Jump to content

The survival of Bees can cause WWIII,it's hard to believe,but true


WWWTT

Recommended Posts

How can we have a conversation and why should anyone take you seriously with comments like that?

I explained my basis the claim: environmentalists are first and foremost anti-industry and anti-corporation. If the science happens to support environmentalists in their crusades they will use it like a club to beat their opponents. If the science does not support their crusades they will ignore the science and claim that scientists are stooges of industry.

What basis do you have to dispute my claim? If you have been paying attention to debates about GMOs, nuclear power, CO2 or pesticides you should know that it is an extremely accurate description of the attitudes environmentalist express in these debates.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I explained my basis the claim: environmentalists are first and foremost anti-industry and anti-corporation. If the science happens to support environmentalists in their crusades they will use it like a club to beat their opponents. If the science does not support their crusades they will ignore the science and claim that scientists are stooges of industry.

Blanket statements like "environmentalists care nothing for science" is an asinine comment. There are many types of environmentalists. Not all have the same beliefs, understanding and views.

You have not given any convincing argument when it comes to GMOs, nuclear power, CO2 or pesticides. Once you do, then we can have a debate about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many types of environmentalists. Not all have the same beliefs, understanding and views.

Yet the loudest people in the media tend to have a consistent message.

You have not given any convincing argument when it comes to GMOs, nuclear power, CO2 or pesticides. Once you do, then we can have a debate about it.

The scientific consensus says GMOs are safe, radiation risks are exaggerated, humans are increasing CO2 and that there is no conclusive evidence of harm to bees caused by the pesticide discussed in this thread.

Enviros only care about the scientific consensus in the one case when it happens to support their objectives. Hence my statement that they don't care about science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet the loudest people in the media tend to have a consistent message.

The scientific consensus says GMOs are safe,

Not it doesn't.

Here is reference to a large study done on specific GMOs that show an increase in cancer and the dangers involved. Of course, any study that shows negativity towards GMOs is attacked by well funded Monsanto "research" groups and well-funded politicians who try to discredit the studies. This is very similar to studies showing our impact on climate change, where large energy companies are funding their own research organizations and are using their enormous amount of money to lobby politicians in order not to harm their multi-billion dollar industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not it doesn't.

One paper does not change the consensus. There are plenty of papers that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change but environmentalists reject those. Why should anyone give papers that dispute the consensus on GMOs any more consideration?

Note that my argument is not that there are no papers that dispute the consensus but that environments don't care about the scientific consensus unless it supports their agenda. When the science does not support their agenda they accuse scientists of being stooges of corporations (ironically - exactly what you did proving my point).

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One paper does not change the consensus. There are plenty of papers that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change but environmentalists reject those. Why should anyone give papers that dispute the consensus on GMOs any more consideration?

Note that my argument is not that there are no papers that dispute the consensus but that environments don't care about the scientific consensus unless it supports their agenda. When the science does not support their agenda they accuse scientists of being stooges of corporations (ironically - exactly what you did proving my point).

Where is this "scientific consensus"? Simply saying it doesn't make it so.

Like I said, one of the largest studies on certain GMO says that GMOs are harmful. Look up the link. Show me research that disputes the findings.

How do you suppose I should react to laboratories that are funded by Monsanto? Pretend it's not? Of course their findings should be questioned since negative findings would harm their own company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is this "scientific consensus"? Simply saying it doesn't make it so.

The AAAS has published a statement:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

They would have never made such a statement unless there was a clear consensus.

Show me research that disputes the findings.

This study has been debunked (article has links to other articles):

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html

The latest audacious example of scientific distortion came last week, in the form of a controversial (but peer reviewed!) study that generated worldwide headlines. A French research team purportedly found that GMO corn fed to rats caused them to develop giant tumors and die prematurely.

Within 24 hours, the study's credibility was shredded by scores of scientists. The consensus judgment was swift and damning: The study was riddled with errors—serious, blatantly obvious flaws that should have been caught by peer reviewers. Many critics pointed out that the researchers chose a strain of rodents extremely prone to tumors. Other key aspects of the study, such as its sample size and statistical analysis, have also been highly criticized.

