty, as has been pointed out by various people above. Given presidents can use executive powers it's all academic.
The real issue here, which you and all your quoted sources have missed, is executive powers. If presidents can use these they probably will (examples Obama and Trump and virtually every president in history) and any criticism is rather impotent. I'm opposed to Trumps policies, and annoyed at the way Trump has used exective powers on some things, but in fairness he is not alone in using these powers. If you realy want to change anything, you have to change the law that governs the extent of executive powers.
-
Evan at 06:39 AM on 3 June 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
No matter where the heat comes from, there will be a lag between the time you apply the heat, and the time at which you see the water heat up to a certain level, as indicated by the thermometer. If the thermometer is in the water, and the heat comes from above, the heat from above still has to warm up the water. Until the water warms up, the thermometer will not respond.
Does that make sense?
-
joe - at 06:32 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
As the opening sentence of this article states :
"In an inexplicable abdication of any semblance of responsibility or leadership, Donald Trump has announced that he will begin the process to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate treaty,
Under Article II, Section II of the US Constitution, all treaties required 2/3 consent of the Senate. All Trump has done is not submit the treaty to the Senate for Ratification. Neither did Obama submit the treaty to the Senate, since neither the 114th Senate or the 115th senate was going to ratify the treaty.
Moderator Response:[DB] First, please provide the appropriate citations requested of you in this comment earlier.
-
Marco at 04:09 AM on 3 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Nigelj, your argument that "In effect the system has been proven to be safe by the passage of time." regarding traditional breeding vs GMOs is invalid. For example, in the 1960s a potato was made by traditional breeding techniques (the Lenape), with plenty of good properties for making potato chips. Unfortunately, it was literally much more poisonous than other potatoes. All potatoes contain solanine, but this one had amounts at least 4 times higher, and made several people ill.
There is a more unclear story from New Zealand about 15 years ago with zucchinis, where some were possibly so much inbred that they produced very high levels of cucurbitacin, yet another toxin (and a similar potential issue in the 1980s in the US and Australia). This was not discovered until people got sick.
Also, I need to repeat that you cannot use the "but Monsanto behaves bad!" as an argument against GMOs. Monsanto, like all the other large ag businesses, also uses traditional breeding techniques. Ban GMOs, and you still have the exact same 'problem': large companies that hold the rights to the seeds of those plants that farmers really, really want, because they give higher yields for lower prices, and a product with more desirable properties - with the one challenge that you have to buy new seeds every year, because hybrids usually don't work very well anymore when going to the next generation. From an IPR point of view it really does not matter whether you are dealing with a patent for a GMO, or the plant variety (or breeding) rights of a new hybrid - although the latter actually last longer.
We thus end up with a completely different argument, where "GMO" can be replaced by literally anything: the fear of large corporations possibly controlling certain aspects of our life.
-
Paul D at 03:55 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
BTW hurray for the hero of America, Elon Musk, he is reality and a true pioneer, unlike Trump who just sells his name as a gold franchise.
-
Paul D at 03:51 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Re 2: Lancifer.
Individual nations have to take responsibility for their per capita carbon emissions. It frankly does not matter if another nation emits more than your nation, a nation takes the high moral ground by doing better than others, once you are doing better (emitting less carbon) then you can justify campaigning to get others to reduce theirs.
Fact (World bank Stats emissions per capita data):
China = 7.6 tons
UK = 7.1
US = 16.4
EU = 6.7Basically this also implies inefficient use of energy, or wasted use of energy. You get a low emission rating by also using energy efficiently and hence spending less of burn fuels. Trump will drag the US into being less effective and efficient, whilst it's competitors develop new technology and exploit it.
Alternatively US states and businesses will just ignore Trumps swamp and just carry on developing modern electric technology and renewable energy systems and the US coal industry will fade away as it should do and be replaced by real modern systems.
