Slashdot Mirror

Given the state of the Brexit fiasco a good distraction is required.

This law's inception predates the EU referendum.
https://www.theguardian.com/te...

more about "Botolini": https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Now the passengers will know they are flying to the wrong city earlier in the flight.

But it won't stop passengers booking flights to Sydney, Nova Scotia instead of Sydney, Australia
https://www.thestar.com/news/g...

Stil, it wasn't the pilots who made the Stuttgart/Edinburgh error, unlike this pilot who accidentally keyed in Melbourne instead of Kuala Lumpur and turned a 9 hour flight into a 1 hour flight
https://www.theguardian.com/au...

Speculation: He were probably more worried about being convicted of rape. His narcissistic tendencies combined with PR makes being a "martyr" for many years better than spending a year or so in prison if convicted, add the ridiculous crap about Swedish collaboration with USA plus torture plus death penalty etc. which are obvious bullshit feeding his ego.

Speculation: you're a huge fan of Bari Weiss. You know, the NYT reporter who called Tulsi Gabbard an 'Assad toady' without being able to define or even spell the word.

Because the Swedes handing people over to the Americans to be tortured? Yeah, that actually happened. Sweden going to great lengths to get someone extradited to Sweden where they are promptly interrogated (for weeks in solitary confinement with no outside contact or even a lawyer) for an alleged crime in another country. Another country they were deported to, which mean that was the plan the entire time - that also happened. The UK police spending millions of pounds on a mere bail jumping case while pressuring Sweden not to drop charges against Assange - yes, that also happened.

Finally, Assange has long offered to return to Sweden voluntarily if the country promised they wouldn't hand Assange over to the United States. A promise that could easily be made, given the fact that Sweden is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which forbids extraditing prisoners to regimes that practice torture. Regimes like the United States.

So, in summary, Assange was just proven to be right all this time, and his haters should eat shit for throwing journalists under the bus to support criminal leaders and politicians.

Apparently it was all just a big mistake anyway Oops!

13 MEPs mistaken vote

He fought extradition all the way to the UK supreme court and lost at every stage.

For perfectly valid reasons, toolbag. Which is why Ecuador granted him aslylum in the first place, and why the UN declared his de facto detention unjust and arbitrary. And he only lost appeals in the UK because the country is as much a poodle of the United States today as it was during the the Bush Administration. But there's even precedent for the UK to block extradition for alleged hackers because the United States has a medieval prison system.

Look, this isn't hard. If this was ever really about alleged rape allegations, all Sweden had to do was promise not to hand Assange over to the United States. Even if you think Assange was lying about returning to Sweden upon such a promise, Ecuador would no longer have a reason to give him asylum, meaning Sweden would have him back one way or the other.

Heads you're wrong, tails you're wrong.

Regardless of who has 'the high ground' in this pissing match, it's clear Bezos is being snarky, probably without realizing his own hypocrisy here.

Like how he threaten to move jobs out of Seattle because the local council wanted to add a head tax to fund housing, etc. and then made himself look noble by promising to donate several $million, if not more, to charities to help out with poverty and housing.... which, oh by the way, would net him a nice charitable tax deduction too - double win for him: no new head tax, and gets to claim a charitable deduction!

https://www.theguardian.com/po...

Shipping companies are only interested in cost and getting the jobs done.

Environmentalists will only accept zero emissions because "we only have 12 years left" (5 months ago).

There's no constituency for half measures and no tolerance for disagreement.

The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him....

Not so fast. They're not getting him on classified, they're going after him for hacking.

https://www.apnews.com/328522a... "A U.S. official says the Justice Department is preparing to announce charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/w... "US seeks extradition on hacking charges"

https://www.theguardian.com/me...

There's currently no European arrest warrant outstanding for him or extradition request from the USA

That post didn't age well: https://www.theguardian.com/me...

and since it's a shitty live update site:
"Extradition request from US confirmed
Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition.

