At least that's how they explained it to us in BIO 101. (Yes I realize it was probably a massive simplification.) The idea was that the Y chromosome has almost nothing on it and is little more than a female to male switch. (All the info for creating a male body are else where in the genome.) If that's sort of correct that means it doesn't really matter if the Y chromosome changes since all it has to get across is the signal "You male, UGG"
If the Y contained nothing, then males would inherit exactly zero traits from their fathers.
The way I understand it, and IANAGeneticist, is that the Y chromosome has roughly 75% of the genes as the X. The Y is basically an X with one of the bottom legs cut off. This is why baldness, for example, is inherited from your mother. The gene that determines baldness is located on that leg that cut off. This is also why women are much less likely to go bald. The gene is recessive, meaning that even if women get the baldness gene from their mothers, there's a chance that they may not get it from dad. I believe color blindness works the same way.
"Darwin Award" winners are pretty overwhelmingly male.
Evolution is driven by mutation. The vast majority of mutations are not beneficial. The fact that these Darwin Award winners are male only adds evidence that males are evolving at a faster pace than females.
Fortunately, in order to truly be a Darwin Award winner, you must remove yourself from the gene pool. The Darwin Awards show that evolution works!
What you neglect to mention is that products sprayed with Bt have a period of 2 weeks before they can be eaten by people, as the toxin itself then breaks down into byproducts that aren't harmful. If it's inside of the corn and not exposed to air, it may slow down said breakdown, and it can also mean that by law, there is nothing preventing companies from selling it within that 2 week period.
Not true. Crops can be sprayed with Bt and harvested same day. From HERE:
Bonide Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) is a bacterium which is selectively toxic to many moth and butterfly larvae (caterpillars). The insects stop feeding and die within 2 to 3 days of ingestion. There is no residue problem, and being exempt from tolerance requirements, this product may be applied at the recommended amounts up to the day of harvest.
Monsanto had their way, apparently for years, in that they had this information and had no obligation until now to release it to the public. The same public, mind you, that is nearly forced into eating their foods containing these products. Go look for non-GM labeled foods in a supermarket in the US. It's just a bit hard to find them, considering there's no requirement to label either way.
I agree that these foods should be heavily tested by a neutral, independent body and labeled as such. The problem is that GM food gets lumped together. People do not protest against Monsanto GM foods. The protest against GM food altogether and hand out pamphlets that will describe this corn as "GM foods"
First, you seem to accept that there's no absolutes -- considered organic, not is organic -- then you say with absolute certainty that it's not the chemical that's the problem.
What I meant is that it meets the standards set forth by whatever body determines what may and may not be labeled as organic as being organic. Using Bt to kill tomato hornworms will not make a farmer lose is "organic" credentials. Using something like Sevin will.
The system needs balances, yes, and while there is a balance of sorts, it's extremists on both sides.
Of course. The problem is that I can't tell who's winning. I'm pretty middle of the road here to slightly pro-GM (although, everything in my garden is 100% natural, planted from seeds from last year's crop). I have no problem eating GM foods as long as it's been tested. In this case it appears that Monsanto is in the wrong here, but I assume that this was tested on humans. The problem is that I can only assume as this article did not link to any (that I found while skimming).
I think we can both agree that we need a neutral independent body to test any food that we eat to ensure its safety. One that does neither assumes that GM is safe, nor assumes that it's poison.
(And funny if they had the same images for months on end without the monitor watchers noticing anything odd. The article doesn't make it too clear whether the practice was occasional or continuous. Or if it was still images or video loops.)
(In a strong Russian accent) Every day it's the same thing; the same people, same things happen, even the weather is the same. It's like that movie made by those American pigs "Groundhog day" except here in formerly Soviet Russia, it's not a movie, it's real life.
1. If you RTFA you'd see that Greenpeace lawyers had to go to great lengths and fight a mess of court battles to get at the data that shows this problem.
Greenpeace and the court system are part of the system.
2. This corn is out in the food supply, and its not impossible that cross-pollination/etc is causing it to spread to other food sources. 3. I have no way of determining in the supermarket if either of these 3 varieties, or varieties which include these proteins, are present in the package of corn I'm about to buy.... Doesn't it bug you that all those left wing GM-hating nutjobs were RIGHT?
It's out in the food supply? I guess we've had hundreds of deaths due to organ failure over this then. No? Well surely someone, somewhere in the world has gotten at least a runny nose over this. No? Well, if no one died, and no one has gotten sick and tons of this stuff has been eaten by humans all over the world, then I'd guess that this product is safe. So, no. Those GM-hating nutjobs are NOT right.
However, PETA may have a case.
This is _exactly_ what we feared would happen. Its not the idea of GM we hate. Its Monsanto. And You. And all the other idiots who don't take a second to think about what MIGHT happen if poor oversight is mixed with singleminded financial motivation.
What did you fear would happen? Tests would show that rats can't eat corn that releases Bt toxin? (Bt, by the way, is considered organic and completely harmless to humans, pets and beneficial insects. The problem is either in the quantity of Bt toxin fed to the rats or something else in the corn.)
