The Anti-Science Left

[NeverTrump]

The Right has famously been on the wrong side of some scientific questions, and that has been extensively reported. What is less well known is the anti-science agenda of many on the Left. Here's some food for thought.

'Social authoritarian progressives' in The Political Side of ...

http://www.scoop.it/.../political-co...-ken-feltman/?...authoritarian+pr...
5 days ago - Every aspect of daily life has a political side somewhere. filtered by Social authoritarian progressives.

Science Left Behind, a book I co-authored in 2012 with Dr. Alex Berezow, covered the ways that anti-science beliefs had become mainstream among political progressives in the United States.

It addressed dozens of topics but the three biggest ones denied by progressives (along with a few fellow liberals and Democrats) were the findings that anti-vaccine, anti-biology and anti-energy science positions were overwhelmingly left.

Political operatives in the business of promoting the idea that science registers as Democrat disputed that, insisting that anti-vaccine beliefs were 'bipartisan', and they even made a big deal of it when a Republican finally ranted about vaccines and the CDC, but most scientists saw through their ruse and began to criticize anti-science opponents on the left with the same zeal they had when it was being done by the right. That makes sense - scientists know advocacy groups like Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace don't really accept science when they say they believe it about climate change but deny it about everything else. . . .

Jack if ever I have more time to read, I will definitely want to check out your book. I recently read two really good books on subject of conspiracy theories:

This one brought me to study conspiracy theories and their complete histories. Did you know the Illuminati is completely made up and the fear and paranoia that it led to played a huge role in starting the holocaust?? This book goes into great details about how our history has been sadly shaped by these conspiracy theories.
Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History: David Aaronovitch: 9781594484988: Amazon.com: Books

This book is even more amazing. Jonathan Kay is just about the most un-biased author I have ever read!!! I dare anyone to read this book and then come away with a biased notion. He analyzes most of the current conspiracies and draws great conclusions that they are derived from his theory about 9/11 conspiracies. That it is the most dangerous out of all of them. And he lists ALL of them and tells us in great detail how they came to be! He eve talks about the racial and feminist and vegan movements and how all those get started due to often overblown and false outrages. I have emailed Mr. Kay and he is a cool guy eace

Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Growing Conspiracist Underground: Jonathan Kay: 9780062004819: Amazon.com: Books

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

It is true that there is a sizeable anti-vaccine crowd out there, which is very unhealthy.

I don't care what their politics are, their beliefs in this particular area are extremely harmful and need to be called out at all times because they're insane.

Do you trust Big pharma to look out for your best interests? You realize the Mercury is a neurotoxin, right? I don't even understand why that crap is made. We don't need it in thermometers any more.

Tell you what, you put whatever poison you want into your kids, and let people who don't wish corporate Amerika to choose what's best for their kids have the choice to not do that. If you think vaccines protect you from disease, then non-vaccinated kids won't make your kids sick, right?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Do you trust Big pharma to look out for your best interests? You realize the Mercury is a neurotoxin, right? I don't even understand why that crap is made. We don't need it in thermometers any more.

Tell you what, you put whatever poison you want into your kids, and let people who don't wish corporate Amerika to choose what's best for their kids have the choice to not do that. If you think vaccines protect you from disease, then non-vaccinated kids won't make your kids sick, right?

I've vaccinated my kid because it's the right thing to do.

There's been a noticeable increase in these preventable diseases because of misguided, anti-science, reckless folk like yourself.

 

[Jack Hays]

Do you trust Big pharma to look out for your best interests? You realize the Mercury is a neurotoxin, right? I don't even understand why that crap is made. We don't need it in thermometers any more.

Tell you what, you put whatever poison you want into your kids, and let people who don't wish corporate Amerika to choose what's best for their kids have the choice to not do that. If you think vaccines protect you from disease, then non-vaccinated kids won't make your kids sick, right?

No. Non-vaccinated kids will die.

 

[Paschendale]

To be fair the anti GMO thing is pretty much universal this side of the Atlantic. Nobody in Europe wants to sell their soul to Monsanto.