In a statement it said:

Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster magistrates court as soon as possible."

> They never managed to interview

From the guardian:
14 November: Assange is questioned over the remaining sex allegation at the Ecuadorian embassy by Swedish authorities in a two-day interview.
[...]
  The Swedish prosecutor Ingrid Isgren arrives to interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London in November 2016. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images

>or charge him

And nevertheless, the charges never charged were dropped later.

Sweden is interested in Assange because other people request them to be interested
https://www.theguardian.com/me...

firstly

Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.

You're a bit thick so again, CO2 remains in the atmosphere a long time

This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years.

So it isn't just last years CO2 emissions that are warming Canada.

This is a much more appropriate timescale

If we extend our timeline back to 1750 and total up how much CO2 each country has emitted to date, we calculate each nation’s ‘cumulative emissions’.

If we fast-forward to the accumulated totals we see today, the US and Europe dominate in terms of cumulative emissions. China’s rapid growth in emissions over the last few decades now makes it the world’s second largest cumulative emitter, although it still comes in at less than 50% of the US total.

So in fact America is responsible for over twice as much CO2 as China.
But wait it gets better.

The key drawback of measuring the total national emissions is that it takes no account of the nation's population size. China is currently the world’s largest emitter, but since it also has the largest population, all being equal we would expect this to be the case. To make a fair comparison of contributions, we have to therefore compare emissions in terms of CO2 emitted per person.

Let's just say, per person American's have been, and still are extremely bad.
Let's look here starting in 1950 to match the timescale in the summary and report. You can slide it yourself to see that the US is bright red on the map for every year and China barely breaks into the oranges. America's CO2 per person is over double China's even now. And don't forget you started at 16 tonnes when China was at less than 1.

And all of that says nothing about how laughably inaccurate your 'climate modelling' is. Blaming China because of the wind patterns LOL. This is just you not even using the correct data.
You are a complete joke on this topic WindBourne.

firstly

Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.

You're a bit thick so again, CO2 remains in the atmosphere a long time

This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years.

So it isn't just last years CO2 emissions that are warming Canada.

This is a much more appropriate timescale

If we extend our timeline back to 1750 and total up how much CO2 each country has emitted to date, we calculate each nation’s ‘cumulative emissions’.

If we fast-forward to the accumulated totals we see today, the US and Europe dominate in terms of cumulative emissions. China’s rapid growth in emissions over the last few decades now makes it the world’s second largest cumulative emitter, although it still comes in at less than 50% of the US total.

So in fact America is responsible for over twice as much CO2 as China.
But wait it gets better.

The key drawback of measuring the total national emissions is that it takes no account of the nation's population size. China is currently the world’s largest emitter, but since it also has the largest population, all being equal we would expect this to be the case. To make a fair comparison of contributions, we have to therefore compare emissions in terms of CO2 emitted per person.

Let's just say, per person American's have been, and still are extremely bad.
Let's look here starting in 1950 to match the timescale in the summary and report. You can slide it yourself to see that the US is bright red on the map for every year and China barely breaks into the oranges. America's CO2 per person is over double China's even now. And don't forget you started at 16 tonnes when China was at less than 1.

And all of that says nothing about how laughably inaccurate your 'climate modelling' is. Blaming China because of the wind patterns LOL. This is just you not even using the correct data.
You are a complete joke on this topic WindBourne.

firstly

Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.

You're a bit thick so again, CO2 remains in the atmosphere a long time

This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years.

So it isn't just last years CO2 emissions that are warming Canada.

This is a much more appropriate timescale

If we extend our timeline back to 1750 and total up how much CO2 each country has emitted to date, we calculate each nation’s ‘cumulative emissions’.

If we fast-forward to the accumulated totals we see today, the US and Europe dominate in terms of cumulative emissions. China’s rapid growth in emissions over the last few decades now makes it the world’s second largest cumulative emitter, although it still comes in at less than 50% of the US total.