I agree that tests should be done by a neutral entity to anything sold as food and this is proof that more is needed. However, the problem is that groups will use this as an example as to why it's better to let your people starve than to take a chance on any GM foods. That's the tragedy. It doesn't matter how safe a GM food may be, groups like Greenpeace will do what they can to oppose it. Frankly, I'm glad they do as they are part of the checks and balances that make the system work. However, they should not get their way, just as companies like Monsanto shouldn't get their way. We need a balance.
This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.
And the distinction is unnecessary if you just make sure the food is safe for long term use.
No. It won't matter. There are safe GM foods that have been feeding people for hundreds of years, but it only takes one to go wrong that will cause even the safe GM foods to banned. There was a case where an African country turned down free GM food and allowed their people to starve because some hippie-eco-group convinced the government that GM food was poison.
Also, note that the "pesticide" in question is Bt toxin. Bt stands for bacillus thuringiensis. Bt is used in mosquito dunks, pesticide sprays and several other applications. It is not just considered safe for humans, animals and beneficial insects, but is even considered to be ORGANIC! You can spray your crops all day and night with millions of gallons of Bt and not lose your organic certification.
That's the key: the problem is not the fact that this plant was genetically modified, but rather the specific proteins that it was engineered to produce.
This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.
Sad that this was modded down because, unfortunately, it's true. The call will be "GM food kills", not "research has shown that some proteins that can be grown in highly modified corn caused organ damage in laboratory rats."
I have an alergy to sunlight, usually when emerging from a dark room into bright sunlight my eyes water, my nose goes ichy and I sneeze sometimes. It lasts a few minutes until my eyes adjust. I always thought this was a natural normal reaction and thought nothing of it, indeed it makes sense that your eyes water in bright light. But no, when I mentioned to a professional, apparently it's common but not normal and has been diagnosed as an alergy.
You are 100% correct. Unfortunately, no amount of correctness gives you the right to be an asshole.
This guy's doctor probably said it was an allergy because that is exactly how it acts. I have the same problem, and my wife, who is also in the medical field, didn't believe me when I told her the problem was sunlight. She told me that I had to have some sort of allergy to something outdoors. Explaining that it wasn't a problem at night, on cloudy days, or when I wear sunglasses didn't matter. She said it had to be an allergy because it has all the symptoms of an allergy and no one has that type of allergic reaction to sunlight. It wasn't until she saw my brother and daughter have same issue that she finally believed me. Well, that and 30 seconds of googling.
So, just because this guys doctor said it was an allergy doesn't mean you have to go off on him or his doctor, at least not until you become a GP yourself. His doctor just found that this was as easy an explanation as any for something he really didn't have an answer as to why it happens that is not going to cause any harm.
Given that YOU paid for the frigging arcade machine already, and YOU paid for the floor space, they should cost *less* to play than Pac Man or Dig Dug. Not more.
Well, to be fair, Microsoft did sell that "friggin arcade machine" to you at a loss with the idea that they would make their money back on inflated game prices.
Disclaimer: I am a Linux user. My 360 was a gift. So far, I have purchased one game for $1.00 at Gamestop.
Oh wait! Are those the same models that were used to predict a steady increase in global temperatures? You know, the ones that didn't predict the coldest winter the northern hemisphere in decades or more?
Does the term "ensemble average" mean anything to you?
Does the phrase, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics" mean anything to you?
Or maybe you could step back and realize that no GCM predicts monotonic warming, that there's a difference between local weather and the global climate, and that reading crackpot websites isn't a substitute for a graduate education in climate physics?
So when you say local weather, do you mean like, the northern hemisphere? I ask because that's the half that's in winter now and is what I was referring to. You don't need a graduate education in geology to know that.
I'm going to ignore the rabid conspiracy theories you're presenting. As a scientist who sees a lot of evidence that our CO2 emissions are changing the climate, you'd probably just dismiss me as lying scum with a political agenda anyway.
But just in case someone else reads this, greenhouse warming models predict cooling and contraction of the stratosphere. The cooling is predicted to be strongest between altitudes of 40 and 50km.
The quick explanation is that greenhouse warming shifts the effective radiating layer of the planet to a lower altitude. As a result, the surface warms but the stratosphere cools. In fact, I consider this good evidence for the link between CO2 and increasing global temperatures. No other single cause warms the Earth from the surface like a greenhouse gas. (For example, an increase in solar illumination wouldn't have this effect.)
So if it warms, it's global warming. If it doesn't warm, it's well trained global warming.
That's what thousands of articles in peer-reviewed journals are -- which, like it or not, is the standard for science in this modern world.
The ball is in your court.
Were those the same journals that were threatened (and complied) that if they were to publish sceptic's arguments that the scientists would publish their findings elsewhere?
Yeah, that's not how peer review is supposed to work.
What you will not find is a consensus on how much it affects the global temperature.
Wrong. Climate sensitivity is expressed as the temperature increase due to a doubling of CO2. Modern estimates assign a maximum likelihood value of 2.9C, with a 95% confidence that it's less than 4.9C but greater than 1.7C.
