Register
A password will be e-mailed to you.

Science Denial Is Not Exclusive To Right Wing Fundamentalists

by David Jerale

In a column for Scientific American January of last year, Michael Shermer, the founder of The Skeptics Society, exposed what he calls “The Liberals’ War on Science.” Shermer observes that, while it is true that Republicans are more overwhelmingly opposed to well-established scientific consensus like anthropogenic climate change theory and evolution, the problem of science denial also reaches epidemic proportions on the left.

Follow TLR on Google+

“Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—,” Shermer writes, “in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs.”

Taken only at face value, this seems fairly innocuous– and critics like Chris Mooney were quick to point out, correctly, that science denial is predominantly right-wing.

Fair enough, but I offer this riposte: Rick Santorum and his ilk don’t teach science.

Discovery News, on the other hand, does– and in June, they posted a YouTube video by Laci Green, a popular online social justice advocate, feminist and peer sex educator, about genetically modified organisms.  In this video, Laci doesn’t explicitly state her own opinion with regard to whether or not genetically modified foods are safe, choosing instead to present arguments for and against, with a heavy bias against, ending by asking viewers to post their thoughts on the matter in the comments section below the video.

This is a clear example of “false balance,” a tendency for media to overstate controversy in scientific matters.  Fox News has been criticized for this because their coverage of climate science greatly over-represents those who disagree with anthropogenic global warming theory while there is a strong consensus among climate scientists that the theory is correct.  As it happens, there is a similarly strong scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified foods, but Laci conveniently ignores it for the sake of manufactured controversy– and she’s not alone.

SciShow, hosted by Hank Green, is a YouTube channel with over 1.5 million subscribers devoted to discussing scientific topics.  Last year, Hank posted a video wherein he discusses genetically modified organisms– what they are, why they exist, how they’re made, etcetera– which included some cherry-picked information and outright fabrications about the supposed dangers of genetic modification, in spite of the existing scientific consensus to the contrary.  It was later removed, and re-uploaded by another YouTube user— in the comments section there, Hank explains “We dropped it because we cited studies that have since been discredited.”

But Hank and Laci Green are just a couple of online personalities– No real harm, right?

Enter Bill NyeThe Science Guy.”  Bill has been, for the most part, strongly against science denial– he has spoken against teaching creationism to children as well as climate change denial, but oddly, he breaks form when the topic is genetically modified organisms.

Let that sink in for a moment– perhaps the most well-known science popularizer alive, Bill Nye, trying to scare people into thinking GMOs are harmful.


That’s a far cry from some preacher doing the same thing because it conflicts with his religious dogma.  It’s science education programming being used to spread pseudoscience, and the consequences could be devastating.

Golden rice, a genetically engineered rice which is rich in beta carotene, was developed to help curb vitamin A deficiency in the third world, and has been shown as effective as beta carotene in oil at providing vitamin A.  If policy or activism regarding genetically modified foods were to be based on the anti-science fear-mongering of people like Bill Nye, it would hinder efforts to stave off the ailments caused by micronutrient deficiency in the third world.

According to statistics compiled by UNICEF, this includes 1-2 million deaths annually of children 1-4 years old that could be averted by improved vitamin A nutritive.

Greenpeace activists have vandalized testing sites for this potentially life saving genetically modified rice.  Tons of genetically modified beets have been torched.  Greenpeace has also broken into a CSIRO experimental farm in Australia to destroy genetically modified wheat, and anti-GMO activists in Hawaii cut down genetically modified papaya trees during debates about whether or not they would be banned in the state.

This is the same Greenpeace, by the way, which cites the broad and overwhelming scientific consensus that exists on the subject of climate change in support of their environmentalist views.  Science, it seems, only matters when the conclusion is agreeable.

Science denial also seems to have been quite successful legislatively as of late, with Kauai and Hawaii’s Big Island each passing their own anti-GMO bills, heavily Democratic Portland, Oregon voting against fluoridation in its water, and about 20 states last year considered GMO labeling mandates, with Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, signing one into law.

This is all in addition to the fact that the US Department of Agriculture’s “organic” certification prohibits the use of genetically engineered crops– and “organic” food is a 63 billion dollar industry worldwide, with the US its biggest market.