So in fact America is responsible for over twice as much CO2 as China.
But wait it gets better.

The key drawback of measuring the total national emissions is that it takes no account of the nation's population size. China is currently the world’s largest emitter, but since it also has the largest population, all being equal we would expect this to be the case. To make a fair comparison of contributions, we have to therefore compare emissions in terms of CO2 emitted per person.

Let's just say, per person American's have been, and still are extremely bad.
Let's look here starting in 1950 to match the timescale in the summary and report. You can slide it yourself to see that the US is bright red on the map for every year and China barely breaks into the oranges. America's CO2 per person is over double China's even now. And don't forget you started at 16 tonnes when China was at less than 1.

And all of that says nothing about how laughably inaccurate your 'climate modelling' is. Blaming China because of the wind patterns LOL. This is just you not even using the correct data.
You are a complete joke on this topic WindBourne.

How fucking ignorant are you?

I mean, shit, this guy is pushing an agenda, but the photographs aren't exactly invented:
https://www.theguardian.com/co...

What delicate descriptions, this article reviews the abuses by for-profit corporation of the penal labor system.

It's more accurate to say that the EU is very late trying to take care of something that's the direct result of its own policies.

Just gonna' leave this here...

It's pretty impossible that complex reasoning, creativity, social and emotional intelligence, and sensory perception will ever be done by a machine.

I mean, all that machines can do for creativity now is create art in multiple styles including abstract weirdness like Dali, create photorealistic art based on crude drawings supplied as source material, write shitty stories, and create pop songs. There's no way that they will ever do more than that in the future, right?

I'm sure that they will never be able to sense emotions in people, nor will they replace a therapist. We certainly won't try to get AI to determine if people are likely to be criminals or re-offend if they have been convicted before.

Computers definitely will never be able to see and sort things, smell, recognize songs, or have a sense of touch or feel pain.

It's one thing to lay out soft skills that a lot of people don't have and say that's where jobs lie in the future. It's a whole different ballgame to ignore the fact that computers are already making inroads there, and already are better than some percent of the population at those things. Unless the authors are expecting technology to suddenly go in reverse, they're packing bags for a ship that's already sailed.

It's similar in the UK. Wales and Scotland made the switch almost a decade ago, England followed a few years later. You can still buy a disposable plastic bag for 5p, but you don't get one for free. Plastic bag usage dropped 85% since that law was introduced. Here, most people take reuseable bags (not the low-quality ones that shops sell at the checkout, something a bit more sturdy). A lot of companies have realised that this is a good marketing opportunity and now hand out sturdy canvas bags at recruiting events and similar.

Oh, and while most shops do sell thicker plastic bags that you can trade in for a replacement when they wear out, most people here carry their shopping in something a bit more sturdy (fabric, canvas or higher-quality plastic bags).

People who have that problem don't really like it, it seems.

I'm pretty sure the punch a commie remark was a parody of the Left's infamous "punch a Nazi" meme.

But I'm going to throw out a radical idea here and advocate that it's not okay to go around punching either one.

Oh yeah, the Chinese are famous for their love of Africans.

No, not per capita. Per violent criminal, possibly, depending on which stats you use. We don't have good statistics on police shootings OR violent crime rates though. Using numbers from the NCVS for 2012-2015 and The Guardian's list of police shootings in 2015-2016
. 4,847,887 total violent crimes with a perp group of pers with a single known race.
1,324,270 violent crimes committed by blacks.
2,557,910 violent crimes committed by whites.
307 + 266 = 573 Blacks shot by cops, rate is .00043
584 + 574 = 1158 whites, rate is .00045

Those rates are close enough that I'd say the police are fairly even handed in their brutality, and mostly aren't gun happy. Not even 1 in a thousand violent criminals get shot. Unfortunately, numbers over 3 years shouldn't be directly combined with numbers for 2 years of which only one overlaps, but that's what I've got. 2015 alone has roughtly the same, while 2016 is wildly different. I used to use an older measure of violent crime, because prior to 2017 the last time violent crimes by race were included in the NCVS was 2006 IIRC.