Oh wait! Are those the same models that were used to predict a steady increase in global temperatures? You know, the ones that didn't predict the coldest winter the northern hemisphere in decades or more?
Sorry, but when I see stuff like what you just typed and the hockey stick graph and emails to shut out skeptics and scientists that call it a travesty when data doesn't match the models all while Britain just had its worst snowfall in 50 years, the midwest measuring snow by the foot, Iowa temps a full 30 degrees below normal, Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years, Vermont setting the 'all-time record for one snowstorm' and people are literally dying from the cold... you have to step back and wonder if you'd been had!
Seeing as how the scientific consensus is that there is a link between CO2 and global warming, YOU are the one who needs to prove there isn't one (and I seriously doubt you can show me any good evidence that there ISN'T a link, as 'a definite link' is what the facts show.)
You can't prove a negative. I thought you'd be smart enough to know that. Do you really need someone to post the link of the thousands of scientists who are not part of the consensus? Were you not paying attention when the emails were released trying to shut those scientists out of journals?
You really shouldn't accuse someone else of ignoring the evidence when you obviously have no problem ignoring it yourself.
Well, considering that anthropogenic climate change is probably a bigger threat in the long run than terrorism it's good that the CIA is helping.
I know. Maybe the CIA can help spin... explain how anthropogenic global warming is causing the worldwide Arctic blasts right now that are causing the coldest winter in decades worldwide, I'm glad the CIA is getting involved to help push the political agenda along. Nothing says "increase government power" like a worldwide spy agency. I wonder if we can get the KGB's assistance.
Funny how in the summer, it's anthropogenic global warming, but in the winter, it becomes anthropogenic climate change.
Seriously, as long as the data is honestly looked it at and made public and not "influenced" by any political factors, I'm all for it. Otherwise, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to twist the facts in order to push political agenda.
How do you do data entry, even touch screen, if you need both hands to hold it? If I want to put a computer on my lap, I'll buy a laptop. If I want a PDA, I'll use a PDA. A 2-handed PDA sucks.
You've never written on a clipboard? You hold it with one hand and write with the other.
The scientific process is bullet proof. The folks who "do science" not necessarily so.
What exactly are you advocating?
Maybe he is saying that as long as scientists stand behind science, they'll be fine when the bullets start flying. When they ignore science and try to do their own thing, they get a cap in their asses.
I still want to know how you use 100 times less material. So you have x amount of material, you use 100 times less than that:
x - 100x = -99x
It gives back 99 times the original amount? Hmmmm...
Maybe they meant to say that it uses one hundredth the amount of material? Nah, if they meant that they'd have said it correctly, right?
Actually, since the result is negative 99x, it returns 99 times the original amount in anti-material. You want to make sure you keep the two separate as 1x material will annihilate itself with 1x of anti-material (-1x) leaving you with just 98x anti-material and one Imperial buttload of energy.
Yeah, because fossil fuels are infinite and the only reason to pursue renewable energy is climate change. The DOE NREL was in existence long before global warming became a political issue; it was created in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s.
And Exxon was producing oil long before GW became a political issue and was still having to defend themselves from bat-shit-crazy-sky-is-falling-save-the-mother-earth hippies. So what's your point?
Psst: here's a shocking secret: the NSF has actual climate scientists on the review panels which supervise climate science funding. Some might say that's sensible, but no, I'm sure that's just another proof of "bias".
I'm sure they are not all biased. Hell, they might all be perfectly objective, but would you trust the board if the CEO of Exxon was a member? Would it make a difference if he were a climatologist?
Clue: "bias" doesn't mean "being remotely involved in climate science in some way". Simply being a climate scientist doesn't make you biased. In the case of fossil fuel companies, we have examples of them directly paying people's salaries to reach requested conclusions. That is very far from how NSF funding operates, as I already explained to you.
No, bias means having another job that pays you money to do something that could be helped or harmed by the decisions you make. First, let's get this straight. There is no logical difference between someone who works for a green energy company and someone who works for an oil company. They both sell energy. We could even say they compete. Now, given that, would you trust an oil company exec on the NSB? Of course not! So why should I accept a green energy exec on the NSB? There is no difference. And that is your problem and the problem that many of you AGW chicken little's have. You constantly bash "big-oil" and claim that anyone attached to them are not credible because "big-oil" makes money and intends to protect that money. OK, swap out "big-oil" with "green-energy" and the same argument is made. Big green makes tons of money. Just ask Al Gore! Shouldn't anyone associated with big-green be just as discredited as big-oil. Of course, you reject logic and say, "NO" and give some bullshit excuse that tries to paint these green guys as being white as the fallen snow. And you wonder why we say you are full of shit.
The National Science Board doesn't decide which proposals to NSF are funded, so your entire response is irrelevant. That being said, your response is still stupid even if they did make funding decisions, so let me eviscerate it further.
Sorry, dude, but you're wrong. You can make up your mind but you can't make up your own facts.