Again, even if the paper has merit (which does not appear to be the case) it cannot invalidate the scientific consensus which is my point: environmentalists don't care about science - they only care about things that help them push their anti-industry, anti-corporate agenda. If they can use science they will, if they can't they accuse scientists of being corporate shills. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AAAS has published a statement:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

They would have never made such a statement unless there was a clear consensus.

This study has been debunked (article has links to other articles):

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html

Again, even if the paper has merit (which does not appear to be the case) it cannot invalidate the scientific consensus which is my point: environmentalists don't care about science - they only care about things that help them push their anti-industry, anti-corporate agenda. If they can use science they will, if they can't they accuse scientists of being corporate shills.

The study was challenged and what I posted was their response to the so-called debunking. They manage to respond to the questions with detailed analysis and information.

The statement published by AAAS is a statement against labeling GMOs. There are thousands of different types of genetically modified organisms. Blanket statement to say GMOs are harmful or not harmful doesn't work since they're all so different and not enough research has been done on all of them to come to a conclusion.

I care about the environment and I'm not against GMOs, but I do want untainted research to be done on them and for people to, instead of getting into us vs them fights, to analyze the research and the background of those who have conducted them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The study was challenged and what I posted was their response to the so-called debunking. They manage to respond to the questions with detailed analysis and information.

Maybe they did maybe the did not. It is not really relevant, I claimed that there is a clear scientific consensus in favour of GMOs and provided links to support that assertion. Nothing you have said refutes my claim. One paper cannot change a consensus.

I care about the environment and I'm not against GMOs, but I do want untainted research to be done on them and for people to, instead of getting into us vs them fights, to analyze the research and the background of those who have conducted them.

Funny, so do I. But that is not what this is about. This is about you objecting to my claim that environmentalists (meaning the vocal activists who speak for the environmental NGOs) don't care about science and see it only as a propaganda tool when it works for them. I stand by that claim. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One paper does not change the consensus. There are plenty of papers that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change but environmentalists reject those. Why should anyone give papers that dispute the consensus on GMOs any more consideration?

Note that my argument is not that there are no papers that dispute the consensus but that environments don't care about the scientific consensus unless it supports their agenda. When the science does not support their agenda they accuse scientists of being stooges of corporations (ironically - exactly what you did proving my point).

And yet when people care about the 90% or more consensus amongst scientists who oppose your agenda...never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet the loudest people in the media tend to have a consistent message.

And those who scream the loudest are often completely wrong.

The scientific consensus says GMOs are safe, radiation risks are exaggerated, humans are increasing CO2 and that there is no conclusive evidence of harm to bees caused by the pesticide discussed in this thread.

Enviros only care about the scientific consensus..

Stop right there. I don't want a consensus on GMOs I want the facts on GMOs.

in the one case when it happens to support their objectives. Hence my statement that they don't care about science.

A consensus is not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A consensus is not science.

Ultimately this is my point. I am just annoyed with the large number of people who reject GMOs based on minority opinions yet heap loads of vitriol on people who question the 'consensus' on AGW. Obviously you are not one of those people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately this is my point. I am just annoyed with the large number of people who reject GMOs based on minority opinions yet heap loads of vitriol on people who question the 'consensus' on AGW. Obviously you are not one of those people.

I am also quite suspect of the info Monsanto puts forth. When money and politics get involved with science then we no longer are doing science and all reports pertaining to a certain subject to put forth a consensus need to be beaten back to the stone age.

Ditch the politics, ditch the greed, ditch the egos and get back to the real science.

It's also bad in the public eye when we see a consensus of science and not the real data of science. The public starts looking at science on the whole as a joke when we devise plans based on consensus. It's like we are moving backwards and not forwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I debate on the other side with Ghost mostly all the time on this one I will be quick

to just state on this issue I agree with his posts and I too agree with Putin on this one not

withstanding my other opinions on this man in general.