I could go to the UCR, but then I have to limit it to homicides to get race of offender, and relative homicide rates did NOT track relative violent crime rates the last time I checked. The latter is measured by victim surveys, the former is for crimes where the victim obviously can't answer. That doesn't even get into simpson's paradox issues, where certain areas have different crime rates and shooting rates, and it's possible for the overall trend to be magnified OR reversed in every jurisdiction. And of course the fact that counting crimes does not count criminals, since one person can victimize multiple people. And not all violent crimes are the same.

I think Andrew Wheeler's plan is to follow the example of Brazil and wait until there's a dam holding toxic waste that breaks thus providing lots of money and jobs to whoever cleans it up...

They will clean it up, right?

We've successfully brought back indentured servitude. This will go nicely with those Debtors Prisons we bought back years ago and the modern slavery this is prison labor.

Relative to cargo ships (emission equivalent of 50,000,000 cars) and maritime waste due to environmental policies of certain leading export countries, this is relatively unimportant.

Instead, perhaps we could focus on reducing our practice of shipping raw materials via cargo ships to countries without environmental regulations or labor laws. Currently, these countries manufacture many of our goods at a much lower cost - by dumping waste into the ocean, employing children, and using components that are known by the state of California to cause cancer.

Then they burn even more oil to ship the finished product back to our country.

Here's an extremely understated introduction to the problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (all the statistics cited are from the International Maritime Organization, and are substantially lower than what is now (12 years ago) known: https://www.theguardian.com/en... )

1- Name one place it's been tried and didn't turn to shit (as seen in Vancouver)

You might look at Portugal, as that they pretty much legalized/decriminalized all drugs...and they have actually had a positive result.

I"m surprised more countries don't start looking at their model.

Hey, I'm not the one defending the party that does this:

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

And forgetting to mention the primary target of the holocaust because others were also targeted isn't "watering it down?"

Conservative bad-faith false-equivalence ultra-hypocrisy is so tiresome.

1988 James Hansen New York will be Under Water in 20-30 years

https://www.salon.com/2001/10/...

1989 UN we have 12 years to save the planet

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c37...

1989 New York Times NOAA (No warming trend over the past 100 years )

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/0...

2000 Snowfalls are a thing of the past

https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp...

2005 UN we will have 50 million climate refugees by 2010

http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

2009 James Hansen, Obama Has 4 years to save the planet

https://www.theguardian.com/en...

2018 UN Only 12 years left to save the planet

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07...

2019 Greenland Glacier Reverses Decline.

Proof of this? Seriously, I have seen this presented as "fact" without any actual proof.

I noticed you blithely ignored the very real evidence already posted regarding hafrada, in amongst justifying the murder of palestinian civilians.

But since you're still bleating on about proof: It's enshrined in their fucking law. Is that enough fucking proof for you?
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

What do you expect, for the Jews to just say "murder as many of us as you want?"

I don't give a flying fuck what the Jews do. I expect the Government of Israel to stop killing civilians, to withdraw from illegally held territories and to stop fucking settling in them, displacing the native populations.

What the fuck does that have to do with Jews you racist shit.

It's been all over the news n and off and you act like it never happened. No wonder you support Brexit: reality just doesn't fit your worldview.

https://www.theguardian.com/co...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-...

https://www.theguardian.com/po...

https://www.electoralcommissio...

Now I'm sure you'll either uiently slink away and pretend you never commented ot tell me why electon fraud is jsut fine really and we should honour the results of a tainted election.

It's been all over the news n and off and you act like it never happened. No wonder you support Brexit: reality just doesn't fit your worldview.

https://www.theguardian.com/co...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-...

https://www.theguardian.com/po...

https://www.electoralcommissio...

Now I'm sure you'll either uiently slink away and pretend you never commented ot tell me why electon fraud is jsut fine really and we should honour the results of a tainted election.