From the NSB About page:
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, which created the NSF, states that "The Foundation shall consist of a National Science Board... and a Director." Jointly the Board and the Director pursue the goals and function of the NSF, including the duty to "recommend and encourage the pursuit of national policies for the promotion of research and education in science and engineering."
In addition, The National Science Board has two important roles. First, it establishes the policies of NSF within the framework of applicable national policies set forth by the President and the Congress. In this capacity, the Board identifies issues that are critical to NSF's future, approves NSF's strategic budget directions and the annual budget submission to the Office of Management and Budget, and approves new major programs and awards. The second role of the Board is to serve as an independent body of advisors to both the President and Congress on national policy issues related to science and engineering research and education. In addition to major reports, the NSB also publishes occasional policy papers or statements on issues of importance to U.S. science and engineering.
So it appears that the NSB, which pretty much directs the NSF, takes it's orders from the president and congress. Then it turns around and advises the president and congress. In other words, the boss man comes in and tells the NSB what to work on. Then the NSB tells the prez and congress how to set policy to meet those goals. So it's like, "We need proof of AGW to sway public opinion." And their response is to fund scientists that say AGW is a problem and something must be done. Then the NSB/NSF advises congress that there is a problem and here are the policies needed to fix it.
Again, it's on the NSB's about page. It's their words, it's in black and white. Do not respond and tell me that they don't do what they plainly state on their home page. You said the NSF directs grants, not politicians. Well, now I've shown you that the NSB directs the NSF and the politicians direct the NSB. Again, in case you can't read bold, here it is again, "it establishes the policies of NSF within the framework of applicable national policies set forth by the President and the Congress.
So tell me again how politicians don't direct grants. I seem to be confused by the whole politicians controlling the NSB who directs the NSF.
I should qualify this by saying that scientists sometimes are hired by politicians, as science advisors, but I'm speaking about the vast majority of publishing scientists funded through the usual government agencies (and typically hired by universities).
Right, I didn't challenge that and went straight to the NSB. Of course, you wouldn't believe a scientist hired by Inhoffe. However, sometimes a scientist will make a discovery and THEN get hired by those that want to see his findings reported.
Yes, I believe we've had this discussion before. If not with you, I've had with someone else. Now, who is National Science Foundation? Or to be more accurate, who makes up the National Science Board? The list can be found HERE. Surely these guys are not biased. Surely their daytime jobs would not be affected by AGW research, right? Let's look at a member, shall we?
Dan E. Arvizu became the eighth Director of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) on January 15, 2005. NREL, located in Golden, Colorado, is the Department of Energy's primary laboratory for energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (Alliance). He is President of Alliance and also is an Executive Vice President with the Midwest Research Institute, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.
Hmmm... Director of the US Dept of Energy's Renewable Energy Laboratory. Gee, I wonder what would happen to his funding if we found out that AGW is not really a problem. I wonder what his views are concerning giving grants to those that seek to disprove the current "consensus" of AGW.
How about this guy?
G. Wayne Clough has been a member of the faculty at Duke University, Stanford University, Virginia Tech, and the University of Washington. At Virginia Tech, he served as Head of the Department of Civil Engineering and as Dean of the College of Engineering. In 1993, he was appointed Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs at the University of Washington, and in 1994 he became Georgia Tech's tenth president. In 2008 he was appointed the 12th Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
Hmmmm. The Smithsonian Institute? What do they have to do with Global Warming? Surely, they can be a non-biased source, right? Let's see.
Within the Smithsonian Institution, global change research is conducted at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, the National Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and the National Zoological Park. Research is organized around themes of atmospheric processes, ecosystem dynamics, observing natural and anthropogenic environmental change on daily to decadal time scales, and defining longer term climate proxies present in the historical artifacts and records of the museums as well as in the geologic record at field sites. The Smithsonian Institution program strives to improve knowledge of the natural processes involved in global climate change, to provide a long-term repository of climate-relevant research materials for present and future studies, and to bring this knowledge to various audiences, ranging from scholarly to the lay public. The unique contribution of the Smithsonian Institution is a long-term perspective; for example, undertaking investigations that may require extended study before producing useful results and conducting observations on sufficiently long (e.g., decadal) time scales to resolve human-caused modification of natural variability.
Well, crap. How about a meteorologist. Surely one can be non-biased. How about this guy. Surely, he has no vested interest in government money going to AGW research:
He also directs the Sasaki Institute, which is a non-profit organization at the University of Oklahoma that fosters the development and application of knowledge, policy, and advanced technology for the mutual benefit of the government, academic and private sectors.
Well, there you have it. I'm not saying that all the members are biased, but here are three that deal with AGW. Many of the others are professors of health, philosophy, communications and other none climate disciplines.
So, yeah, it appears that the NSB, the part of the NSF that directs funding, is quite biased toward research that supports AGW and have jobs that are threatened by research that may disprove AGW.
Slashdot Mirror
At least that's how they explained it to us in BIO 101. (Yes I realize it was probably a massive simplification.) The idea was that the Y chromosome has almost nothing on it and is little more than a female to male switch. (All the info for creating a male body are else where in the genome.) If that's sort of correct that means it doesn't really matter if the Y chromosome changes since all it has to get across is the signal "You male, UGG"
If the Y contained nothing, then males would inherit exactly zero traits from their fathers.