-
SirCharles at 03:23 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Good summary => https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-reaction-trump-pulls-us-out-paris-agreement-climate-change
That's where Trump was getting some advice from => https://www.ecowatch.com/kimberly-guilfoyle-fox-2430248852.html
In briefing, White House official responds to question about whether Trump thinks climate change is real: "Can we stay on topic?" => https://twitter.com/AmyAHarder/status/870384194580623360
-
Jonbo69 at 02:30 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Does anyone have any ideas as to how this decision might affect future projections for 2050 and 2100 - will there be a revised estimate?
-
kmoyd at 01:48 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Country commitments should be expressed in per capita amounts as well as total. If China were split into North China and South China, the US would regain its position as the largest emitter.
-
joe - at 01:00 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
CB - the Paris accord is a treaty. www.nationalreview.com/article/448156/paris-agreement-treaty-requiring-two-thirds-senate-vote
The Volohk conspiracy ( a libertain law blog) has several good articles explaining why the Paris accord is a Treaty under the US Constitution.
Article II , section II of the US Constitution.
-
CBDunkerson at 00:51 AM on 3 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
There are generally two major objections to GMOs;
1: 'They are dangerous and untested and will kill us all!'
2: 'Large corporations are attempting to use GMOs to build agricultural, drug, and even human genetics monopolies which could be economically and culturally devastating.'
The first is nonsense of the same sort as anti-vax and global warming denial. The second is quite valid.
-
CBDunkerson at 00:41 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
joe, both of your points are false.
First - The Paris Agreement is not a treaty. Rather, it is an agreement amongst the signatories of the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty... which the U.S. senate ratified in 1992.
Here is the statement President Bush made when signing the ratification
Second - The 'only 0.2 C' canard is based on the initial reduction pledges. Those pledges are intended to be revised every five years... and thus greater reductions are not only possible under the Paris agreement, but likely. In any case, 0.2 C reduction in planetary temperature is not a "rounding error".
-
ubrew12 at 00:30 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
British Petroleum estimates there are 1.7 trillion barrels of oil left underground. At $48/barrel that's about $80 trillion. All of that could be rendered worthless if what China and Europe have begun catches fire globally (hint: China now subsidizes the purchasers of electric vehicles). I don't think any formal agreement is needed to know that the owners of $80 trillion in assets, at existential risk of being declared worthless, will find a way to express their gratitude to Trump and the Republicans who support him (BTW: that $80 trillion is just oil. It doesn't include the value of natural gas and coal currently underground).
-
joe - at 23:40 PM on 2 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Two points
First - The paris accord is a treaty. The reality is that the worst Trump has done is to not submit the treaty to the senate for ratification. The senate is not going to ratify the treaty any more than the senate was not going to ratify the treaty under Obama. Same reason on why Kyoto was never submitted to the senate. Very simply, the question of whether Trump did the right thing or the wrong thing is moot.
Second - The best the paris accord was going to accomplish was less than .1c / or .2c ) by 2030 / 2100 vs the RCP 8.5 estimate. Those amounts are way below the rounding error. So tell us again, what the paris accord was really going to accomplish, other than symbolism?
Moderator Response:[DB] "The best the paris accord was going to accomplish was less than .1c / or .2c ) by 2030 / 2100 vs the RCP 8.5 estimate. Those amounts are way below the rounding error"
Please provide a citation to a credible source for these claims.
-
Digby Scorgie at 12:28 PM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Perhaps the problem commenters have with GMOs is the fact that they form a subsystem of a larger system. One does not have this with climate science. Studies of the planetary climate must perforce take into account the fact that it is a system in itself. Similarly, vaccines have been studied from the point of view of their effect on complete populations.
GMOs, by comparison, are part of a wider system that includes different farming methods, different crops (GMO and non-GMO), different economic conditions, different nutritional requirements, different local climatic conditions, and so on and so on. (This is all off the top of my head. I'm sure somebody else can do much better.)
The essence of the problem is that the complete farming system might be better or it might be worse with a GMO subsystem. I have no idea if there are studies of complete farming systems with and without GMOs. Perhaps this concern has already been put to rest. If not, however, then this might be the cause of the general disquiet over GMOs.
However, the foregoing does not affect the general thrust of the article. There are many topics that have been studied to death by scientists, who have produced mountains of evidence to back their consensus conclusions regarding these topics — and you still get people who reject the evidence for purely ideological reasons.