Furthermore, several countries ban or heavily regulate GM crops, which is often cited as a reason the US should institute such regulation– a sort of pseudoscience positive feedback loop.

Mind you, none of this is to say that the issue I have been giving the most focus– genetic engineering– doesn’t have a large body of science deniers on the right.  Rather, the fact that the “pro-science” left has anti-science voices in its midst lends undue credibility to those issues.  This is not thousands of years of religious tradition being contradicted by relatively recent scientific discovery, it’s pure organic bullshit, and it is, right now, costing lives.

About The Author

Austin Petersen

Austin Petersen is the founder of The Libertarian Republic, as well as the CEO of Stonegait LLC. Formerly an Associate Producer for Judge Andrew Napolitano's show "Freedom Watch", on the Fox Business Network. Austin was referred to by the Judge as "The right side of my brain". He built Judge Napolitano's social networks with over 700,000 fans and millions of clicks a month. Austin graduated from Missouri State University. He has written and produced award winning plays and videos, and previously worked for the Libertarian National Committee and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.

  • Jonas Oblouk

    I try to avoid foods that combine genetics from different species of life forms. I also try to avoid foods that have chemical pesticides that can be absorbed into the fruit of the plant more easily. Does not matter what science tells me in this regard. I prefer to eat the fruits and vegetables that I grow in my own back yard. I am a voluntaryist Libertarian who believes that people should have the right to make their own choices and own their own bodies.

    • Zack

      Exactly!

    • Non of your business

      Except every fruit, grain you eat has been selectively bread, this is just a short cut.

      • Adam Kohl

        You realize selectively breeding…. and genetically modifying…. are no where near the same thing. Yeah… in nature things of the same species can cross… like a jalapeno can crossbreed with a green pepper naturally. Which is totally cool, but genetically modifying is taking one entirely different species…. for example Monsanto’s BT corn. BT Corn is corn spliced with the genes of bug killing bacteria so that when a pest bites into the corn the pest dies. Corn and bacteria….. will never ever have babies together in nature…

        • Splicing recombinant DNA is looming a disaster… AIDS is the hybrid offspring of bovine leukemia and visna virus in sheep.

          Militarizing agriculture for Monsanto is not a good idea.

    • “people should have the right to make their own choices and own their own bodies.”

      Can’t do that if you don’t know what’s in the food. These supposedly “anti-science” GMO labeling laws are absolutely vital if we are to be allowed to make an infomed choice on what we put in our bodies.

      • Regressive Goosesteppers

        That’s idiotic. If that was actually what you believed, you could just stick to buying your marked-up snakeoil that already has the “organic” stamp on it.

        But you don’t care about labelling to inform, it’s all about sensationalism and scare tactics. After all, if you knew the first thing about ehat you were putting in your body, you’d know that organic crops still use that scary doubleplusungood pesticides and that they, like all vegetation in this era, have undergone eons of genetic modification without your pithy approval.

        • So spaketh the Regressive Goosestepper, who knoweth the mind and habbits of anonymous posters, but is scared to death of truth in labeling.

      • JoeD

        So we can’t make our own choices unless we force people to do things. That’s brilliant! You CAN make an informed choice – you need NOT buy anything that ANYONE else produces and you consume. Companies are already labeling food as non-GMO, you dingbat. But no – better get government involved because that always works out for the best. I though this was the Libertarian Republic not the left-wing idiot blog.

      • Kevin Parrish

        If you don’t like companies that don’t tell you whether or not a food contains GMOs then don’t buy from them. Being libertarian means supporting things that you don’t like, this isn’t the left where what is ‘politically correct’ is right.

        • My earnings are for my family

          “Being libertarian means supporting things that you don’t like” WRONG!!!

          • Kevin Parrish

            “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

            Libertarianism relies on the logic of individual rights. This means supporting peoples rights to; smoke meth, although I think it’s terrible, Westboro Baptist Church’s right to say fags should burn in hell, although I think it is disgusting, and your right to slander what a libertarian should be, although I wholeheartedly disagree.

    • Regressive Goosesteppers

      I am a voluntaryist Libertarian who believes that people should have the right to make their own choices and own their own bodies.””

      I love how the organic zealots always try to spin it as if they;re the victims and the big bad science-minded folks are forcing GMOs down their throat at gunpoint.