Right now, China is the world’s largest consumer of agricultural antibiotics, out-dosing even the US by eight tonnes to every one. A 2013 study by the Chinese Academy of Sciences found that 162,000 tons of antibiotics are consumed in China each year, with 52% going to animal husbandry. In the US, 70% of antibiotics amounting to 10,000 tons are consumed by livestock each year.
As that shows, China is using around 80,000 TONS of antibiotics for humans and another 82,000 TONS for animals.
OTOH, America uses around 14,000 tons of antibiotics, of which around 10,000 tons is used on farms. America uses 1/8 of the anti-biotics on Ag that China uses, even though we grow slightly just less than China does (America exports a lot of Ag). And when it comes to human use, we are doing 5% of what China uses, even though America is 20% of the population size of China.

So, here is another lie racked up by Caffeinated Bacon(Crimson Tsunami).
When do you stop?

India is one of the worst affected nations by antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a condition wherein bacteria and other microorganisms become resistant to antimicrobial medications used to cure the infections that these microorganisms cause.

India IS one of the worst. In fact, I have a cousin-in-law that is working in India to get villages to use soap/water after using latrines. Diarrhea is a MAJOR killer throughout Asia, namely India and China.

However, here is a article that is 9 months old. Right now, China is the world’s largest consumer of agricultural antibiotics, out-dosing even the US by eight tonnes to every one. A 2013 study by the Chinese Academy of Sciences found that 162,000 tons of antibiotics are consumed in China each year, with 52% going to animal husbandry. In the US, 70% of antibiotics amounting to 10,000 tons are consumed by livestock each year.
As that shows, China is using around 80,000 TONS of antibiotics for humans and another 82,000 TONS for animals.
OTOH, America uses around 14,000 tons of antibiotics, of which around 10,000 tons is used on farms. America uses 1/8 of the anti-biotics on Ag that China uses, even though we grow slightly less than China does. And when it comes to human use, we are doing 5% of what China uses, even though America is 20% of the population size of China.

I posted this comment. It has been modded down: The British government is VERY poorly managed.

One example: The EU leave campaign has dishonesty at its core-- and it hasn't convinced us. (Mar. 11, 2016, not 2019)

Brexit: All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU (Jan. 31, 2019)

In general, the British government has presented low-level details, and not generally helped citizens have a serious, in-depth understanding.

More than 4 million sign Brexit petition to revoke article 50.

See the Petition. 4,392,160 signatures at Saturday, March 23, 2019, 09:11 am Pacific Time.

who for some reason selectively gets all triggered by swastikas and people calling for genocide

FTFY. PewDiePie's mistake was that he hadn't accrued sufficient progressive grievance monger credentials prior to exhibiting his supposed antisemitism. Competent antisemites have no difficulty once they've properly immunized themselves.

Rowling doesn't play to the progressive crowd, she trolls homophobes by making hot gay sex canon in Harry Potter.

It's transparent pandering and it deserves all the ridicule anyone cares to inflict. Besides, what's wrong with homophobia if indulging such sensitivities interfere with displacing deplorables?

The damage this kind of stuff will do to their brand is massive and it's already affected their sales, Garuda (an Indonesian airline) just cancelled their order of 48 planes. That alone will cost them over half a billion.

And yet the executives involved will likely still get their bonuses, and any that lose their jobs over this will have golden parachutes. The costs of all of these may well be higher than the cost of making the additional safety features standard would have been.

So who is "they" in this context? Boeing or Lion Air/Ethiopian Airlines?
Who was scrimping and saving?
Hint: It wasn't Boeing...

Boeing certainly wasn't scrimping, they were being greedy by selling critical safety features for a few more bucks, and it's now backfired on and cost not only hundreds of lives but hundreds of millions and likely billions in lost sales and upcoming legal costs (Norwegian has already said they're suing for the costs that the grounding will cause them, others will surely follow).