What occurs to me is that there must be a correlation between the author's list of fallacious arguments and the FLICC acronym from Denial 101x. Has anyone considered a comparison of the two?
-
blueislandgirl at 10:25 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I think you are wrong to lump people against GMOs in with anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers. Here's why.
I am very anti-GMO because GMO crops require so much more herbicide and pesticide use, because pests and weed so quickly become resistant to chemicals (Roundup-ready crops as an example - and yes, I realize Roundup-ready corps are not the only GMO crops out there).
So in my mind, GMO = vast overuse of chemicals, many of which we know are neurotoxins or otherwise very unhealthy. Recently, for example, the EPA approved a chemical, chlorpyrifos, that had been slated to be banned under the previous administration, and some farm workers got very sick. There are countless stories from Argentina where people exposed to very high levels of glyphosate because they live near GMO soy fields are getting very sick.
So, be careful. Some of us are very against GMOs not necessarily because they are modified, but rather because of how they are modified (e.g. crops that have pesticides built-in) or because of the tremendous amount of chemicals used on the crops.
It is very clear that chemicals are at least partly responsible for the decline in bee and butterfly populations, and it is also very clear that large tracts of mono-agriculture, which GMO crops are used in (especially corn, wheat, and soy), are incredibly bad for our environment. "Big ag" is responsible for a big chunk of CO2 emissions.
So if you talk more to people who are anti-GMO you may find that there are many reasons beyond what you might expect as to why we are anti-GMO, some of which you may even agree with.
Moderator Response:[RH] Please provide citations for your claims.
[PS] I put warnings on claims that need cites. And please avoid irony by ensuring your citations/evidence are not on the referenced table. As has been stated, this is not place for a GMO or vaccine argument, but you could show that anti-GMO arguments do not conform the science denier list of the article. Further offtopic posts will be deleted.
-
Greg15665 at 09:12 AM on 2 June 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
With your water pot analogy, I don't understand how heating from below the water is equivalent to atmospheric warming. With GHGs the atmosphere is warming, where the thermometer is, so the heat would be forced down into the pot and there would be no lag. What am I getting wrong here?
-
bjchip at 09:04 AM on 2 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
The Paris Accord requires that China's CO2 emissions to continue upward until 2030 (Fact)
Well no. It ALLOWS China's emissions to continue upward. China is making serious efforts to reduce them... unlike the USA.
Millions of Americans elected him to change the direction of the US federal government (especially the EPA) with regards to climate change.
The negative 3% "majority" he enjoyed does not give him the right, or the moral authority, to cut the throats of future generations to allow the corporations that back denialism to continue to profit from the protection of the US Government.
The moral authority would be lacking even if he had a real majority, as Jefferson pointed out at the birth of the nation. Millions of Americans voted to revolt and get the swamp drained. To their disappointment, we see more and larger gators.
He had the opportunity to save his Presidency by doing the right thing as the previous discussion here pointed out...
He failed.
There is no science to back his statements. There is desperately little economic support for them. The only real support here is the lies from the corporatocracy and the continued well-being and power of the big contributors to Republican Campaigns, the CEI and Heartland.
The US part of USA is gone now... it is the antagonistic states of A, the ASA, more divided than at any time since the civil war and getting even more divided now I think.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-21/america-has-never-been-more-divided-gallup
http://io9.gizmodo.com/its-been-150-years-since-the-u-s-was-this-politically-1590076355?IR=T
The polarization has increased to the point where I doubt that intermarriage between the two political parties can be successful.
We may be seeing the beginnings of a new species? :-)
What fun... I wonder how long humans who intentionally adopt ignorance can survive?
Moderator Response:[PS] Please read and comply with the comments policy - no accusations of fraud.
Fixed link. Please learn to create links yourself using the link tool in comment editor. Thanks.
-
nigelj at 08:42 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Scaddenp @24, yes fair enough to a point. However I would think everyone who has participated in this discussion, would at least agree 'some' of the criticisms of gmo crops fall into the logical fallacy group of arguments discussed in the article. It's hard to say much more about these logical fallacies, as the article covered them so well.
