It's like guns. I respect Second Amendment rights, but that doesn't mean I like someone shooting wildly in a crowded area. My right to not be shot trumps the rights of others to shoot. Same thing here. You choose, seemingly out of sheer spite, to be a disease vector, fair enough, just never do it around the rest of society. If your right to not put something that, in the vast majority of cases, is negligable into your body overrides my right to not get sick and possibly die, fine then, my right to not get sick and potentially die overrides your right to live in the rest of society.

Well okay, seeing as how I'm part of that 'science industry' as you put it, your claim is interesting if true. Let's see here, the first study detected proteins at a level lower than that test can accurately detect (ergo it was noise), the second one doesn't seem to indicate anything special about GE crops, the third one is mere correlation by a known liar with a made up institute (you could use that exact same bogus methodology to link those maladies with organic food sales), the fourth one has been widely debunked for extremely shoddy methodology, then next couple are about glyphosate, not actually genetic engineering, which is it's own often misunderstood topic, the ninth study was based basically on eyeballing pig organs with nothing particularly substantive and was widely criticized when it made the rounds a few years back, and a quick glance over the tenth one looks to me like it does not actually indicate anything about genetic engineering being dangerous, rather it seems to be criticizing not using a one size fits all approach to testing (not a criticism I would make).

So yeah, try again. Maybe explain to me what the causative mechanism is on the genetic and molecular levels and why it shows up in no other type of natural or man made genetic alteration while you're at it because I never really got that part about the claimed dangers of genetic engineering.

Now, about those bribes, know where I can sign up for Monsanto's Free Money Program? Because those stingy bastards haven't been paying me like they're apparently supposed to.

Why? Do you have any evidence to indicate what you are implying, that somehow the corporate conspiracy owns most plant scientists? Because there's also money to be made in literally everything sold at a profit, which is most things, so what's your point?

She hasn't been particularly as overtly anti-vaccine as she could be, which is good, but she has given some pretty wishy-washy answers on the topic of alternative medicine and pandering to the corporate conspiracy crowd. At a time when she should be giving a scientific answer she gave a politican's one; something she would no doubt attack other politicians for doing if the topic was climate change (and rightfully so of course).

Although, on the topic of genetically engineered crops, she has just been consistently in the wrong, and the recent thing about 'subjecting children to wifi' was pretty silly as well.

Yeah well there's just so many other options to choose from. You've got the corporate Teflon, the thought crime promoting nutcase, the de facto plutocrat who would let the invisible hand screw us right on over, and the conspiracy nutter who thinks wifi will fry your brain, and two of them don't even count. The options are so shitty I can't even protest vote, and if you go to any of the more minor parties you find theocrats, would-be communist overlords, and other assholes. There is literally no one who represents me, no one promoting reasonable reform where necessary without all the usual wingnut idiocy. This election day I see no get out of bed, except maybe to write in I. C. Wiener on my ballot. This election is genuinely disheartening.

I absolutely agree. In theory, one would think that the internet, being a global phenomenon, should be treated as such with no one nation having control. In practice, we have other countries bending over backwards to justify their anti-freedom of speech actions, and that's not okay. I'm not going to say that America is perfect...far from it, and in many many ways...but when it comes to freedom of speech, there's really no one even close.

I keep seeing these stories about how this or another person got fined or arrested for saying the wrong thing, a lot in Europe lately, and I see people defending this as completely acceptable, arguing that they still have freedom of speech, just that freedom of speech does not include unpopular sentiment that they disagree with. Saying unpopular, unsavory, or downright asshole-ish things is the exact definition of freedom of speech. The idea does not exist to defend popular ideas, it exists to ensure that everyone, even people who might be downright wrong or mean, get a voice. There are places where if I say the Holocaust did not happen (wrong and hateful), sing a song about how Erdoan is a scull fucking douchebag (honest and accurate), or reject the state's religion or political ideology (every individual's choice), among plenty of other things, I could face legal consequences.

And regardless of how you feel about any of those things, you don't get to take away another person's voice. There are ideas that I consider to be extremely dangerous and actively harming people and the planet but that I argue against them; doesn't mean I get to censor them. Speech is a human right, and that's end of the goddamn story. Recent events continue to show that not everyone agrees, and now they get greater control over the worlds most important communication medium? I don't like that. They say they will not compromise openness on the internet, but this is in a world where censorship in the name of 'preserving dignity,' whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, is argued to be not a violation of the human right to free speech; I ask them to lay out clear guidelines for openness. Like I said, America isn't perfect, but on this issue I trust the US a hell of a lot more than I do any other country.

1000's of experts? and the chinese government? And the european governments?

Explain How that work in the age of the internet? Explain how simple tests that can be done in any university and most high school is being kept down?

REal science is based on logical skepticism, not just crazy ass made up doubt. Not denial wrapped in skepticism.

