• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporate Scientists Attack Greenpeace over GMO opposition

LOL...

You think you know everything.

LOL...

I can get non GMO corn here in Oregon. My point is that it shouldn't cost more for the farmers to certify it.

You didn't make that point before.

Why not cost more? I'm sure they sell it at a premium price.
 
FYI, my position on GMO is simply I want labeling. I want to know what products use it, and not force the non-GMO, organic, and other farmers to have to spend so much certifying their products.

I have no opinion that they are harmful, but I wish to err on the side of caution, and buy non-GMO. If they do have any negative health effects, we could be doing harm to our bodies that could possible not be reversed.

I find it silly that someone can argue that "they are perfectly safe."

I don't think anybody has to spend a dime "certifying" their food as organic because that label doesn't mean anything.
 
LOL...

You think you know everything.

LOL...

I can get non GMO corn here in Oregon. My point is that it shouldn't cost more for the farmers to certify it.

What gave you the idea that this costs money?
 
I think you've misunderstood. Liberals and progressives are about giving people choices about things like abortion and contraception and child birth.

But apparently, not about giving them choices about food. Because YOU have an irrational fear, OTHERS must suffer? That's not liberalism. That's just plain crazy.
 
But apparently, not about giving them choices about food. Because YOU have an irrational fear, OTHERS must suffer? That's not liberalism. That's just plain crazy.

Anything like your irrational fear of AGW?
 
You're wrong about that.



Again, you're wrong.



And again, you're wrong

Is making unscientific claims and insisting they're true the best you can do?

He's not wrong about those basic claims.

That he will be unable to supply scientific papers to support it is because you can't publish a paper saying that water is wet. The bleeding obvious is not publishable.
 
Anything like your irrational fear of AGW?

That's not irrational at all. The current climate change, the one that we're causing, is proceeding ten times faster than the fastest climate change in the geological record. And that's a recipe for ecological disaster. It has already cost the world millions, and costs will only increase from here.

 
That's not irrational at all. The current climate change, the one that we're causing, is proceeding ten times faster than the fastest climate change in the geological record. And that's a recipe for ecological disaster. It has already cost the world millions, and costs will only increase from here.

We are not causing the "current climate change." We are adding a small amount to it, but we have been coming out of the maunder minima since 1713. The planet has been warming for the last 12000 years or so, since we left the last ice age. We are not significant enough to hurt the earth. We have had higher ocean levels in the past, and can expect top see it again. Another 5 meters would not be outside the natural history.

When you can show that the loss of transpiration does not change weather station readings, then maybe I will consider you laughable BS.
 
Well, if a verified big liar and corporate pawn like Obama can become a Nobel laureate, it is clear and not far fetched to think that there are many other Nobel laureates who are liars and pawns for big corporate interests. Such as for the GMO industry. This Nobel laureate-signed letter against Green Peace is an example of the propaganda of this huge pro-GMO mafia cartel.

What everyone should know is that there has been a long history of ignoring and suppressing the real dangers of GMO foods from the biotech industry.

One of the earliest cases that has demonstrated that fact is the infamous tryptophan disaster of 1989 where the FDA ignored the warnings of their own scientists about the real risks of GMOs, simply to protect the business interests of the GMO industry, which they've been colluding with for decades - GMO Politics: GMO Risks & the FDA Tryptophan Recall of 1989

The government-biotech industrial complex has the average person believing that they're protecting their health. Yet, lying about real facts, denying real facts, or minimizing or ignoring real facts is not protecting or helping the public, it's deceiving the public. That cartel also pays online trolls to denounce anti-gmo commentators and spread the corporate GMO hype.
 
That's not irrational at all. The current climate change, the one that we're causing, is proceeding ten times faster than the fastest climate change in the geological record. And that's a recipe for ecological disaster. It has already cost the world millions, and costs will only increase from here.



Florida might have to build some sea defences. They might have to be 1m high. It will not cost as much as the budget for traffic lights.

If you think Florida will be doomed due to that you have very little ability to solve probelms and think the rest of us are equally useless.
 
That's not irrational at all. The current climate change, the one that we're causing, is proceeding ten times faster than the fastest climate change in the geological record. And that's a recipe for ecological disaster. It has already cost the world millions, and costs will only increase from here.


I guess the thing that makes a sea level rise prediction of 6.6 feet by 2100 a bit difficult to swallow, is the data.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/w...05&timezone=GMT&datum=MLLW&interval=m&action=
The tide station near Miami (8723214 Virginia Key, FL) shows a rate of sea level rise from 1994 to 2015 at about 2 feet a century,
yet we do not have a century until 2100, but only 85 years.
So based on that pesky empirical data, the sea level in Miami could be 1.7 feet higher by 2100.
This rate is higher than the global average, so perhaps some subsidence is also occurring.
 
Well...no. That was the title though, but just looking at the bullet points in the summary reveals:

"Findings suggest that Bt seeds have increased yields and reduced insecticide use, and herbicide tolerant seeds have enabled farmers to substitute less toxic herbicides in place of more toxic alternatives and facilitated the adoption of conservation tillage."

Here it is again.

USDA ERS - Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops by U.S. Farmers Has Increased Steadily for Over 15 Years

Here is what you actually claimed
GMO crops in general have much better yields per acre, especially when considering the cost and amount of herbicide/pesticide that is used- tremendous drops in use of the most toxic pesticides are due to GMO.