      Please remind me where all these bills and laws trying to outlaw GMO research and growth are, because there’s literally thousands coming from those who let the organic industry do their thinking.

      Also, I’m curious as to how you avoid GMOs when genetic modification has occured in literally every living thing you see or ingest.

      • TANSTAAFL

        ur last sentence is exactly y ur first sentence is flawed!

    • anonymouse

      Nowhere in the article does it suggest otherwise. At no point does the author suggest that individuals should not have the right to choose what they consume.

      Rather, the article criticizes science personalities for propagating non-scientific information.

      • David Feith

        How did we establish that the “scientific” side is pro GMO? It’s kind of like saying smart, scientific guys developed atomic energy that can produce a lot of relatively cheap electricity, so we should let anybody do whatever they want to with atomic energy because it’s “settled science.” Lots of lives will be saved by the more available electricity, right?

      • DarthTrader

        This is a Crony Capitalist Piece using disinformation tactics (Strawman for one) to discredit scientists who recognize the shoddy work that has been done to vet GMO Foods.

        • They are militarizing agriculture for Monsanto…

    • Jonas Oblouk

      I prefer not to eat vegetables that were genetically spiced with non-vegetables. I prefer not to eat chemicals. My preference, and I think people should know what they are actually eating.

      • Mark Jones

        Big Organic is perfectly willing to entertain your phobias. Your choice. Leave my inexpensive food alone.

        • AIDS is an exact genetic match for the hybrid offspring of bovine leukemia and visna virus in sheep.

          Weaponizing agriculture and militarizing it’s production is really stupid.

      • Ethan Hobart

        if you prefer not to eat chemicals, than you can’t eat anything at all. Everything is made of chemicals. Hell, you can’t even be a breatharian. Oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc., are all chemicals.

    • Mark Jones

      Jonas, you need some science classes, if you think Bt has any effects on mammals. FYI Big Organic sprays Bt, which your acidic mammalian gut destroys

  • Zack

    It would be nice to see some peer reviewed studies on GMO instead of a link from someone’s blogspot. 6th paragraph “As it happens, there is a similarly strong scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified foods,”

    • maggiegirl

      I’ve read numerous studies on the safety of GMO’s, and yes, some of them were independent studies. All it takes is a simple Google, and the overwhelming evidence is there for your research.

      • Mick

        No doubt not as independent as you think…but if you want to eat tomatoes that have spider genes spliced into them, and grain crops that have been engineered to produce their own insecticides, and you call that “safe”…have at it sport. I err to the side that says we haven’t been at this game long enough to be so arrogant about engineering nature like that. There’s a conspicuous LACK of science, because we have been doing it long enough. And it’s pretty foolish to not see that once you release these organism into the wild, you have no control. They will contaminate the natural. What is your recall if it goes sideways?

        • Michelle Quick

          I absolutely agree Mick, I say take all the profit out of producing GMO’s and lets just see how fast they go out the window.

        • randakost

          There are no GM tomatoes and many plants have their own insecticide naturally. Have you ever heard of pyrethrin? There’s a ton of science spanning over 20 years, you just haven’t read it. Should everyone else be denied the benefits of technology because YOU don’t understand it? I had enough when the GOP was voted into House control in 2010. I’m pretty much done with being affected by other people’s ignorance, thanks.

          • Mick

            You’re a fukin MORON. Thanks. Allow me to put the proverbial intellectual foot up your ass. I study medicine and I’m a content contributor to a significant international medical website. GM tomatoes were the FIRST GM food ever produced. They aren’t in commercial production right now because they didn’t prove a success, but they are tweaking them in labs for another release at a later time, you fool. I’m aware many plants have NATURAL insecticides. Where such plants even are considered for consumption, it’s usually produced and concentrated in parts of the plant not consumed by humans. Please explain how gene splicing a BT toxin from a bacterium into a corn crop makes that NATURAL? Pyrethrin?? Eat many Chrysanthemums, dumbass?

          • randakost

            I’m well aware of the FlavrSavr tomato. I’m also well aware that people who are content contributors to “significant international medical website” you would probably conduct yourself with a bit of class when posting. You’d also understand that “natural” has no meaning whatsoever. You, sir, are full of shit.