The way I understand it, and IANAGeneticist, is that the Y chromosome has roughly 75% of the genes as the X. The Y is basically an X with one of the bottom legs cut off. This is why baldness, for example, is inherited from your mother. The gene that determines baldness is located on that leg that cut off. This is also why women are much less likely to go bald. The gene is recessive, meaning that even if women get the baldness gene from their mothers, there's a chance that they may not get it from dad. I believe color blindness works the same way.
Yes, this is also a gross simplification.
"Darwin Award" winners are pretty overwhelmingly male.
Evolution is driven by mutation. The vast majority of mutations are not beneficial. The fact that these Darwin Award winners are male only adds evidence that males are evolving at a faster pace than females.
Fortunately, in order to truly be a Darwin Award winner, you must remove yourself from the gene pool. The Darwin Awards show that evolution works!
What you neglect to mention is that products sprayed with Bt have a period of 2 weeks before they can be eaten by people, as the toxin itself then breaks down into byproducts that aren't harmful. If it's inside of the corn and not exposed to air, it may slow down said breakdown, and it can also mean that by law, there is nothing preventing companies from selling it within that 2 week period.
Not true. Crops can be sprayed with Bt and harvested same day.
From HERE:
Bonide Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) is a bacterium which is selectively toxic to many moth and butterfly larvae (caterpillars). The insects stop feeding and die within 2 to 3 days of ingestion. There is no residue problem, and being exempt from tolerance requirements, this product may be applied at the recommended amounts up to the day of harvest.
More can be found in this PDF:
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/BTgen.pdf
Monsanto had their way, apparently for years, in that they had this information and had no obligation until now to release it to the public. The same public, mind you, that is nearly forced into eating their foods containing these products. Go look for non-GM labeled foods in a supermarket in the US. It's just a bit hard to find them, considering there's no requirement to label either way.
I agree that these foods should be heavily tested by a neutral, independent body and labeled as such. The problem is that GM food gets lumped together. People do not protest against Monsanto GM foods. The protest against GM food altogether and hand out pamphlets that will describe this corn as "GM foods"
First, you seem to accept that there's no absolutes -- considered organic, not is organic -- then you say with absolute certainty that it's not the chemical that's the problem.
What I meant is that it meets the standards set forth by whatever body determines what may and may not be labeled as organic as being organic. Using Bt to kill tomato hornworms will not make a farmer lose is "organic" credentials. Using something like Sevin will.
The system needs balances, yes, and while there is a balance of sorts, it's extremists on both sides.
Of course. The problem is that I can't tell who's winning. I'm pretty middle of the road here to slightly pro-GM (although, everything in my garden is 100% natural, planted from seeds from last year's crop). I have no problem eating GM foods as long as it's been tested. In this case it appears that Monsanto is in the wrong here, but I assume that this was tested on humans. The problem is that I can only assume as this article did not link to any (that I found while skimming).
I think we can both agree that we need a neutral independent body to test any food that we eat to ensure its safety. One that does neither assumes that GM is safe, nor assumes that it's poison.
(And funny if they had the same images for months on end without the monitor watchers noticing anything odd. The article doesn't make it too clear whether the practice was occasional or continuous. Or if it was still images or video loops.)
(In a strong Russian accent)
Every day it's the same thing; the same people, same things happen, even the weather is the same. It's like that movie made by those American pigs "Groundhog day" except here in formerly Soviet Russia, it's not a movie, it's real life.
So "The System Worked", uhh, how?
1. If you RTFA you'd see that Greenpeace lawyers had to go to great lengths and fight a mess of court battles to get at the data that shows this problem.
Greenpeace and the court system are part of the system.
2. This corn is out in the food supply, and its not impossible that cross-pollination/etc is causing it to spread to other food sources. ...
3. I have no way of determining in the supermarket if either of these 3 varieties, or varieties which include these proteins, are present in the package of corn I'm about to buy.
Doesn't it bug you that all those left wing GM-hating nutjobs were RIGHT?
It's out in the food supply? I guess we've had hundreds of deaths due to organ failure over this then. No? Well surely someone, somewhere in the world has gotten at least a runny nose over this. No? Well, if no one died, and no one has gotten sick and tons of this stuff has been eaten by humans all over the world, then I'd guess that this product is safe. So, no. Those GM-hating nutjobs are NOT right.
However, PETA may have a case.
This is _exactly_ what we feared would happen. Its not the idea of GM we hate. Its Monsanto. And You. And all the other idiots who don't take a second to think about what MIGHT happen if poor oversight is mixed with singleminded financial motivation.
What did you fear would happen? Tests would show that rats can't eat corn that releases Bt toxin? (Bt, by the way, is considered organic and completely harmless to humans, pets and beneficial insects. The problem is either in the quantity of Bt toxin fed to the rats or something else in the corn.)