Actually the rapid decline in bee populations is one of many natural disasters resulting from

a host of complex negative reactions to our use of certain industrial chemicals and pesticides

or the releasing into our water and other ecosystems toxic chemicals.

As a bird watcher and I am sure others will tell you we not only noticed a decline in bees of all

species but while watching birds, decline in the bat population, and mutation of frogs, and

other life forms that birds feed on or co-exist with.

You ask people on this forum who camp a lot or are very serious fishermen or hunters or others

who work in the outdoors and they will tell you they see these huge differences.

Heck just the plastics alone (and their estrogen) and the amount of prescription medications we piss out

of our bodies is something then you add the emissions and discharges of every chemical imaginable

and why should we be so surprised at the food pyramid collapsing?

It comes down to basics. Ignore the rules of nature and think you are above them and operate dettached from

them and nature will come back and bite you. It always has the last word.

The aboriginals warned us time and time again to not ignore the rules but we scoffed at them and thought we

were of superior knowledge because of our technology.

Now what?

We have to take a step back. Are people willing to take a step back and give up certain lifestyle commodities in the

name of protecting the environment. Are we willing to do without products that in their manufacturing processes cause

these lethal reactions and negative impacts?

What do we do to get people to say, hey we have to cut back on certain things?

How do you tell afat man in spandex he needs to go on a diet?

We have one guy we all know, Gore going around making millions warning people of environmental disasters

but his talks contain numerous errors and his own personal lifestyle makes a mockery of what he preaches but

surely say others like David Suzuki are not that hard to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have to take a step back. Are people willing to take a step back and give up certain lifestyle commodities in the name of protecting the environment. Are we willing to do without products that in their manufacturing processes cause these lethal reactions and negative impacts?

You wax poetic about about the complex interactions in a natural systems but seem to be oblivious to the complex interactions within the human economy. i.e. how do you know this is simply a matter of 'giving up non-essentials'? Did you ever stop to consider that going without these technologies would reduce productivity and that reduction in productivity has to be made up by consuming more of other types of resources? Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of papers that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change but environmentalists reject those.

no - scientists within the scientific consensus 'reject' those papers that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is funny to watch the pathetic hypocrisy in action.

On CO2 we are lectured over and over again about the need to rely on science to make decisions.

But as soon as the science concludes something refutes their luddite views the enviros throw science out the window.

Here is was the USDA report says:

Independent studies have shown that bees are exposed to a wide range of pesticides.

Pesticides found in colonies range from those used to control pathogens or pests that

adversely affect honey bees, to commercial agricultural products. A survey of bees,

honey, and comb for the presence of 170 pesticides or pesticide residues performed in

2010 did not find any pattern of exposure that correlated with CCD incidents, which

would be expected if pesticides were a major factor in causing CCD. The pesticides

detected with the greatest frequency and in the largest quantities were those used by

beekeepers to control Varroa mites. Pesticide effects on bees continue to be a subject

area of intense research.

and yet there is enough scientific evidence for the EU to enact a 2-year moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids, the much-maligned pesticide group often targeted in the research surrounding honeybee colony declines. Meanwhile, while the USDA acknowledges the dire scenario... "Currently, the survivorship of honeybee colonies is too low for us to be confident in our ability to meet the pollination demands of US agricultural crops"... the USDA simply calls for more research over a rather protracted 5-year period! Urgency??? What urgency!

this appears to be as far as the USDA is prepared to acknowledge the... increasingly documented science... it's "a primary concern"!

Acute and sub-lethal effects of pesticides on honey bees have been increasingly documented, and are a primary concern. Further tier 2 (semi-field conditions) and tier 3 (field conditions) research is required to establish the risks associated with pesticide exposure to U.S. honey bee declines in general.

apparently... it's all about growth yields versus honeybee deaths... a "risk evaluation"! Clearly, the U.S. pesticide manufacturers/lobbyists are working overtime to negate/delay any immediacy within/by the USDA/politicos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - scientists within the scientific consensus 'reject' those papers that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change.

So you have a consensus on a consensus? Or a consensus that goes against another consensus? Well, so much for science!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...