          • Mick

            Go fuk yourself. How’s that? I’m under no duty whatsoever to be civil to morons here whose opinions are not only completely worthless, but which I give zero fuks for. I’m not writing an article here to academic peers, I’m address a moron. “Natural” has no meaning to nitwits like YOU who are industry apologists. To the rest of us who are informed, it most certainly does. In it’s pure and rational meaning, it certainly means that which is not bio-engineered and bastardized by man. You’d have to have the first fukin clue what you were talking about before you called someone else full of shit, ‘tard. Now, go pound sand.

          • randakost

            Are you flirting with me?

    • leslie green

      Can all of the other countries be wrong? Seems like that’s a typical condescending attitude that the U.S. is maintaining. Monsanto is running the show, not the people. Would you be willing to allow the people to vote on this? bet not!!!! Money, greed and profit is the name of the game in the food industry… Monsanto could give a rat’s ass about its safety… How about them originally getting a patent for glysophate as an antibiotic!!!! So, next time you need one go to Home Depot or Lowe’s and get a gallon of Round up, it’ll cure all your ills.

      • Ripshed

        So what about countries that ban marijuana or gay marriage? Can those countries all be wrong too?

        Argumentum ad populum.

        • Monogamy is a hackneyed tenet of religion.

          Mammalian evolution is heterosexual.

          Why not polyandry or polygyny?

          The ecclesiastic gaytheists and fagnostics are insane.

    • Non of your business

      There is a butt ton of them already.

  • Devon Houle

    People have the right to eat what they want. However They dont have the right to stop other people from eating what they want. If you want to do the Organic thing go for it. I for one have no problem with eating GMO’s. For anyone who goes against it and says ban GMO’s I should bring up the fact that with the current farmland, we can only feel 2/3rds of the population. So before any “but they are poisioning us” lines appear Without Cited and verified data, Which third of the population do you feel needs to starve.

    • Jonas Oblouk

      I feed my entire family of 5 with the fruits and veggies I grow in my back yard (plus grains and beans we buy at the store). We are mostly vegetarian, but we live in a suburban neighborhood on less than 1/4 acre, and we manage to do this. There are plenty of resources, and we don’t need to always look beyond our backyards or communities.

    • Rachel W

      No one is saying GMOs should be banned. We are saying GMOs should be labelled, which makes perfect sense. How can you make an informed decision about what you are eating if the company refuses to tell you?

      • TJN

        Hey… here’s a genius idea. Label non gmos something like “organic” “nongmo” because every fucking thing is a gmo. How do you think we made heirloom tomatoes 150 years ago? Corn itself, all of it you eat. No such thing as non gmo corn. Doesn’t exist..

        • Rachel W

          Hybrid and cross breeding of plants is totally different than what scientists are doing now to create GMOs. GMOs now are made to specifically resist heavy synthetic pesticides. How is that the same AT ALL? I don’t want to eat a plant that survived a hosing down of chemicals, even when all the weeds and insects around it died. Keep eating your GMOs, I’ll stick to organic, thanks.

          • TJN

            There is no difference except we’re quicker to get to the desired modifications. Zero difference. If you dont want chemicals that is far different than gmos. YOU’RE welcome to eat your disease ridden insect filled plants all you want.

          • Ripshed

            Ever heard of mutagenic breeding? It’s where they take a seed and expose it to radiation in order to obtain DNA mutations that will hopefully result in a desired trait.

            New strains produced via mutagenesis can even be sold as Organic, legally.

          • Mark Jones

            I want all organic labeled may contain E. Coli, because organic spreads feces on farm land.

      • fernaig

        Because it’s not ‘informed’ if you don’t understand the science behind it, and most people don’t. Labeling assumes that there is a real and important difference between the labeled thing and the unlabeled thing. In almost all (if not all) cases, there simply isn’t, and labeling is meaningless.

        • Rachel W

          You don’t consider a heavy dose of synthetic pesticides a real and important difference? You don’t consider the fact that people working in GMO crop fields have to wear heavy duty protective gear and organic farmers don’t? That’s your choice, if you don’t think that’s “real and important”, but I do. By no means do I want to eat “food” that survived even when all the other living organisms around it were killed by some chemicals.