I agree that tests should be done by a neutral entity to anything sold as food and this is proof that more is needed. However, the problem is that groups will use this as an example as to why it's better to let your people starve than to take a chance on any GM foods. That's the tragedy. It doesn't matter how safe a GM food may be, groups like Greenpeace will do what they can to oppose it. Frankly, I'm glad they do as they are part of the checks and balances that make the system work. However, they should not get their way, just as companies like Monsanto shouldn't get their way. We need a balance.
And the distinction is unnecessary if you just make sure the food is safe for long term use.
No. It won't matter. There are safe GM foods that have been feeding people for hundreds of years, but it only takes one to go wrong that will cause even the safe GM foods to banned. There was a case where an African country turned down free GM food and allowed their people to starve because some hippie-eco-group convinced the government that GM food was poison.
Also, note that the "pesticide" in question is Bt toxin. Bt stands for bacillus thuringiensis. Bt is used in mosquito dunks, pesticide sprays and several other applications. It is not just considered safe for humans, animals and beneficial insects, but is even considered to be ORGANIC! You can spray your crops all day and night with millions of gallons of Bt and not lose your organic certification.
That's the key: the problem is not the fact that this plant was genetically modified, but rather the specific proteins that it was engineered to produce.
This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.
Sad that this was modded down because, unfortunately, it's true. The call will be "GM food kills", not "research has shown that some proteins that can be grown in highly modified corn caused organ damage in laboratory rats."
Actually, it sounds like the system worked to me.
I have an alergy to sunlight, usually when emerging from a dark room into bright sunlight my eyes water, my nose goes ichy and I sneeze sometimes. It lasts a few minutes until my eyes adjust. I always thought this was a natural normal reaction and thought nothing of it, indeed it makes sense that your eyes water in bright light. But no, when I mentioned to a professional, apparently it's common but not normal and has been diagnosed as an alergy.
You are 100% correct. Unfortunately, no amount of correctness gives you the right to be an asshole.
This guy's doctor probably said it was an allergy because that is exactly how it acts. I have the same problem, and my wife, who is also in the medical field, didn't believe me when I told her the problem was sunlight. She told me that I had to have some sort of allergy to something outdoors. Explaining that it wasn't a problem at night, on cloudy days, or when I wear sunglasses didn't matter. She said it had to be an allergy because it has all the symptoms of an allergy and no one has that type of allergic reaction to sunlight. It wasn't until she saw my brother and daughter have same issue that she finally believed me. Well, that and 30 seconds of googling.
So, just because this guys doctor said it was an allergy doesn't mean you have to go off on him or his doctor, at least not until you become a GP yourself. His doctor just found that this was as easy an explanation as any for something he really didn't have an answer as to why it happens that is not going to cause any harm.
+1 Funny, +1 Insightful, +1 Inevitable.
Given that YOU paid for the frigging arcade machine already, and YOU paid for the floor space, they should cost *less* to play than Pac Man or Dig Dug. Not more.
Well, to be fair, Microsoft did sell that "friggin arcade machine" to you at a loss with the idea that they would make their money back on inflated game prices.
Disclaimer: I am a Linux user. My 360 was a gift. So far, I have purchased one game for $1.00 at Gamestop.
Oh wait! Are those the same models that were used to predict a steady increase in global temperatures? You know, the ones that didn't predict the coldest winter the northern hemisphere in decades or more?
Does the term "ensemble average" mean anything to you?
Does the phrase, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics" mean anything to you?
Or maybe you could step back and realize that no GCM predicts monotonic warming, that there's a difference between local weather and the global climate, and that reading crackpot websites isn't a substitute for a graduate education in climate physics?
So when you say local weather, do you mean like, the northern hemisphere? I ask because that's the half that's in winter now and is what I was referring to. You don't need a graduate education in geology to know that.
Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
Britain braced for heaviest snowfall in 50-years...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
I'm going to ignore the rabid conspiracy theories you're presenting. As a scientist who sees a lot of evidence that our CO2 emissions are changing the climate, you'd probably just dismiss me as lying scum with a political agenda anyway.
But just in case someone else reads this, greenhouse warming models predict cooling and contraction of the stratosphere. The cooling is predicted to be strongest between altitudes of 40 and 50km.
The quick explanation is that greenhouse warming shifts the effective radiating layer of the planet to a lower altitude. As a result, the surface warms but the stratosphere cools. In fact, I consider this good evidence for the link between CO2 and increasing global temperatures. No other single cause warms the Earth from the surface like a greenhouse gas. (For example, an increase in solar illumination wouldn't have this effect.)
So if it warms, it's global warming. If it doesn't warm, it's well trained global warming.
Did I get that right?
That's what thousands of articles in peer-reviewed journals are -- which, like it or not, is the standard for science in this modern world.
The ball is in your court.
Were those the same journals that were threatened (and complied) that if they were to publish sceptic's arguments that the scientists would publish their findings elsewhere?
Yeah, that's not how peer review is supposed to work.
Wrong. Climate sensitivity is expressed as the temperature increase due to a doubling of CO2. Modern estimates assign a maximum likelihood value of 2.9C, with a 95% confidence that it's less than 4.9C but greater than 1.7C.