Logic skepticism. There Is a reason why scientific experts i the field came to consensus regarding Global Warming.

There is a reason Countries that have the most economical impt still agree with Man Made GW.

When skepticism relies on an global conspiracy that involves thousands ,i f not 10's of thousands, or people, it's not real skepticism.

.

I've got bad news for you.

If we keep emitting CO2 it will end civilization. People can only breath so much CO2 and still function.

CIvilization also depends upon clean water as a resource, and we depend on the ocean.

Not tomorrow, but eventually. All of that is just facts.

"are you seriously denying the truth of my statement "this study reaches its headlined/highlighted conclusions by adjusting data"."

YES, because it's wrong and show a complete ignorance of science.

I'm not a climatologist.

Then shut up.

" However, I understand science and statistics "

The claim made by everyone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

As an example , in no way did they " adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion".

This also tell me you have no clue what you are talking about:
"The warming in the data is almost exclusively due to the adjustments supposedly to account for urban heat islands. However, without those adjustments, the temperatures are pretty flat."

Lets set your admitted ignorance aside ad go straight to the base science:

1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it passes right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

4) Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actually address the facts of GW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?

So now you have to answer:

Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

Technically speaking here, as per legal definitions, a pesticide is anything that kills an unwanted organism. An insecticide kills insects, a miticide kills mites, a rodentacide kills rodents, a fungicide kills fungi, an herbicide kills weeds, and all are technically pesticides, although in the common vernacular, pesticide and insecticide are frequently used interchangeably.

I agree with what you're saying, and the parent poster most likely was using the word pesticide to mean insecticide (because there is a lot of confusion around those terms), but in case anyone tries to get pedantic on you for making the probably correct assumption that the parent posted didn't know what they were talking about, you should know that referring to an herbicide as a pesticide is technically correct, although imprecise and confusing.

We label added vitamins and nutrition facts as those are actual components of food. Genetic engineering is not a food component, and it makes no more sense to label it that it does to label something has being produced through doubled haploid hybridization, grafting, or any of the other many things that go unlabeled (most of which the average person has no idea is occurring). The other difference is that there haven't been years of fearmongering targeting vitamins; is it really informative when you tell people just enough of a fact (but not all of it!) such that they might assume the wrong thing?

You wonder why there is opposition toward singling out one aspect of crop improvement out of many, not telling any of the essential details that would make it actually meaningful information, knowing full well that your average person doesn't really know what it means anyway and may think something incorrect upon seeing it? That's what I would call a lie of omission. Your argument is no more than a variation on 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' which has always been bullshit.

At any rate, Obama just signed a labeling bill a few days ago. We'll see how that one goes.

Which has been going on for decades, long before genetic engineering. Surprisingly, plant breeders want to get paid too. If you don't like it, that's fine, there are countless varieties of crop that are not patented or off patent (for example, the patents on Honeycrisp apples and Monsanto's first generation of glyphosate tolerant soybeans have expired and both are now free to use). It is an option, not an entitlement, to use newer varieties.

You want to talk to be about short vs long term benefit, what happens when the people who invest vast amounts of time, effort, and money developing the new crop varieties you indirectly benefit from can have their hard work taken right out from under them by someone reproducing them cheaper and leaving them with the bill?

I'm not sure how you can say patents are bad then demand to use the work patents have provided for. That's a very logical inconsistent worldview. That having been said, we should all piss and moan at our local politicians demanding more funding for public land grant university crop variety development programs.

No, genetic engineering is totally the reason; the goalpost has just been moved some given how indefensible and ridiculous of a reason it is. In the case you mentioned, people should ask themselves if farmers are spending extra of GE seed just so that they can spend extra of additionally unnecessary pesticides because they have no idea how to farm and need some city dweller to explain it to them, or that there is more to the story. It is the latter.

Yes, there are crops genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides; what do you think farmers did before these crops? It isn't as if weeds are some new problem, they've always had to be controlled somehow, but before this, they sprayed a combination of different types of herbicides at different stages of seedling growth (and before germination) along with soil eroding tillage, to control weeds. Now, you have a single herbicide applied fewer times with less tillage. Yeah, more of that particular herbicide is used, but that's hardly the issue; these things are used for the type of herbicide and time of application, not the amount which can be applied, contrary to the popular misconception in your post. The context here (which the anti-GMO activists that so many people listen to somehow always conveniently neglect to mention) is critical.

And if that doesn't tell you that the issue has always been genetic engineering, and not herbicides, ask yourself why people protest things like the Rainbow papaya, which is virus resistant no chemical inputs involved, or Arctic Apples, which have the consumer orientated trait of non-browning. Or ask why Clearfield wheat, which is conventionally bred to be herbicide tolerant has not been the target of protest. When GMOs that do not involve pesticides are opposed and conventionally bred crops that do involve pesticides are not opposed, you very well can't claim the actual reason for opposition is the pesticides.