But the article also went on at length creating a detailed case that the science overwhelmingly supported gmo crops. At no stage did the article concede there might be some genuine criticisms of the science, and / or it's application or the economics or question of consumer choice. This probably gets people riled up. Maybe if the article had conceded that not all criticisms related to gmo crops were invalid, it would have diffused things and kept discussion more on track.
I'm semi retired and take an interest reading about all sorts of scientific, economic, political and social debates and controversies and conspiracy "theories". I always have since very young. It's some sort of fatal attraction. I always have a close look at the detail on both sides of debates as much as one can, and I have concluded that the "mainstream" consensus position is true on most things, or mosly true, including climate science, vaccines, 911, flouride, etc, but the gmo issue stands out to me as unresolved, or slightly suspicious in several respects. I thought this immediately on reading the article, and several people made the points that were already in my mind. If so many educated people have similar concerns, it does say something.
-
nigelj at 08:00 AM on 2 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Good article, and agreed on all points. This is about money in politics and excessive executive powers. American government has clearly and provably taken a turn towards ultra conservatism, general science denial, made up realities, and autocracy, and has virtually lost its mind.
-
nigelj at 07:58 AM on 2 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Lancifer @2, none of what you say makes the Paris agreement a bad thing, or bad deal for America. In my opinion the agreement is a step in the right direction, and that is how good agreements start.
America has much to gain by embracing renewable energy, as has been explained on this website numerous times, and this industry has already shown it can work well and provide low cost energy. That is also a "fact".
Concessions to China were made for reasons, and not pulled out of some hat. In international agreements many compromises are inevitably made. That is also a "fact" . Nobody can get things all their own way.
America is a huge emitter so some compromises are fairly expected from America. The irony is under Obama emissions were stabilising, and renewable energy was advancing without the huge economic costs and problems claimed by his detractors. So why Trump is making a fuss mystifies so many of us.
Yes sure a few millions of Americans voted for trump to change direction regarding the epa, but by no means a majority. Public polling clearly shows a clear majority of people want action on climate change, and other environmental matters, and this is also a "fact" So why should a minority of climate denialists and people who hate the epa dictate the terms?
Trump won't renegotiate the Paris deal. He doesn't care and has shown terrible negotiation skills on health care.
-
factotum at 07:30 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
More anti science people: https://phys.org/news/2016-09-largest-ever-reveals-environmental-impact-genetically.html
More information: E. D. Perry et al. Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in U.S. maize and soybeans, Science Advances (2016).
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1600850 Journal reference: Science Advances search and more info website Provided by: University of Virginia
However, the adoption of genetically modified soybeans correlated with a negative impact on the environment as increased herbicide use also increased contamination of local ecosystems.
Reminds me of DDT. You remember DDt. Perfectly safe until we discovered that it wasn't, so for 30 years we sprayed -— well everywhere. And it must be safe since people were not dropping like flies.
And we have to consider Europe and such anti science countries as France and Germany who ban GMO's https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-european-union-votes-to-ban-growing-gm-crops/
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed links. Please learn to create links yourself using the link tool in the comments editor.
-
Lancifer at 07:08 AM on 2 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Sorry to have run afowl of the comment policy on "sloganeering". Let's try again...
The Paris Accord requires that China's CO2 emissions to continue upward until 2030 (Fact)
Full compliance with the accord by all parties would not limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celcius (Fact)Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by withdrawing from the Paris Accord. (Fact)
Millions of Americans elected him to change the direction of the US federal government (especially the EPA) with regards to climate change.
I don't think there is any "sloganeering" in that remark.Moderator Response:[PS] To avoid claims of sloganeering you back your claims by providing links supporting your statements.
-
scaddenp at 06:57 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
To all commentators - Keep this on topic.
The topic concerns abuse of science, poor logic, and a variety of techniques used to bolster anti-science positions by various groups. Discussions about use or otherwise of these faults by groups is on topic.
However this is not place for discussion of pros and cons of GMO, vaccines or anything else. Only for the types of arguments that might used to support those positions.