A lot of the GMO opposition seems to come from the economics of it, rather than the science.

 

[Jack Hays]

A lot of the GMO opposition seems to come from the economics of it, rather than the science.

Bingo. It's EU agricultural protectionism in disguise.

 

[Manc Skipper]

It's about farmers being unable to save seed from their crop for next year. And it's about the frankenfood lobby. The idea of protectionism is silly.

 

[Jack Hays]

The idea of protectionism is silly.

Silly and European.

 

[Jack Hays]

It's about farmers being unable to save seed from their crop for next year. And it's about the frankenfood lobby. The idea of protectionism is silly.

[h=3]The European Union's opposition to GM crops has nothing ...[/h]www.biofortified.org/.../eu-opposition-to-gm-crop...Biology Fortified, Inc.


Oct 3, 2013 - 11 posts - ‎2 authors
“Nope, the ban on GMOs merely allows the EU to act as an autonomous ... The roots of European agricultural protectionism stem from the ...

 

[Oozlefinch]

Do you trust Big pharma to look out for your best interests? You realize the Mercury is a neurotoxin, right? I don't even understand why that crap is made. We don't need it in thermometers any more.

One of the largest uses is in fluorescent lamps. And for medical thermometers they are still used. But for household thermometers (like those on the wall) it was long ago replaced with less accurate alcohol. Many sphygmomanometers still use them also.

It is also commonly used in electronics, like single-pole single-throw switches (if anybody has a thermostat that predates 1990, good change it has mercury).

And a great many things in medication is toxic, including lithium.

But the immediate rant onto anti-vaccination is exactly what many in here talk about when it comes to "anti-science left".

Often times the kooky fringe fanatics.

 

[Paschendale]

Bingo. It's EU agricultural protectionism in disguise.

No. No, it's not. It's anger at the monopolistic practices of Monsanto. It's anger at yet another example of big businesses buying up government to keep out competitors. It's anger over the idea that you can patent the food we eat and sue farmers if your seeds happen to blow into their fields. It's anger and fear over the complete lack of accountability in the industry.

 

[Jack Hays]

No. No, it's not. It's anger at the monopolistic practices of Monsanto. It's anger at yet another example of big businesses buying up government to keep out competitors. It's anger over the idea that you can patent the food we eat and sue farmers if your seeds happen to blow into their fields. It's anger and fear over the complete lack of accountability in the industry.

The European Union's opposition to GM crops has nothing ...

Biology Fortified, Inc.eu-opposition-to-gm-crop...Biology Fortified, Inc.


Oct 3, 2013 - 11 posts - ‎2 authors
“Nope, the ban on GMOs merely allows the EU to act as an autonomous ... The roots of European agricultural protectionism stem from the ...

 

[Jack Hays]

No. No, it's not. It's anger at the monopolistic practices of Monsanto. It's anger at yet another example of big businesses buying up government to keep out competitors. It's anger over the idea that you can patent the food we eat and sue farmers if your seeds happen to blow into their fields. It's anger and fear over the complete lack of accountability in the industry.

No one is compelling anyone to use Monsanto products. The EU is compelling consumers (and farmers) not to buy them.

 

[Oozlefinch]

It's about farmers being unable to save seed from their crop for next year.

Oh, farms still do that, they do it all the time. Especially in non-food crops.

However, the use of doing so in food crops has sharply declined over the decades because doing so is just not as productive, and has it's own issues that most farmers no longer wish to deal with.

Most farmers today buy their seed from a seed store, simply because it is cheaper and lest wasteful.

Husking and removing the kernels from your own corn when you had maybe 5-10 acres to plant was one thing. But you are still talking about a fair amount of labor, not every kernel will germinate come spring, and then you had the storage and spoilage. "Old school farmers" typically held back 15-50% of their crop for seed the next year. Today, that has pretty much fallen to 0%, it is cheaper and more effective to buy new seed next year, and sell 100% of the crop.