          • fernaig

            I’m afraid you just proved my point. Organic produce is treated with pesticides too — and just because they are ‘natural’ doesn’t mean that they are any safer than synthetic ones. In fact many are more dangerous and more persistent than the synthetic alternatives. Organic farmers don’t wander their fields in overalls spraying rotenoids — they also wear protective clothing! You won’t find organic produce labeled with pesticide information. If you can no longer detect the pesticide at any meaningful level in the produce, does it still make any sense to label it? The only rational response to that is ‘no.’ If a chemical only kills organisms with a chitin exoskeleton and does no harm whatsoever to mammals (such as ourselves), what should the label say? ‘Dangerous to insects?’

          • Ripshed

            It is incorrect to claim that organic pesticides are completely harmless – they’re not. Go look up the toxicity of copper sulfate (a common organic-certified pesticide).

            Pesticide exposure limits are based on dose. You can be poisoned by everyday things like water, if you drink too much of it.

            People have to wear protective gear because they are literally spraying acres and acres worth of crop with many pounds/gallons of poison. Their potential exposure is much, much higher than the person who is consuming washed fruits/vegetables at the table.

          • Mark Jones

            I want all organic labeled may contain E. Coli. Organic has killed. GMOs have not.

      • Ripshed

        Tons of people are saying GMOs should be banned – where have you been the last few years of activists working around the clock to encourage legislation banning them?

        Why should GMOs be labeled exactly? Should food be labeled based on other irrelevant criteria too?

      • Mark Jones

        Why should informed people who respect science have to cater to ill informed fanatics? You have your overpriced organic. Leave the reality based community alone.

    • leslie green

      Eat your GMOs ’til you can’t if you wish, but, label them so those of us who don’t want them in our diets can have a choice.

      • Ripshed

        You can buy USDA Organic or foods that sport an industry non-GMO certification.

    • Jim

      It’s been proven that organic crops have far higher crop yields, which is why farmers in India growing Monsanto’s cotton commit suicide in mass. The crops simply do not provide enough and the farmers get so far into debt to Monsanto that they drink pesticide.

      • Mark Jones

        False. False and False. You guys lie like so called prolifers. What’s up with that?

    • xxx

      Enter vertical gardens to solve this dilemma. Weird how they don’t get the same governmental support.

      • Devon Houle

        I’d rather see a corperation do it. the only thing that government is good at is screwing things up. Given that the Blueprints and tech has been out there for awhile i wonder if it is just the corperations themselves that are not doing it, or if there is some kind of Regulation keeping them from constructing the vertical gardens.

  • Mr.Correcto

    But GMO’s ARE bad for you…

    • Collin Klopfenstein

      Playing devil’s advocate: Can you provide unbiased proof?

      • Celesta

        There is no unbiased proof that GMOs are safe. Common sense says GMOs are unnatural. I’ll go with common sense.

        • Ripshed

          What is “unbiased proof”? There are hundreds of studies. Do you propose a vast conspiracy among academia to willfully ignore dangers, should they exist, in GMOs?

          Your “common sense” is your irrational bias.

          • Skylar

            While I agree that there is no legitimate science to support the idea that GMOs are harmful, proposing that a vast MISUNDERSTANDING of basic scientific process is not out of the question. Look at all the studies in support of AGW, despite the clear science proving that temperature LEADS atmospheric CO2, and so can’t possibly be CAUSED by it.

        • Non of your business

          Yes there is, a ton of unbiased proof, and everything you eat is “unnatural” everything on our current food chain was selectively bred by man.

        • Mark Jones

          Celesta, I prefer science.

        • Mick

          Yeah, that and the fact that journals like Elsevier and government agencies who make regulation, go on to employ GM industry employees and lobbyists. There’s common sense there too, to follow the money and distrust the obvious incestuous relationships between government, industry, and the pro-GM corner of “science” which is bought and paid for, while they revoke papers for no reason which point to questions of safety with GM crops (Seralini paper on Bt corn causing tumors in rats)

    • TJN

      No they are not. There is zero proof they are and tons of proof that they are far bettet for you. Nutritional analysis shows that nearly every gmo is higher in vitamins.