Thank you for your consideration of the moderators.
-
nigelj at 06:30 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Marco @13
"Contamination of "natural crops" by these new varieties (of natural crops) will also take place."
Yes of course you are right, but this is not really the issue. People should have a choice between gmo crops and crops developed through traditional breeding. At least this is what the consumer is asking for. There is a big difference between traditional breeding and gmos, in terms of gmos produce radical changes immediately and involve delivery mechanisms in how new genes are spliced in.
"Finally, to the best of my knowledge GMOs have to be tested for safety, whereas those new plant varieties produced through conventional breeding do not"
Yes but there are reasons for this. Traditional breeding has been used for decades, in fact centuries and at a time when safety testing was not feasible, but with the passage of time no evidence has emerged of significant safety concerns. In effect the system has been proven to be safe by the passage of time. In comparison gmo's are a new system of crop development, so in our hopefully enlightened age should be safety tested before it is widely implimented.
I'm not saying gmo's are suspect and should be banned. In fact the science obviously has potential. I am saying I'm they need to be rigorously tested and the testing by industry itself has a track record of at least some problems, as they are driven by financial circumstances to cut corners. There is also some independent testing of gmo's, but when you read about this there's evidence of conflicts of interest etc. It needs to be much better,as the stakes are high with gmo crops, obviously if something goes wrong it will affect huge numbers of people. Yes I know you are splicing genes and this is claimed to be inherently safe as it simply mimics a natural process, but there is the question of the delivery mechanism etc.
We also have other concerns about Monsanto having the characteristics of a monopoly, and the ability to dominate the market and make farmers very dependent on it's seeds. This has been documented many times so no need to go into details, other than to say it is self evidently a concerning issue.
These are not illogical or unreasonable criticisms of gmo crops. Nobody is alleging a conspiracy, or cherry picking unusual studies that support their view, or quoting fake experts etc. Most of the comments made criticising gmo crops above are perfectly reasonable and deserve meticulous and utterly proven responses.
I just think the gmo issue is huge. It may have a great future, but we need to be very careful.
I read some of the articles on recent meta studies on safety and crop yields and performance. Gmo's dont radically increase yields or profits etc. The gains are certianly significant, but often rather modest. This has to be weighed against concerns about these crops. All I ask is do this very carefully and transparently, and with studies free of industry bias, and of serious depth.
-
Lancifer at 06:19 AM on 2 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Trump ended the US participation in the charade that is the Paris Climate Accord. Even if the US and other signatories fulfilled their commitments it would make less than a 0.3 degrees Celcius difference by 2100, assuming one believes the models that have failed to reflect reality.
The agreement requires no commitment at all from the world's number one emitter of CO2, China, until 2030. Trump is quite correct; The Paris Accord was a very poor deal for the US, even if you think increasing a benefial trace gas by one part in ten thousand is a problem.Moderator Response:[DB] This venue has a Comments Policy that all participants implicitly agree to abide by. Please read it at length and formulate future comments to adhere to it. Thanks!
Sloganeering snipped.
-
bjchip at 05:07 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
swampfoxh - this sounds like an excuse for us to all sit around drinking beer. I have to like it :-)
-
bjchip at 05:06 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
#9 gingcko
this is not unique to GE crops; almost all seeds purchased by farmers are patented and licensed.
Maybe... but they aren't for sterile plants, and the farmers here make a substantial effort to keep seed costs down ... but the point is not about the purchasing, it is about who benefits from taking a risk when deploying a new species. The risk is public, the profits are private.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
https://www.ecowatch.com/organic-farmer-dealt-final-blow-in-landmark-lawsuit-over-monsantos-gmo-1882173163.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/11/how-monsanto-controls-the-future-of-food.aspx
(( I have doubts about that last one... some of the points are variable depending on the reason for working with GE and there are some good reasons to work with GE - "roundup-ready" is not among them))
how?!? it's not like these plants will take over the world; agricultural varieties fare notoriously poorly without the extra care from farmers
The nature of the crops means that "isolating" the various genes is not as simple as not planting them next year. The likelihood of being able to grow real "non-GMO" corn in a country where adjacent fields are using it, is small. Not the willingness, the ability.