When asked to back it up, instead of posting proof, you post "findings *suggest*"

GE's have been in production for decades, and the best support you can dig up for these miracle crops is "findings suggest"
 
Weeds and pests are going to take over a field in two days? On crops which have presumably been treated previously? The gullibility of some people is astonishing.

Umm, weeds and pests are already there. You obviously don't know much about agriculture if you think a prior application of herbicides and insecticides is going to eliminate all weeds and insects.

The ignorance of some people is astonishing
 
Genetically improved crops have been engineered to do all sorts of things. Some do better in arid regions others need less phosphates and others again have additional nutrients. And further improvements are under way.

But the reason I mentioned starvation in this context was the instance, where American donations sitting in vessels in the harbour to feed a starving population in Africa could not be given the starving, because the were genetically modified and the EU said they the country would in future no longer be allowed to export to the EU, if they were unloaded. I don't remember the exact details and numbers, but it doesn't really matter at this point.

IOW, I was right that GE crops do not increase inherent yields and are not needed to feed starving people
 
The question wasn't about benefit entirely......was it?

You mentioned benefits but if you want to run away from your claim, I don't blame you

And plants have altered DNA over time and I am not going to argue with you about it either. Do your own research.

And if you want to run away from your claim that plants have genetically engineered themselves, I won't blame you for that cowardly position either
 
An article in this month's Scientific American talking about salt tolerant plants had an interesting perspective.
They were discussing the two lines of GMO, one was selective breeding, and the other was gene modification.
Both were yielding results, just that the selective breeding was taking longer.
The ability to have salt tolerant rice and wheat, would have a large impact on world food production.
 
You mentioned benefits but if you want to run away from your claim, I don't blame you



And if you want to run away from your claim that plants have genetically engineered themselves, I won't blame you for that cowardly position either

OK...... here you you go on the natural occuring plant gene mutation thingy.............. wise azz.

Plant Life: Genetics: Mutations

Good mutations: Stalking evolution through genetic mutation in plants - Scientific American Blog Network

What are the different types of mutations in plants ?

Or....................... you could go ask any horticulturist?
 
Umm, weeds and pests are already there. You obviously don't know much about agriculture if you think a prior application of herbicides and insecticides is going to eliminate all weeds and insects.

The ignorance of some people is astonishing

Gimme a break, farmers aren't treating their crops two days before harvest.
 
Here is what you actually claimed


When asked to back it up, instead of posting proof, you post "findings *suggest*"

GE's have been in production for decades, and the best support you can dig up for these miracle crops is "findings suggest"

Well... no.

I should have qualified my statement as 'all other things being equal, GMO crops have much better yields...'

First of all, you are pretending that yield is the only reason to use GMOs. These crops are not genetically modified to increase yeild - they are modified to ether become pest resistant or herbicide resistant - or both. This means the production will be similar but much less pesticide and herbicide will be needed to ensure good yields. Generally, pest resistant GMO crops are used to limit disastrous loss from infestations as well as allowing farmers to save money (and the environment!) by allowing them to use much less toxic pesticides on crops than they would have used.

The increase in yields here for farms that would have been wiped out or had massive pesticide application is very clear.

But I do love the pivot to semantics.
 
An article in this month's Scientific American talking about salt tolerant plants had an interesting perspective.
They were discussing the two lines of GMO, one was selective breeding, and the other was gene modification.
Both were yielding results, just that the selective breeding was taking longer.
The ability to have salt tolerant rice and wheat, would have a large impact on world food production.

Hmmm.

Seems you only believe SOME of what Scientific American writes.

Climate - Scientific American
 
OK...... here you you go on the natural occuring plant gene mutation thingy.............. wise azz.

Plant Life: Genetics: Mutations

Good mutations: Stalking evolution through genetic mutation in plants - Scientific American Blog Network

What are the different types of mutations in plants ?

Or....................... you could go ask any horticulturist?

None of those links talk about plants genetically engineering themselves. They don't even talk about plant genetically modifying themselves.

I think you don't even understand what the terms (genetic engineering and genetic modification) mean or how they're different
 
Well... no.

I should have qualified my statement as 'all other things being equal, GMO crops have much better yields...'

All other things are never equal

First of all, you are pretending that yield is the only reason to use GMOs.

You made claims about yields and when I address the claim about yield, you whine.

These crops are not genetically modified to increase yeild - they are modified to ether become pest resistant or herbicide resistant - or both.

In order to increase yields

This means the production will be similar but much less pesticide and herbicide will be needed to ensure good yields.

No true. The use of both insecticides and herbicides are much higher for GE crops than for crops that are grown without either, and those have even higher yields.

Generally, pest resistant GMO crops are used to limit disastrous loss from infestations as well as allowing farmers to save money (and the environment!) by allowing them to use much less toxic pesticides on crops than they would have used.

As one of the links posted earlier shows, GE crops are not cheaper

The increase in yields here for farms that would have been wiped out or had massive pesticide application is very clear.

Insecticides are not needed. There are safer means to limit damage from insects that are cheaper and better for the environment

But I do love the pivot to semantics

It doesn't take semantics to show that you claims are unsupportable
 
Hmmm.

Seems you only believe SOME of what Scientific American writes.

Climate - Scientific American
SA is a good stage for the latest Scientific ideas, they are not always right, with all of them.
The idea of salt tolerant food crops, if they can move it from the lab to the field, would be a game changer.
 
Back
Top Bottom