Oh wait! Are those the same models that were used to predict a steady increase in global temperatures? You know, the ones that didn't predict the coldest winter the northern hemisphere in decades or more?
Sorry, but when I see stuff like what you just typed and the hockey stick graph and emails to shut out skeptics and scientists that call it a travesty when data doesn't match the models all while Britain just had its worst snowfall in 50 years, the midwest measuring snow by the foot, Iowa temps a full 30 degrees below normal, Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years, Vermont setting the 'all-time record for one snowstorm' and people are literally dying from the cold... you have to step back and wonder if you'd been had!
Seeing as how the scientific consensus is that there is a link between CO2 and global warming, YOU are the one who needs to prove there isn't one (and I seriously doubt you can show me any good evidence that there ISN'T a link, as 'a definite link' is what the facts show.)
You can't prove a negative. I thought you'd be smart enough to know that. Do you really need someone to post the link of the thousands of scientists who are not part of the consensus? Were you not paying attention when the emails were released trying to shut those scientists out of journals?
You really shouldn't accuse someone else of ignoring the evidence when you obviously have no problem ignoring it yourself.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
There! I disproved your "consensus". Now PROVE that AGW is real.
Well, considering that anthropogenic climate change is probably a bigger threat in the long run than terrorism it's good that the CIA is helping.
I know. Maybe the CIA can help spin... explain how anthropogenic global warming is causing the worldwide Arctic blasts right now that are causing the coldest winter in decades worldwide, I'm glad the CIA is getting involved to help push the political agenda along. Nothing says "increase government power" like a worldwide spy agency. I wonder if we can get the KGB's assistance.
Funny how in the summer, it's anthropogenic global warming, but in the winter, it becomes anthropogenic climate change.
Seriously, as long as the data is honestly looked it at and made public and not "influenced" by any political factors, I'm all for it. Otherwise, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to twist the facts in order to push political agenda.
How do you do data entry, even touch screen, if you need both hands to hold it? If I want to put a computer on my lap, I'll buy a laptop. If I want a PDA, I'll use a PDA. A 2-handed PDA sucks.
You've never written on a clipboard? You hold it with one hand and write with the other.
The scientific process is bullet proof. The folks who "do science" not necessarily so.
What exactly are you advocating?
Maybe he is saying that as long as scientists stand behind science, they'll be fine when the bullets start flying. When they ignore science and try to do their own thing, they get a cap in their asses.
Another "machines will take my job" story.
They took his job!
I still want to know how you use 100 times less material. So you have x amount of material, you use 100 times less than that:
x - 100x = -99x
It gives back 99 times the original amount? Hmmmm...
Maybe they meant to say that it uses one hundredth the amount of material? Nah, if they meant that they'd have said it correctly, right?
Actually, since the result is negative 99x, it returns 99 times the original amount in anti-material. You want to make sure you keep the two separate as 1x material will annihilate itself with 1x of anti-material (-1x) leaving you with just 98x anti-material and one Imperial buttload of energy.
Yeah, because fossil fuels are infinite and the only reason to pursue renewable energy is climate change. The DOE NREL was in existence long before global warming became a political issue; it was created in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s.
And Exxon was producing oil long before GW became a political issue and was still having to defend themselves from bat-shit-crazy-sky-is-falling-save-the-mother-earth hippies. So what's your point?
Psst: here's a shocking secret: the NSF has actual climate scientists on the review panels which supervise climate science funding. Some might say that's sensible, but no, I'm sure that's just another proof of "bias".
I'm sure they are not all biased. Hell, they might all be perfectly objective, but would you trust the board if the CEO of Exxon was a member? Would it make a difference if he were a climatologist?
Clue: "bias" doesn't mean "being remotely involved in climate science in some way". Simply being a climate scientist doesn't make you biased. In the case of fossil fuel companies, we have examples of them directly paying people's salaries to reach requested conclusions. That is very far from how NSF funding operates, as I already explained to you.
No, bias means having another job that pays you money to do something that could be helped or harmed by the decisions you make. First, let's get this straight. There is no logical difference between someone who works for a green energy company and someone who works for an oil company. They both sell energy. We could even say they compete. Now, given that, would you trust an oil company exec on the NSB? Of course not! So why should I accept a green energy exec on the NSB? There is no difference. And that is your problem and the problem that many of you AGW chicken little's have. You constantly bash "big-oil" and claim that anyone attached to them are not credible because "big-oil" makes money and intends to protect that money. OK, swap out "big-oil" with "green-energy" and the same argument is made. Big green makes tons of money. Just ask Al Gore! Shouldn't anyone associated with big-green be just as discredited as big-oil. Of course, you reject logic and say, "NO" and give some bullshit excuse that tries to paint these green guys as being white as the fallen snow. And you wonder why we say you are full of shit.
The National Science Board doesn't decide which proposals to NSF are funded, so your entire response is irrelevant. That being said, your response is still stupid even if they did make funding decisions, so let me eviscerate it further.
Sorry, dude, but you're wrong. You can make up your mind but you can't make up your own facts.