For a country like NZ - going to GMO is a one-way-street. We would not be able to un-release anything once it is planted in the wild. It may be useful for heat-tolerance and drought tolerance in the future... but to allow it to be done for profit?
The attitudes and abuses of the in this respect, and the willingness to deal with GMO as a means of breeding roundup-ready superweeds is not something to just ignore.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/19/gm-crops-insecurity-superweeds-pesticides
http://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-benefits-to-weeds-1.13517
It may be true that the GE crop doesn't make the weeds adapt any more quickly, but the additional herbicides definitely do... and the profits are in the sale of the herbicides
... which aren't good for human consumption.
Much of the difficulty comes from this herbicide-friendly, not disease-resistant approach to the GM that is done.
The point I make and insist on, is that this is a tool, and it is not a tool that can simply be handed over to any corporation to be used to "make money". That is a lot of my resistance to GMO, and it isn't a total rejection of GMO.
The point that I am making is that the science isn't the issue, the politics of profit are the issue.
There are damned few absolutes in science. The abuse of the commons as a result of the pursuit of profit is however, absolutely predictable human behaviour.
-
rocketeer at 04:10 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
@knaugle the UN estimates 4000 deaths from Chernobyl ("Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident". WHO. WHO/IAEA/UNDP) so it seems to be in the same league as Bhopol. Chernobyl and Fukushima also caused created evaculation zones covering hundreds of square miles shich are still not safely inhabitable. We can argue whether these disasters were worse or better than Bhopal, but they certainly don't make the case for nuclear power being safe.
As for GMOs, they are neither inherently safe or dangerous. (if you splice genes coding for puffer fish toxin into a tomato, I don't think anyone would say it is safe.) More relevantly, GMO crops modified to be tolerant of herbicides may be safe, but the heavy applications of herbicide that inevitably follow may not be. I am also leary about these modifications giving huge corporations undue influence over our food supply. Making rice with vitamin A is fine. As with many technologies, it is what you do with it that matters.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:58 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
In my comment@18 I meant to say: "...the future difficulty curtailing profitable and popular "New Developments"..."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:54 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Marco@13,
I agree. It is the pursuit of limited personal benefit by the people developing a new plant, GMO or Otherwise, that is the problem. And no amount of safety testing will test and expose what actually happens when the new plant is "Freed into the complexity of the entire envirionment", especially if the developer and hoped to be beneficiary is trusted to do the testing and reporting.
And once some amount of benefit is being obtained by some people from the "New thing that is being done", evidence that it is harmful often fails to change "their" minds about what they try to benefit from.
The same thing can be seen in the actions of poeple who like to benefit from burning fossil fuels. Many people deliberately resist accepting new evidence and better understanding because it is contrary to their established personal interest (even if, perhaps especially if, it can be understood that they have over-developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity away from, or detrimental to, a sustainable better future for humanity).
It is true that some "purist, anti-new things" over-react to new developments. But the massive previous history of the future difficulty curtailing profitable and profitable "New Developments", or attempting to undo the damage done by development (especially over-development), in the wrong or damaging direction, would mean many of those "purists" are simply being cautious (truly conservative) about what potentially less considerate people (people who prefer to believe whatever they want and do as they please) may try to get away with personally benefiting from.
-
rocketeer at 03:52 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Need to add a column for Creationists.
-
knaugle at 03:44 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
From a scientific standpoint, there is little in GMO food that causes me alarm. If one identifies a problem, like vitamin A deficiency in the far East, and solves it with a GMO rice that makes extra carotine? Problem solved, hurray! In a similar vein, if I had a dollar for everyone I've encountered who says nuclear power is "unsafe", I'd have hundreds of dollars for sure. Yet in order to talk safety, you have to have some idea what the real risks are. The actual damage caused by TMI-2, Chernobyl, and Fukushima combined, pales in comparison to the carnage of the Bophal, India Union Carbide accident that killed 10,000 people. Yet people need their chemicals ...
