C8 wrote:The left's biggest casualty they created in the war on science was using hysteria, Hollywood and protests, in the 1970's to today, to hoodwink everyone into believing that nuclear power was a demon that will destroy us all.
Leftist France relies on something like 80% of its electricity from nuclear power and you don't see French people dropping like flies.
So we quit nuclear and ramped up fossil fuels, especially coal, which promptly led to a massive spike in CO2.
You could argue that global warming is a Democrat created monster kept alive by Republicans (and Democrats as Obama pursued an "all of the above" energy strategy.)
Democrats' attack on Republicans for Global Warming is reaching dangerous concentration levels of hypocrisy.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Some people disagree with the conclusions of some other people
Simon_R wrote:Before we get too excited, maybe we ought to determine what is science.
the definition I get is.the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
I see no one waging a war against this.
The most we could say is some people disagree with the conclusions of other people who use science.
however changeing the title of this post toSome people disagree with the conclusions of some other people
would be a bit tedious.
Timo wrote:Science does not mean factual, and that opens up Pandora's Box to everyone's own personal interpretations of literally anything.
Lore wrote:You forgot evolution.
dohboi wrote:"bring up the topic of Monsanto"
Ummmm, Monsanto is a corporation, not a science. Are you particularly enamored of this particular corp that you find it so upsetting when other criticize it?
dohboi wrote:"neither Rs nor Ds are wholly on the side of the angels when it comes to science."
But the Rs seem to have the lion's share, in that case (and most others).
On the other hand, there are all sorts of ignorance that I'm sure are pretty evenly spread across party lines. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... urvey-says
"A quarter of Americans surveyed could not correctly answer that the Earth revolves around the sun ..."
"Just over half understood that antibiotics are not effective against viruses"
Of course, in day-to-day life, the second misconception is potentially more dangerous than the first, but I still find it rather shocking.
In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
GMOs are not a “thing”, they are a set of relationships, and it is the context created by these relationships that is driving farmers to suicide. GMOs are not a disembodied “technology” as so many pro-GMO commentators try to present. These commentators then proceed to protect this abstract construction of GMOs as disembodied technologies from the evidence of reality. In reality, what exists is a GMO complex, or nexus, that has an impact on real ecosystems and real farmers.
Shutting out evidence from reality is a completely unscientific approach. Reality cannot be cooked up in papers, no matter how prestigious the journals in which these concoctions are published. Reality is what happens in reality – the reality of farmers’ suicides, reality of the emergence of super-pests and super-weeds, the reality of rising costs of seed as royalties are extracted from poor peasants. These are no abstractions; rather, they are the lived realities of the consequences of GMOs.
kuidaskassikaeb wrote: Also dismissing these activists as anti-science seems more like an ad-homonin argument than a real argument.
I include one anti-gmo post. To show what I mean. It is all about the business and debt.
http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15165-vandana-shiva-on-seed-monopolies-gmos-and-farmer-suicides-in-indiaGMOs are not a “thing”, they are a set of relationships, and it is the context created by these relationships that is driving farmers to suicide. GMOs are not a disembodied “technology” as so many pro-GMO commentators try to present. These commentators then proceed to protect this abstract construction of GMOs as disembodied technologies from the evidence of reality. In reality, what exists is a GMO complex, or nexus, that has an impact on real ecosystems and real farmers.
Shutting out evidence from reality is a completely unscientific approach. Reality cannot be cooked up in papers, no matter how prestigious the journals in which these concoctions are published. Reality is what happens in reality – the reality of farmers’ suicides, reality of the emergence of super-pests and super-weeds, the reality of rising costs of seed as royalties are extracted from poor peasants. These are no abstractions; rather, they are the lived realities of the consequences of GMOs.
This doesn't seem like a war on science as much as PR from Monsanto.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 261 guests