The damage this kind of stuff will do to their brand is massive and it's already affected their sales, Garuda (an Indonesian airline) just cancelled their order of 48 planes. That alone will cost them over half a billion. And it gets worse: Only 381 planes have been delivered so far, less than 10 % of all existing orders. If more airlines start to follow suit as they probably will because the brand of the plane is now seriously damaged and people don't want to fly it (understandably) it might cause the entire plane to be unprofitable for them.

From both a business and product design standpoint they could not have made a more moronic decision, this is a godsend to their competitors, and I can bet you that the sales and marketing department of Airbus are currently ecstatic over this.

Here's a blog (with a link to a published paper) discussing the error and it's incidence in neuroscience: https://www.theguardian.com/co...

Basically, imagine you've got a control group and two different treatments. You determine that treatment group A is not significantly different than control, but treatment group B is. So you conclude that treatment B works better than treatment A. Implicitly, you've assumed that the non-significance of group B means "no difference" or at least "less difference." Both of these options are fallacies.

That *seems* like a silly example, except that it's present in so many papers. But the error can be much more subtle. Have you ever seen a pair of fMRI images side by side, with blobs on one that aren't on the other? fMRI "scans" are actually statistical maps (a t-test per pixel, hopefully mostly corrected for multiple comparisons) with the coloured blobs indicating p some threshold like 0.05. Comparing two of them is committing the difference of differences sin on a massive scale.

The BfR report, which was the basis for at least the EU reports was largely copied from Monsanto texts without listing those as sources: https://www.theguardian.com/en... . Given that Monsanto is far from a neutral party in this it makes the contents look rather suspect. Best case the guy in charge of the report was too lazy to do his job right, worst case he got a preprinted conclusion and only filled in some blanks.

I wasn't aware of that accusation, thanks for the interesting dive. The skeptic in me does however first want to raise a few red flags in the reporting done by The Guardian's author Arthur Neslen. First of all, a surprising amount of them cover glyphosate and Monsanto:
[2015/jul/15]
[2015/nov/12]
[2016/jan/13]
[2016/mar/04]
[2016/may/16]
[2016/may/17]
[2017/may/24]
[2017/sep/15]
[2017/sep/28]
[2019/jan/15]
[2018/may/16]

These articles show a consistent style, giving undue weight by never reporting on the scientific consensus, and instead promoting the minority view of politicians, Greenpeace members, other environmental activists and study authors to criticize glyphosate, and often giving them a chance to rebut the few token sentences given by those defending glyphosate.

I note that the style is completely different for another The Guardian author, which even mentions the views of other regulatory agencies than IARC and BfR, and presents a case for why the 4,300 page report (see [2017/sep/15]) contains copied texts from the Glyphosate Task Force in a non-sensationalist way.

The plagiarism claim was also denied by BfR; and at the end of the article you linked, Arthur Neslen again was uncritical of the article's last cited study in which glyphosate is criticized, where the possible conflict of interest of the organic food researcher Charles M. Benbrook isn't even mentioned.

I meant mostly that citing each one was pointless since they just repeat the conclusions of the same review(s). Listing all of them makes it look as if you had veri

The BfR report, which was the basis for at least the EU reports was largely copied from Monsanto texts without listing those as sources: https://www.theguardian.com/en... . Given that Monsanto is far from a neutral party in this it makes the contents look rather suspect. Best case the guy in charge of the report was too lazy to do his job right, worst case he got a preprinted conclusion and only filled in some blanks.

I wasn't aware of that accusation, thanks for the interesting dive. The skeptic in me does however first want to raise a few red flags in the reporting done by The Guardian's author Arthur Neslen. First of all, a surprising amount of them cover glyphosate and Monsanto:
[2015/jul/15]
[2015/nov/12]
[2016/jan/13]
[2016/mar/04]
[2016/may/16]
[2016/may/17]
[2017/may/24]
[2017/sep/15]
[2017/sep/28]
[2019/jan/15]
[2018/may/16]

These articles show a consistent style, giving undue weight by never reporting on the scientific consensus, and instead promoting the minority view of politicians, Greenpeace members, other environmental activists and study authors to criticize glyphosate, and often giving them a chance to rebut the few token sentences given by those defending glyphosate.