In a sense, to me anyway, climate science differs from other things people choose to fear. The Deniers actively reject that there are any risks at all. Where in other forms of science rejection, people blow all things out of proportion, the anti-AGW folk seem intent on keeping the science all bottled up.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:38 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
swampfoxh... Surely you grasp that your personal experience cannot possibly be validated. You're coming to sweeping conclusions based on one data point: You.
It would require a full study involving 100's, and preferably 1000's, of subjects over many years to see if there was any validity to your claim.
-
swampfoxh at 03:05 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Okay, explain this: I've been drinking cheap beer for 50 years. Walk into any store today and the cheapest beer is mostly coors, busch, miller, etc. About three years ago, I started noticing that when I drink cheap beer, I suffer from anal wetness. That's right! I dirty my pants with liquified feces. Not a lot, maybe a teaspoon, but enough to keep me out of the public until I have a shower. I never had this problem before (I'm 74), so I talk to my guy friends about it and viola! They (most of them) have the same problem with cheap beer. We all laugh about it and most of us have stopped buying cheap beer although sometimes you try a new cheap beer on the premise that maybe it won't make you defecate in your pants, but some do, some don't. Then a couple of us science types delve into what the cheap beer companies are using for their brew and what do we discover? Cheap beer is cheap because it containes GMO grains!!! and it has been being made with GMO grains for about the last three years!!! Can you imagine? No Sh--! GMO beer is cheaper to make so its cheaper to buy. So if GMO are "safe"...safe for whom? If GMO beer makes my underwear "distasteful" what else is it doing to my body? Nobody knows. And "Nobody" includes the scientists that are telling us that GMOs are "safe".
Moderator Response:[DB] Your entire comment devolves to an argument from your personal incredulity. Please read this venue's Comments Policy and construct future comments to comply with it. Thanks!
-
Marco at 02:17 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
@bvangerven and others,
Yes, you are using invalid arguments. What most people seem to not know is that new varieties made through conventional breeding techniques are usually protected by IPR, too. In fact, the so-called PVRs (plant variety rights) are often of longer(!) duration than the protection of GMOs, which can only be patented. Contamination of "natural crops" by these new varieties will also take place.
In other words, the objections to GMOs offered here are actually not objections to GMOs.
Finally, to the best of my knowledge GMOs have to be tested for safety, whereas those new plant varieties produced through conventional breeding do not (maybe there are some countries where it is required? Anyone know?). That is, the potential toxicity of GMOs may very well apply to, and maybe to an even larger extent, to those non-GMO new varieties, but we don't know, because they need not be tested for safety!
-
bvangerven at 17:33 PM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I am against GMOs and all for taking climate action. Am I reproaching climate change deniers for using arguments that I use against GMOs ? I don't think so.
I don’t think that all genetic scientists in the world are bought off by Monsanto, however I am convinced that studies funded by Monsanto are not neutral. Studies funded by industries never are, this has become clear from numerous examples from the past.
A similar argument in the climate debate is not that climate scientists have been bought off, but that climate change deniers have been bought off by the fossil fuel industry. After all, who would buy off thousands of climate scientists to come up with a false global warming story, and where would the money come from ? There is a renewables industry now but there was scarcely one 20 years ago, so they wouldn’t have the money to pay for a “big scam” like that. The fossil fuel industry, on the other hand is the biggest in the world, worth about 5 trillion dollars. Denialist think thanks have been proven to be sponsored by fossil fuel companies.
My main objection against GMOs is: agriculture is the most decentralized industry on earth. Anyone with a couple of seeds can grow food, and that fact is the best protection against famine. Corporations like Monsanto want to monopolize this industry, and they do that by pushing patented seeds on the market. In the end every farmer would have to pay Monsanto, year after year, just for the right to sow a crop.
Once GMOs are widespread, nothing can prevent cross-breeding. Natural crops will get genetically contaminated, and this process is irreversible. Eventually farmers won’t even have the choice anymore to grow natural crops. So giving some farmers the freedom to use GMOs is taking the freedom of others away to use uncontaminated seeds.