From the NSB About page:
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, which created the NSF, states that "The Foundation shall consist of a National Science Board ... and a Director." Jointly the Board and the Director pursue the goals and function of the NSF, including the duty to "recommend and encourage the pursuit of national policies for the promotion of research and education in science and engineering."
In addition, The National Science Board has two important roles. First, it establishes the policies of NSF within the framework of applicable national policies set forth by the President and the Congress. In this capacity, the Board identifies issues that are critical to NSF's future, approves NSF's strategic budget directions and the annual budget submission to the Office of Management and Budget, and approves new major programs and awards. The second role of the Board is to serve as an independent body of advisors to both the President and Congress on national policy issues related to science and engineering research and education. In addition to major reports, the NSB also publishes occasional policy papers or statements on issues of importance to U.S. science and engineering.
So it appears that the NSB, which pretty much directs the NSF, takes it's orders from the president and congress. Then it turns around and advises the president and congress. In other words, the boss man comes in and tells the NSB what to work on. Then the NSB tells the prez and congress how to set policy to meet those goals. So it's like, "We need proof of AGW to sway public opinion." And their response is to fund scientists that say AGW is a problem and something must be done. Then the NSB/NSF advises congress that there is a problem and here are the policies needed to fix it.
Again, it's on the NSB's about page. It's their words, it's in black and white. Do not respond and tell me that they don't do what they plainly state on their home page. You said the NSF directs grants, not politicians. Well, now I've shown you that the NSB directs the NSF and the politicians direct the NSB. Again, in case you can't read bold, here it is again, "it establishes the policies of NSF within the framework of applicable national policies set forth by the President and the Congress.
So tell me again how politicians don't direct grants. I seem to be confused by the whole politicians controlling the NSB who directs the NSF.
I should qualify this by saying that scientists sometimes are hired by politicians, as science advisors, but I'm speaking about the vast majority of publishing scientists funded through the usual government agencies (and typically hired by universities).
Right, I didn't challenge that and went straight to the NSB. Of course, you wouldn't believe a scientist hired by Inhoffe. However, sometimes a scientist will make a discovery and THEN get hired by those that want to see his findings reported.
Sorry, in my last post Kelvin K. Droegemeier's didn't make it. He is the meteorologist. His biography is here:
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/members/bio.jsp?pers=22472
Yes, I believe we've had this discussion before. If not with you, I've had with someone else. Now, who is National Science Foundation? Or to be more accurate, who makes up the National Science Board? The list can be found HERE. Surely these guys are not biased. Surely their daytime jobs would not be affected by AGW research, right? Let's look at a member, shall we?
Dan E. Arvizu became the eighth Director of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) on January 15, 2005. NREL, located in Golden, Colorado, is the Department of Energy's primary laboratory for energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (Alliance). He is President of Alliance and also is an Executive Vice President with the Midwest Research Institute, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.
Hmmm... Director of the US Dept of Energy's Renewable Energy Laboratory. Gee, I wonder what would happen to his funding if we found out that AGW is not really a problem. I wonder what his views are concerning giving grants to those that seek to disprove the current "consensus" of AGW.
How about this guy?
G. Wayne Clough has been a member of the faculty at Duke University, Stanford University, Virginia Tech, and the University of Washington. At Virginia Tech, he served as Head of the Department of Civil Engineering and as Dean of the College of Engineering. In 1993, he was appointed Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs at the University of Washington, and in 1994 he became Georgia Tech's tenth president. In 2008 he was appointed the 12th Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
Hmmmm. The Smithsonian Institute? What do they have to do with Global Warming? Surely, they can be a non-biased source, right? Let's see.
Within the Smithsonian Institution, global change research is conducted at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, the National Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and the National Zoological Park. Research is organized around themes of atmospheric processes, ecosystem dynamics, observing natural and anthropogenic environmental change on daily to decadal time scales, and defining longer term climate proxies present in the historical artifacts and records of the museums as well as in the geologic record at field sites. The Smithsonian Institution program strives to improve knowledge of the natural processes involved in global climate change, to provide a long-term repository of climate-relevant research materials for present and future studies, and to bring this knowledge to various audiences, ranging from scholarly to the lay public. The unique contribution of the Smithsonian Institution is a long-term perspective; for example, undertaking investigations that may require extended study before producing useful results and conducting observations on sufficiently long (e.g., decadal) time scales to resolve human-caused modification of natural variability.
Well, crap. How about a meteorologist. Surely one can be non-biased. How about this guy. Surely, he has no vested interest in government money going to AGW research:
He also directs the Sasaki Institute, which is a non-profit organization at the University of Oklahoma that fosters the development and application of knowledge, policy, and advanced technology for the mutual benefit of the government, academic and private sectors.
Well, there you have it. I'm not saying that all the members are biased, but here are three that deal with AGW. Many of the others are professors of health, philosophy, communications and other none climate disciplines.
So, yeah, it appears that the NSB, the part of the NSF that directs funding, is quite biased toward research that supports AGW and have jobs that are threatened by research that may disprove AGW.