      • Jim

        Actually since GMO’s are created to withstand heavy doses of pesticides, this kills off most of the nutrients and there is zero proof that they offer anything that organic crops do not. What you’re getting, through Monsanto’s bt corn for example, that you wouldn’t get in normal corn, is the bt toxin that the corn secretes to kill bugs that eat it. And you think it’s going to be safe for you to eat when it melts the stomachs of bugs?

        • Adam Kohl

          Ted… How would that even make sense? Do you understand where a plants nutrition comes from? Do you know anything at all about growing food? These are serious questions?

      • Mick

        Sure….because THAT is the only objective standard? Higher in vitamins? Nutritional analysis? LMAO You have to be shitting me. You’re a special kind of stupid. I can shoot you up with a very large dose of vitamin A if you like, and then as your skin sloughs off due to renal failure you can tell me how safe it is because the vitamin content was higher. LMAO You tard.

        “Tons” of “proof” [cough] from sources funded by GMO manufacturers. Like Celesta said…common sense tells me that it’s not wise to eat crops that have been engineered to produce their own pesticide as a matter of their genetics. And we haven’t been doing this long enough to have sufficient data that it IS SAFE. In the absence of such, I’ll be against.

        • TJN

          You are a special kind of total retard zealot that goes around saying bullshit that isn’t near the truth. Gmos are perfectly safe.

          • Mick

            LMFAO, sure, they’re completely safe because you offer anecdotal stupid knee jerk arguments that they’re safe, right? LOL you’re assertions as to “safe” and equating that somehow to vitamin content is enough to dismiss you out of hand as being any kind of informed person, WHATSOEVER. Take your bullshit someplace else. If you want to eat crops that have genes for bacterial toxins spliced into them LIKE A DUMBASS…then by all means, be my guest. Those of us who have spent more than a minute researching this know better. F- you.

      • Mr.Correcto

        That’s why Obama, the Monsanto CEO and the rest of the politicians and rich opt to eat organic instead, right?

        • TJN

          That’s not true. Most rich people aren’t fucking tinfoil hat retards like yourself

  • mape_ape

    Would GMO even exist without government support? Monsanto needs government intellectual monopoly laws, government courts, government prisons, and government thugs to collect tax money for research grants in order to exist.

    The safety of GMO is a distraction. The actual issue is the anti-freedom corporations propped up by anti-freedom governments.

    • Aaron Easler

      That’s like saying that medicine wouldn’t exist without government because governments fund research and support the pharmaceutical industry.

      • mape_ape

        Not exactly. Advancements in science and medicine have existed without government assistance. Often, it’s government that stifles technological advancements.

        I could be wrong, but I don’t see any evidence to suggest that there was a market demand for GMO food. Monstanto wanted an avenue to monopolize aspects of the food supply and saw an avenue with GMO food. They got their wish thanks to government.

        • Aaron Easler

          Yes, but advancements in crop modification have existed forever, as well. Farmers have always tried to find ways to make crops as resilient as possible. There’s certainly a market demand for GMO food, since without it, it’d be impossible to feed the world while using so little space to do it. You are correct, however, about the monopoly being state enforced. The intellectual property and patent trolling Monsanto does is definitely a huge black eye on what it does..especially since it makes people who buy the seeds destroy the crop annually so they have to buy them again the next year. However, I don’t think that suggests that without that IP protection, Monsanto couldn’t be profitable.

          • mape_ape

            Would it really be impossible to feed the world without GMO? I don’t see the evidence. Governments just need to get out of the economy. How many local farmers in third world countries are put out of business by farm subsidies and local government corruption?

            There is a sort of paternalism on the part of the West that suggests without their help they would all starve. Just get out of their way and they can feed themselves.

          • Skylar

            It would NOT be impossible to feed the world without GMO, but they increase crop yields, which have done more to curb world hunger than any other scientific advancement in the last 100 years.

            Governments DO need to get out of the economy, you are 100% correct.

          • mape_ape

            Is world hunger the result of less food on the market? I don’t believe so. Crop yields are less important than actually making sure food gets to people. We know that government foreign aid never reaches it’s targets and the GMO food that floods Africa is almost always taken by local governments and military. The lack of property rights in third world nations results in a dependence class that cannot feed themselves.