I note that the style is completely different for another The Guardian author, which even mentions the views of other regulatory agencies than IARC and BfR, and presents a case for why the 4,300 page report (see [2017/sep/15]) contains copied texts from the Glyphosate Task Force in a non-sensationalist way.

The plagiarism claim was also denied by BfR; and at the end of the article you linked, Arthur Neslen again was uncritical of the article's last cited study in which glyphosate is criticized, where the possible conflict of interest of the organic food researcher Charles M. Benbrook isn't even mentioned.

I meant mostly that citing each one was pointless since they just repeat the conclusions of the same review(s). Listing all of them makes it look as if you had veri

The BfR report, which was the basis for at least the EU reports was largely copied from Monsanto texts without listing those as sources: https://www.theguardian.com/en... . Given that Monsanto is far from a neutral party in this it makes the contents look rather suspect. Best case the guy in charge of the report was too lazy to do his job right, worst case he got a preprinted conclusion and only filled in some blanks.

I wasn't aware of that accusation, thanks for the interesting dive. The skeptic in me does however first want to raise a few red flags in the reporting done by The Guardian's author Arthur Neslen. First of all, a surprising amount of them cover glyphosate and Monsanto:
[2015/jul/15]
[2015/nov/12]
[2016/jan/13]
[2016/mar/04]
[2016/may/16]
[2016/may/17]
[2017/may/24]
[2017/sep/15]
[2017/sep/28]
[2019/jan/15]
[2018/may/16]

These articles show a consistent style, giving undue weight by never reporting on the scientific consensus, and instead promoting the minority view of politicians, Greenpeace members, other environmental activists and study authors to criticize glyphosate, and often giving them a chance to rebut the few token sentences given by those defending glyphosate.

I note that the style is completely different for another The Guardian author, which even mentions the views of other regulatory agencies than IARC and BfR, and presents a case for why the 4,300 page report (see [2017/sep/15]) contains copied texts from the Glyphosate Task Force in a non-sensationalist way.

The plagiarism claim was also denied by BfR; and at the end of the article you linked, Arthur Neslen again was uncritical of the article's last cited study in which glyphosate is criticized, where the possible conflict of interest of the organic food researcher Charles M. Benbrook isn't even mentioned.

I meant mostly that citing each one was pointless since they just repeat the conclusions of the same review(s). Listing all of them makes it look as if you had veri

The BfR report, which was the basis for at least the EU reports was largely copied from Monsanto texts without listing those as sources: https://www.theguardian.com/en... . Given that Monsanto is far from a neutral party in this it makes the contents look rather suspect. Best case the guy in charge of the report was too lazy to do his job right, worst case he got a preprinted conclusion and only filled in some blanks.

I wasn't aware of that accusation, thanks for the interesting dive. The skeptic in me does however first want to raise a few red flags in the reporting done by The Guardian's author Arthur Neslen. First of all, a surprising amount of them cover glyphosate and Monsanto:
[2015/jul/15]
[2015/nov/12]
[2016/jan/13]
[2016/mar/04]
[2016/may/16]
[2016/may/17]
[2017/may/24]
[2017/sep/15]
[2017/sep/28]
[2019/jan/15]
[2018/may/16]

These articles show a consistent style, giving undue weight by never reporting on the scientific consensus, and instead promoting the minority view of politicians, Greenpeace members, other environmental activists and study authors to criticize glyphosate, and often giving them a chance to rebut the few token sentences given by those defending glyphosate.

I note that the style is completely different for another The Guardian author, which even mentions the views of other regulatory agencies than IARC and BfR, and presents a case for why the 4,300 page report (see [2017/sep/15]) contains copied texts from the Glyphosate Task Force in a non-sensationalist way.