And then there are other issues, like genetic drift that come into play. Modern industrial food processes work off of uniformity. If your 5th generation String Beans do not have the "right size" or "right color", good luck getting a buyer.

There is not a thing in the world that prevents any farmer wanting to save their seed for next year's crop. But tell me, how many do so for anything other then truk gardens? I have known a lot of farmers during my life, and other then feed crops like hay, straw, feed corn, alfalfa, and the like. These are bulk crops, by the ton, and are not intended for human consumption. And the chickens and cows certainly do not care if the kernels are a little small, or not quite the right color.

 

[Paschendale]

The European Union's opposition to GM crops has nothing ...

Biology Fortified, Inc.eu-opposition-to-gm-crop...Biology Fortified, Inc.


Oct 3, 2013 - 11 posts - ‎2 authors
“Nope, the ban on GMOs merely allows the EU to act as an autonomous ... The roots of European agricultural protectionism stem from the ...

Congratulations, you have an article with a quote. I'm not talking about Europeans. I'm talking about Americans. I'm talking about American liberals, who you claim are anti-science, and how their opposition to GMOs comes from opposing monopoly, not from opposing science.

But despite your buzzword "agriculture protectionism", it sounds more like that European countries want to maintain control of their own food supplies and not allow foreigners (like an American corporation) to have dominance over it. You'd be pissing your pants if a Chinese or Russian corporation had that kind of influence over our food, so why it is suddenly unacceptable when Europeans feel the same way about an American corporation?

 

[NeverTrump]

No one is compelling anyone to use Monsanto products. The EU is compelling consumers (and farmers) not to buy them.

Based on watching Shark Tank. There will always be the hippie entrepreneur wishing to stick it to the man. I recently saw last night's episode where some farmer hippie was selling Gluten Free potato chips that were not GMO. Guess how much the price was? $5! that's for one bag! All the investors basically said he'll have a hard time trying to convince people to buy these chips because Lays is such a well known brand and their chips cost Less than a dollar in some locations for different types.

So there are choices out there and if the anti-monsanto people really were diligent. They can avoid all Monsanto and GMO based products. Though their food bill will be 5X the cost! I doubt anyone here really does that. In fact, I met one person who claimed he did that, but he was...a professional chef!!! With access that normal everyday people don't have. Further, he could probably write most of it off as business expenses. Hate corporate america all you want, but there's no escaping it. When it comes to your grocery shopping.

 

[jimbo]

Actually, people are free to grow and eat whatever they want. But they do have to pay somebody for the raw seeds. Nobody is going around giving them away after all.

Of course, they can always return to the old system of saving a percentage of their crops as seed for the next year. But then you have issues of genetic drift, and reduced output. That is why nobody does it that way anymore other then subsistence level farming anymore.

I don't think either of your two statements is entirely correct. Monsanto has sued non participating farmers based on the belief that the independent has benefited from Monsanto products.

It is not true that you can plant next years crop with last years seed. Monsanto has sued over that issue also. If I remember correctly, Monsanto sued a farmer using home grown seed that had resulted from Monsanto seeds blowing into a non users field. I don't know the outcome of either of these suits.

My problem with GMO's is that this genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back. The hummingbirds that live in my back yard all summer travel 6000 miles each year polluting and pollinating as they go. I wonder is there is any non GMO crops produced anywhere anymore. Monsanto should be sued for allowing their seeds to trespass.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I don't think either of your two statements is entirely correct. Monsanto has sued non participating farmers based on the belief that the independent has benefited from Monsanto products.

Because they were doing it from Monsanto grain.

That is not the only source for grain out there. Don't like it, buy the seeds from somebody else.

It is not true that you can plant next years crop with last years seed. Monsanto has sued over that issue also. If I remember correctly, Monsanto sued a farmer using home grown seed that had resulted from Monsanto seeds blowing into a non users field. I don't know the outcome of either of these suits.

Because when you buy the seed, you make an agreement to not do that.

If you do not like that agreement, do not buy your seed from them!