Am I using invalid arguments ?
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped. Please revue this venue's Comments Policy. Thanks!
-
Ian Forrester at 15:13 PM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I wondered how long it would take for a GMO apologist to show up. He just shows that GMO apologists act in the same way as AGW deniers. They can't provide any evidence but use ad hominem comments and use of the F word fraud and fraudulent. I wish they would actually show how Arpad Pusztai's work is fraudulent. He was a well-respected scientist and was chosen with two other groups to set up safety protocols for GMO organisms by the UK Government.
Some of the anti-science tactics of the GMO shills and apologists can be found here:There is plenty of evidence of fraud in the testing of chemicals and pesticides, all paid for by the companies producing the tested products. Check out the history of Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories and Craven Laboratories whose pricipals were sent to jail for fraud. To compare respected scientsts with those criminals just shows how low the GMO apologists will go.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory rhetoric snipped. Please comport and construct all comments in accordance with this venue's Comments Policy.
Also, please link citations as I have done for you; thanks!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:59 PM on 1 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I also question the inclusion of anti-GMO activists as a category. While I am a supporter of the development of GMO items, like the many varieties of wheat that Canadian researchers developed through interbreeding, I am skeptical of profit and popularity motivated GMO development.
If the developer/maker of a GMO crop had to be the owner of every farm it was grown on, and be responsible to ensure the GMO crop did not contaminate any adjacent owner land (with very steep penalties if cntamination occurred), and suffer any lack of actual economic merit (rather than just pocket the profit from the seeds and the chemicals it is designed to work with), then there may be less reason to be skeptical of GMO development.
Organic crop growers can be disqualified from that desired classification if their crop is "potentially" contaminated by a GMO. Yet the laws of Free Trade have been globally abused to penalize a farmer whose field has been contaminated, claiming the farmer stole the legally protected GMO item.
Actually, it is probably necessary to deem GMO development to be a public service, not allowed to be owned by any entity or nation (not allowed to be pursued for profit). There would still be concerns about the true safety of the Globally collectively Government funded University researched and developed items interacting with "all of nature", something that is virtually impossible to test in advance of releasing it (similar to the way it is not possible to test run a global anti-warming system).
Humans really need to stop playing around with artificial creations and focus on getting better at understanding the real world that exists (and try to re-establish aspects of the environment and robust diversity of living things that human artificial industrial over-development in the wrong directions has unintentionally compromised or eliminated), and collectively figure out the diversity of regionally specific ways humans can best sustainably be a part of this amazing planet.
Technological developments may create perceptions of prosperity and opportunity. But their development have failed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (a developed better understanding that has significant merit as the basis for determining what is acceptable and what needs to be discouraged, though it can still be improved). It is time to accept that "freer pursuit of popularity and profitability will develop sustainable good things making the future better" is flawed economic thinking.
Global GDP and other measures of wealth have grown faster than global population. And there is more than enough food produced for the entire current population to eat a nutritious adequate diet. Yet many people still suffer a horrible brief existence. And the ability of pursuers of profit to create new artificial GMO foods will not change that. The required change is unlikely to occur if profitability and popularity remain as the basis for justifying an action (a related example of the problem of profitability and popularity is that plastic debris in the oceans would never be cleaned up unless someone can make a profit from doing the clean-up. Popularity has limited the clean up to locations where it bothers wealthy people.).
The games humans play need to change into ones that robustly support the disruptive changes required to bring about the Sustainable Development Goals. Concurrent action is required on all of them in every part of the planet, including actions on climate change and the elimination of poverty, even if actions contrary to those goals are temporarily regionally profitable or if pursuing the goals is regionally temporarily unpopular.
Popularity and profitability clearly need to be kept from damaging or interfering with humanity's advance to a better future. And pursuers of popularity and profitability any way they can get away with clearly cannot be relied on to make that happen. Unhelpful influence has to be separated from leadership (leadership is about deciding what to encourage and what to discourage, in business and government).
This climate science issue exposes the requirement for disruptive change that makes real science and constantly improved understanding Win everywhere, the sooner the better.
Prev 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 Next
