Slashdot Mirror

I'm not anti-gmo

Bullshit.

but to suggest that putting Salmon genes in Tomato plants is the same as just selecting between different offspring is incorrect.

This is exactly why I despise the anti-GMO movement. You and the rest of them keep making up and/or spreading bullshit lies because you have this foolish belief that natural is better and/or you have competing economic interests.

First of all, no GMO food that ever makes it to your plate ever has genes from one organism transplanted to another. The "frankenfood" is just another lie that keeps on getting repeated. But it's just that, a lie, usually spread maliciously by people who have an axe to grind against Monsanto, (sometimes they work for the snake oil organic industry who is struggling to compete with inexpensive GMO food) even though Monsanto isn't the only company that produces GMO plants. GMO foods are the result of a study called proteomics, and usually consist of fewer than 200 nucleotides (one pair of AT or GC is a nucleotide) which isn't anywhere near enough to create a full blown gene, let alone being transplanted from another organism.

Second of all, this actually happens in nature all the fucking time. In fact human DNA carries the placenta of some other animal. It permanently ended up in our genome via viral infection. It's a part of one of three full virus genomes embedded into our genome. We have some 100,000 other partial virus genomes embedded into our DNA.

Third of all, no person and no animal has ever gotten sick from GMO food. Ever. Not once. You know what though? Thousands have died and continue to die because they consumed organic food. That is, the organic farming process that produced the food that they consumed was the sole cause of their death. Tens of thousands more have gotten sick from organic food as well.

Sources: (and lots of them)

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~a...
http://www.cgfi.org/2002/06/th...
http://www.geneticliteracyproj...
http://www.realclearscience.co...
http://www.americanthinker.com...
http://www.science20.com/chall...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

You know what though? Your stupid little anti-GMO movement doesn't make single a peep about the evils of organic food. Why the fuck do they demand warning labels for GMO food, but they never make any demands for warning labels for organic food?

Explain that one. Why the fuck do we need warning labels for GMO food, but not organic food, when organic food is the only farming process proven to actually kill people?

I like how the anti-GMO crowd comes out and speaks about potential damages, but then ignores the real damages (and deaths) caused by organic food:

http://www.cgfi.org/2002/06/th...
http://www.realclearscience.co...
http://www.americanthinker.com...
http://www.science20.com/chall...
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~a...

We've already had countless cases of people dying and getting sick from organic, and not a single case of anybody dying or getting sick from GMO, in spite of GMO already being consumed in bigger numbers than organic. Meanwhile we're supposed to listen to the food religion about the dangers of GMO.

there ARE papers out there already, by reputable scientists, printed by reputable publishers, that establish the (negative) correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature. While I do not have time this morning to look many of them up, here are some comments that I found in about 10 seconds on Google:


"Ancient Observations Link Changes in Sun's Brightness and Earth's Climate" by Kevin D. Pang and Kevin K. Yao; EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Volume 83, number 43, 22 October 2002, pages 481+.

This is an article written for scientists. The authors track 9 cycles of changes in solar brightness over the last 1800 years, and then correlate these with various changes in the Earth's climate. As you undoubtedly know, an especially suspicious correlation is that of a period of no sunspots (and hence low solar activity) corresponding with the Maunder Minimum of ~1645 to 1715 A.D, a period of extreme cold in Europe. Because of the complexity of effects on the Earth's climate, the jury is still out on whether this period of a Little Ice Age was indeed caused by the lack of solar activity. However, the correlations are intriguing and continue to be discussed at scientific meetings such as the AGU. You can find lots more about the Maunder Minimum and its relationship to sunspots on the web.

http://www.cgfi.org/2008/03/01/global-temperatures-have-dropped-did-sunspots-predict-it/

These are just a couple of quickies, and are hardly peer-reviewed articles, however I do not have time to look up more this morning. My point is that if I can find this information within 10 seconds, you can find much more if you take a mere few minutes to look. If you don't bother to look, then don't bother me any more about it.

The "insanely biased political mouthpiece" points at an article on the Center for Global Food Issues. This appears to be an agricultural research journal. It does appear to have a conservative bias ("Claims of Atrazine Harm to Frogs Remain Unsupported"), but I really have no reason to doubt its claim that "there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today" in the distant past (making the "runaway Venus" effect somewhat unlikely).

Do you find some reason to distrust this journal?

http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/national-academ y-fails-global-warming-ref guess what global warming IS... the grand scheme to tax the hell out of us for something we didnt do. always follow the money trail gentlemen. it gets you to the truth faster. there is a great book out on the 1500 scientifically documented global warming trends maybe look for it. this reminds me of Y2K moneytrail......

Evidence for global warming may have been exagerated by up to 40 %?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2001/01/14/wglob14.xml/
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1354.htm
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2005/jan_10 _05.htm

or google for yourself.

Ok, that's done.

Sun to Blame for Global Warming

A False Consensus On Global Warming

Facts disprove warnings about global warming

Global warming claims 'based on false data'

Everyone hold your breath now!!

mmph
mmmmmph... gaak!

...yet the Bush family still denies that global warming exists or has any effect on the planet...

"Two legs good! Four legs bad!"

Eight years of Clinton... 40+ years of Democrat controlled Congress... Clinton shoots down the Kyoto Accords... and you're blaming Bush? Do ya really think it's a Halliburton-Bush-Bildeberger-Alien Abduction-Jews are Blood Suckers conspiracy? It's shocking how these self-professed intellectuals can latch onto such bizarre, poorly constructed delusions.

Please, take the tin foil hats off. Quit blindly trusting political parties and their media arms (NY Times is one of the least credible news sources now days and every "news" story should be treated as more anti-objective thinking hatred.

Consider this article that explains that the credibile sources understand there is not a cororlation between alleged warming and hurricanes:

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- As hurricane after hurricane strikes the southeastern United States, many people wonder whether the rash of storms is the result of global warming.

The answer from scientists: Probably not, and certainly not with this year's weather. In fact, the overall global temperatures .

Although many experts think global warming could increase the number or the intensity of hurricanes 50 years from now, they say this year's storms were caused by natural changes in the ocean and atmosphere. These include a multi-decade cycle of warm water moving through the Atlantic Ocean, and the unusual mildness of the hurricane-suppressing patch of warm water in the Pacific called El Nino.

"This isn't a global-warming sort of thing," said Hugh Willoughby, senior scientist at the International Hurricane Research Center of Florida International University. "It's a natural cycle."

Curiously, the data shows we're in a cooling pattern (many of the credible scientists understand nearly all of the effect is associated with sun cycles and these are thankfully out of the reach of Halliburton for now). Data from non-urban sources confirms the overall cooling trend, while urban heating continues to be a problem. If you really want to do something about it, quit living in the damn cities!

And according to these people, global cooling kills more people than warming (I can see the NYTimes correction now: Climate cooling, not warming, but Bush-induced cooling kills more than warming!)

And this cooling trend isn't a new phenomenon that can be "blamed on Bush" - unless you want to include Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan and (gasp) Carter this cooling has been happening since 1975. Pretty interesting that the NY Times gets this wrong too. Then again, when the media feels it appropriate to run forged documents provided by mentally unsound oddballs that every expert consulted says are fraudulant, should we be surprised?

Oops, typoed the cosmic rays link.

Hmm...no idea of the research quality, but it's a pretty questionable source. It comes from The Center for Global Food Issues, whose mission is to: "combat efforts to limit technological innovation in agriculture." (Taken from their "about" page.) So part of their mission is to discredit organics. Don't have time to pick through their research now, but I'd want a less biased backup before I accepted their claim.