Look, you can spin this in as many different ways as you want, but you keep missing the point that they do not have any kind of monopoly out there. It is like a great many industries out there.

It is still pretty standard to not have the same auto sales company sell brands from multiple US or Japanese car companies at once. Sure, you can be a Ford dealer, or even a Chevy and Toyota dealer. But good luck being a Toyota and Nissan dealer, or a Ford and Chrysler dealer. The agreements made when you get the franchise prevent you from doing that for many reasons, mostly to prevent monopolies as well as causing a dealer to compete with themselves.

The majority of dealers that are able to do this are able to because they are able to have widely separate lots. Cal Worthington was one of the first to do this. He sold new pretty much every brand there was. But his lots were scattered all over the LA area (and other major metro cities).

My problem with GMO's is that this genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back. The hummingbirds that live in my back yard all summer travel 6000 miles each year polluting and pollinating as they go. I wonder is there is any non GMO crops produced anywhere anymore. Monsanto should be sued for allowing their seeds to trespass.

You are aware that the majority of the genes introduced in GMOs are recessive, are you not? That is why they tend to have a much larger genetic drift then other plants and animals. They are constantly seeking to return to their original genetics. And most of the changes are pretty minor. Making a change to the PH levels so that insects do not like them (but humans can't tell the difference). You would actually think that is desired, since it reduces the need of pesticides. Or making it heartier, so it is better able to resist other plants (reduces the need for herbicides) and retains water better (more drought resistant, less irrigation needed).

How is this really any different then what humans have been doing for over 10,000 years? Want to see what Corn looked like in around 8,000 BCE before humans started to manipulate it's genetics?

Yep, that is Zea, the original form of what we now call corn. Then humans manipulated with it's genetics and developed what we know today.

How appetizing do these look?

Yep, that is the potato, before humans started to manipulate it's genetics in around 8,000 BCE. It barely even resembles what you would buy in the store today.

And this is one I really love.

That is a matador, in front of first the domesticated bull, and behind that the auroch, the wild animal that modern cattle were genetically manipulated from in around 9,500 BCE.

And if you think I am kidding about genetic drift back to the original species, just check out pigs.

Everybody is familiar with this guy, the pig. But he is barely domesticated. They look that way because for thousands of years we have manipulated their genetics. Turn them loose in the wild for a decade or so, and this is what you end up with:

Pigs and boars are almost the exact same species, predating their domestication in around 13,000 BCE. And it is long known that this animal is probably the fastest to revert to it's original genetics. Within a few decades, the familiar pink porker will grow more muscle mass, thick hair, become black, and grow tusks. After only a few generations. This is because of a sped up Darwinism effect.

 

[Threegoofs]

Do you trust Big pharma to look out for your best interests? You realize the Mercury is a neurotoxin, right? I don't even understand why that crap is made. We don't need it in thermometers any more.

Tell you what, you put whatever poison you want into your kids, and let people who don't wish corporate Amerika to choose what's best for their kids have the choice to not do that. If you think vaccines protect you from disease, then non-vaccinated kids won't make your kids sick, right?

Wow. There's a lot of basic mis (really non-) understanding in this post.

 

[Threegoofs]

One of the largest uses is in fluorescent lamps. And for medical thermometers they are still used. But for household thermometers (like those on the wall) it was long ago replaced with less accurate alcohol. Many sphygmomanometers still use them also.

It is also commonly used in electronics, like single-pole single-throw switches (if anybody has a thermostat that predates 1990, good change it has mercury).

And a great many things in medication is toxic, including lithium.

But the immediate rant onto anti-vaccination is exactly what many in here talk about when it comes to "anti-science left".

Often times the kooky fringe fanatics.

Actually, virtually all medication is made of toxins.

As we pharmacists know, the dose makes the poison.

 

[Fenton]

One of the largest uses is in fluorescent lamps. And for medical thermometers they are still used. But for household thermometers (like those on the wall) it was long ago replaced with less accurate alcohol. Many sphygmomanometers still use them also.

It is also commonly used in electronics, like single-pole single-throw switches (if anybody has a thermostat that predates 1990, good change it has mercury).