The plagiarism claim was also denied by BfR; and at the end of the article you linked, Arthur Neslen again was uncritical of the article's last cited study in which glyphosate is criticized, where the possible conflict of interest of the organic food researcher Charles M. Benbrook isn't even mentioned.

I meant mostly that citing each one was pointless since they just repeat the conclusions of the same review(s). Listing all of them makes it look as if you had veri

The BfR report, which was the basis for at least the EU reports was largely copied from Monsanto texts without listing those as sources: https://www.theguardian.com/en... . Given that Monsanto is far from a neutral party in this it makes the contents look rather suspect. Best case the guy in charge of the report was too lazy to do his job right, worst case he got a preprinted conclusion and only filled in some blanks.

I wasn't aware of that accusation, thanks for the interesting dive. The skeptic in me does however first want to raise a few red flags in the reporting done by The Guardian's author Arthur Neslen. First of all, a surprising amount of them cover glyphosate and Monsanto:
[2015/jul/15]
[2015/nov/12]
[2016/jan/13]
[2016/mar/04]
[2016/may/16]
[2016/may/17]
[2017/may/24]
[2017/sep/15]
[2017/sep/28]
[2019/jan/15]
[2018/may/16]

These articles show a consistent style, giving undue weight by never reporting on the scientific consensus, and instead promoting the minority view of politicians, Greenpeace members, other environmental activists and study authors to criticize glyphosate, and often giving them a chance to rebut the few token sentences given by those defending glyphosate.

I note that the style is completely different for another The Guardian author, which even mentions the views of other regulatory agencies than IARC and BfR, and presents a case for why the 4,300 page report (see [2017/sep/15]) contains copied texts from the Glyphosate Task Force in a non-sensationalist way.

The plagiarism claim was also denied by BfR; and at the end of the article you linked, Arthur Neslen again was uncritical of the article's last cited study in which glyphosate is criticized, where the possible conflict of interest of the organic food researcher Charles M. Benbrook isn't even mentioned.

I meant mostly that citing each one was pointless since they just repeat the conclusions of the same review(s). Listing all of them makes it look as if you had veri

The BfR report, which was the basis for at least the EU reports was largely copied from Monsanto texts without listing those as sources: https://www.theguardian.com/en... . Given that Monsanto is far from a neutral party in this it makes the contents look rather suspect. Best case the guy in charge of the report was too lazy to do his job right, worst case he got a preprinted conclusion and only filled in some blanks.

I wasn't aware of that accusation, thanks for the interesting dive. The skeptic in me does however first want to raise a few red flags in the reporting done by The Guardian's author Arthur Neslen. First of all, a surprising amount of them cover glyphosate and Monsanto:
[2015/jul/15]
[2015/nov/12]
[2016/jan/13]
[2016/mar/04]
[2016/may/16]
[2016/may/17]
[2017/may/24]
[2017/sep/15]
[2017/sep/28]
[2019/jan/15]
[2018/may/16]

These articles show a consistent style, giving undue weight by never reporting on the scientific consensus, and instead promoting the minority view of politicians, Greenpeace members, other environmental activists and study authors to criticize glyphosate, and often giving them a chance to rebut the few token sentences given by those defending glyphosate.

I note that the style is completely different for another The Guardian author, which even mentions the views of other regulatory agencies than IARC and BfR, and presents a case for why the 4,300 page report (see [2017/sep/15]) contains copied texts from the Glyphosate Task Force in a non-sensationalist way.

The plagiarism claim was also denied by BfR; and at the end of the article you linked, Arthur Neslen again was uncritical of the article's last cited study in which glyphosate is criticized, where the possible conflict of interest of the organic food researcher Charles M. Benbrook isn't even mentioned.

I meant mostly that citing each one was pointless since they just repeat the conclusions of the same review(s). Listing all of them makes it look as if you had veri