And a great many things in medication is toxic, including lithium.

But the immediate rant onto anti-vaccination is exactly what many in here talk about when it comes to "anti-science left".

Often times the kooky fringe fanatics.

I miss the old mercury switch thermostats. They were far more dependable and accurate than what's available today.

The Stat YOU posted is a Multi Stage Two stage heat , Two stage Cool thermostat with a adjustable anticipator.

 

[Declan]

I don't think either of your two statements is entirely correct. Monsanto has sued non participating farmers based on the belief that the independent has benefited from Monsanto products.

It is not true that you can plant next years crop with last years seed. Monsanto has sued over that issue also. If I remember correctly, Monsanto sued a farmer using home grown seed that had resulted from Monsanto seeds blowing into a non users field. I don't know the outcome of either of these suits.

My problem with GMO's is that this genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back. The hummingbirds that live in my back yard all summer travel 6000 miles each year polluting and pollinating as they go. I wonder is there is any non GMO crops produced anywhere anymore. Monsanto should be sued for allowing their seeds to trespass.

Numerous issues in this post. Yes there are still non-GMO products. Not all-GMO's are bad. Monsanto has only gone to trial on a few of these cases and has won every one. A lot of this Monsanto stuff is crap one-sided reporting in the light most disfavorable to Monsanto. The terms of sale for round-up ready seeds is that you cannot propagate them. what happens is a farmer will try not to buy seeds from Monsanto to keep from paying the licensing fee associated with the seeds, get busted for it, and then play victim. Any money Monsanto gets from these lawsuits goes to charity. This is not an issue confined to agricultural crops and seeds. Most plants people buy for their yard was at some point or are someone else's intellectual property. For instance, Knockout roses are really popular, but the owner of that patent has also gone after others who propagated them without permission/license. It is no different than a record company wanting to collect its royalties, a writer to collect his share of sales, the inventor of the shamwow wanting to make some coins, etc.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I miss the old mercury switch thermostats. They were far more dependable and accurate than what's available today.

The Stat YOU posted is a Multi Stage Two stage heat , Two stage Cool thermostat with a adjustable anticipator.

*nods*

And I picked it because it has 4 vials of mercury in it.

But various switches with mercury are still made, especially if they are to be used around anything explosive, like gunpowder and flammable gas and liquids. This is because all contacts are sealed inside of the tube, so there is no possibility of a spark setting anything off. They are also often used where corrosion can be a problem, since once again all contacts are sealed inside of the glass tube.

I always find it amazing how little the "anti-science" crowd knows of things. They think they have all of the answers to everything, not even realizing that they actually know very little but ignorance.

 

[jimbo]

Because they were doing it from Monsanto grain.

That is not the only source for grain out there. Don't like it, buy the seeds from somebody else.



Because when you buy the seed, you make an agreement to not do that.

If you do not like that agreement, do not buy your seed from them!

Look, you can spin this in as many different ways as you want, but you keep missing the point that they do not have any kind of monopoly out there. It is like a great many industries out there.

It is still pretty standard to not have the same auto sales company sell brands from multiple US or Japanese car companies at once. Sure, you can be a Ford dealer, or even a Chevy and Toyota dealer. But good luck being a Toyota and Nissan dealer, or a Ford and Chrysler dealer. The agreements made when you get the franchise prevent you from doing that for many reasons, mostly to prevent monopolies as well as causing a dealer to compete with themselves.

The majority of dealers that are able to do this are able to because they are able to have widely separate lots. Cal Worthington was one of the first to do this. He sold new pretty much every brand there was. But his lots were scattered all over the LA area (and other major metro cities).



You are aware that the majority of the genes introduced in GMOs are recessive, are you not? That is why they tend to have a much larger genetic drift then other plants and animals. They are constantly seeking to return to their original genetics. And most of the changes are pretty minor. Making a change to the PH levels so that insects do not like them (but humans can't tell the difference). You would actually think that is desired, since it reduces the need of pesticides. Or making it heartier, so it is better able to resist other plants (reduces the need for herbicides) and retains water better (more drought resistant, less irrigation needed).

How is this really any different then what humans have been doing for over 10,000 years? Want to see what Corn looked like in around 8,000 BCE before humans started to manipulate it's genetics?

Yep, that is Zea, the original form of what we now call corn. Then humans manipulated with it's genetics and developed what we know today.

How appetizing do these look?

Yep, that is the potato, before humans started to manipulate it's genetics in around 8,000 BCE. It barely even resembles what you would buy in the store today.

And this is one I really love.

That is a matador, in front of first the domesticated bull, and behind that the auroch, the wild animal that modern cattle were genetically manipulated from in around 9,500 BCE.

And if you think I am kidding about genetic drift back to the original species, just check out pigs.

Everybody is familiar with this guy, the pig. But he is barely domesticated. They look that way because for thousands of years we have manipulated their genetics. Turn them loose in the wild for a decade or so, and this is what you end up with:

Pigs and boars are almost the exact same species, predating their domestication in around 13,000 BCE. And it is long known that this animal is probably the fastest to revert to it's original genetics. Within a few decades, the familiar pink porker will grow more muscle mass, thick hair, become black, and grow tusks. After only a few generations. This is because of a sped up Darwinism effect.

I appreciate your rather lengthy response. Unfortunately, much of it is incorrect. Most of the lawsuits against Monsanto have been brought by organic farmers. These farmers would not go near Monsanto GMO seeds or Roundup. Nor would they ever buy altered seeds from anybody. The argument by Monsanto is that the farmer is benefitting from Monsanto technology even though they have never purchased a Monsanto product, and their sales talking point is that their products are organic. There is another major point. Many countries outright ban the import of GMO products, and that severely limits the market if GMO indicators are found in the crop.

I don't believe that any of the farmers in question had purchased Monsanto seeds or other products. The closest I know of is a farmer that purchased feed grain from an elevator, and the grain was found to have traces of GMO in the lot. Monsanto has agreed in an email that they would not prosecute those with less than a substantial amount of Monsanto product in the crop. Substantial being defined as less than 1%.

If these genes are actually recessive as you and Monsanto claim, then I don't see Monsanto's problem. The GMO seeds should not propegate themselves.

As I stated, my big fear is that there is no way to keep Monsanto's products within the intended boundaries. Animals move across thousands of miles, pollinating as they go. Monsanto either needs to keep their products within their intended bounds, or render them impotent after they leave the home field.

Your drawings are nice to look at, but they prove nothing. There is a huge dfference between selective breeding and lab created flora and fuana. Also, if your ugly bull gets loose in my field and knocks up my prize heifer, I can shoot your bull and sue you for damages. Monsanto takes the opposite position. Not only should I not be allowed to collect damages, but I owe you a stud fee.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I appreciate your rather lengthy response. Unfortunately, much of it is incorrect. Most of the lawsuits against Monsanto have been brought by organic farmers.

Thank you for that.

Now why would an organic farmer who does not use GMO be suing Monsanto? For what reason? And what was the outcome of these lawsuits?

Look, just because somebody brings a lawsuit, that means nothing. I can sue the Prime Minister of England because I think he stole my copyrighted hairstyle. That does not mean a thing.

But here you go, first Montanto is suing others, now Organic farmers are suing Monsanto. Which in the hell is it? Make up your mind, will you?

Now there are literally thousands of seed companies out there. Give me one example where Monsanto has sued one who was not using a derivative of their products.

You keep flipping back and forth here, but not really giving any information.

For example, the fact that these lawsuits are over the royalties. If I sold you a CD of music I performed and recorded, and then you started to make copies of it and selling it yourself, do you not think I should expect royalties at the least (if not outright stopping you from doing it in the first place)?

Your half-truths are really annoying.

Oh, and the patent for Roundup 1 Soybeans expires next month. So next year anybody can use them or sell them, no royalties at all. Are you still going to scream how evil it is after that?