          • Skylar

            I can’t disagree with anything in your comment. You’re 100% correct.

            I didn’t claim that world hunger has been solved by GMOs, but that increased crop yields have significantly helped MANY countries feed their people. It would help ALL countries if there weren’t oppressive governments keeping food from getting to the people, but that’s another issue entirely.

            Perhaps the summation of your point is simply that we don’t absolutely NEED GMOs to survive, so why take the risk? (Not to put words in your mouth, just trying to clarify my understanding of your position.) However, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that we should avoid progress that might have some drawbacks just because it’s not critical to survival. The first product that comes to mind the is automobile.

          • mape_ape

            I’ve not suggested that technological or scientific progress should be avoided. If you want to develop GMOs, then you can. However, don’t expect your research to be funded by the point of a gun, don’t expect to sue me for having your feral plant genes infect my plants without my permission, don’t defraud your customers by telling them your food is something it’s not, and don’t use the violence of government squash your competition.

            I don’t want the stuff near me, but that’s my choice. If someone else wants to stuff their face full of fish viruses, that’s their business.

          • Skylar

            I agree completely with the demand to remove government from the equation. Let the market decide!

          • Aaron Easler

            I absolutely agree that the government needs to get out of the way, but I’d suspect that to be far more likely to lead to more and more varied GMO crop companies..not less. Less government involvement would almost certainly lead to more safety and more knowledge of the safety of various companies’ crops.

          • mape_ape

            The absence of government involvement always leads to an increase in safety standards.

            Since GMOs are everywhere and not identified on product labels, we don’t know if there is a demand for them or not. We can’t really say if there would be more GMO companies. What we do know is that natural and Organic foods are in high demand, since they are always labeled as such. For the record, I am not calling for mandatory labeling.

      • Adam Kohl

        Mape_Ape is pretty dead on…. It’s a complete monopoly monstrosity. Does anyone here understand the fact that Monsanto… has a patent on life? If any of their GMO seeds end up on your land… or another farmers land without their permission they can sue you and or seize your land or both? Government support is what has allowed it to come to that point.

        • randakost

          Oh that’s not even just not true, it’s ridiculous. At least do some research before you start spouting nonsense.

    • Non of your business

      So a company isn’t allowed to be compensated for the millions they spent on research?

      • mape_ape

        Compensated by whom? Not by taxpayers in form of government research grants.

        • Skylar

          Beat me to it! Exactly right! They are allowed to be compensated for research, but only via success in the market, not via special government treatment.

      • Adam Kohl

        Do you know anything about the open air testing that is done on the Hawaiian Islands?

      • Rebecca Carmack

        Anytime an individual/group of individuals starts a company, they do so at their OWN risk. In this ‘free’ nation, if we embark on any venture, albeit business start up or building our own home (etc, etc), then we do so knowing we may succeed, or we may fail. Individuals and corporations alike have become increasingly “entitled” to the point of which if mistakes are made, then someone (namely big government) Should and Must shoulder the burdens of our risks. I understand there are grants (etc) available for some research efforts. However, like so many other “entitlements” in this country, We The People should NOT expect grants to fund our personal endeavors. Rather, we should be Prudent in the use. This attitude is the reason our nation is quickly spiraling downward! We are only guaranteed the freedom of pursuing happiness (whatever form happiness takes for an individual); we are Not guaranteed a successful result from said pursuit!

    • Michelle Livengood

      I agree completely. The price of seeds since the introduction of GMO’s has increased by leaps and bounds. Control of the food supply by a corporation isn’t the way to feed the world. We have to start taking control again. The government subsidizing farmers that way they actually make a profit because the herbicides and pesticides are getting so costly. Anyone who thinks Monsanto and the like are thinking of you then you are severely mislead. They care about their bottom line. These corporations take farmer freedom away. Organic farmers are being regulated away from using compost (which has been used forever!) so that they are forced to use chemical fertilizers! Our current agriculture system only works with socialist programs.

      • mape_ape

        I can grow enough food on one acre to last me until the next growing season. We need to change the way we approach farming. I can’t agree more.

    • Regressive Goosesteppers

      “The safety of GMO is a distraction. The actual issue is the anti-freedom corporations propped up by anti-freedom governments.”

      Except for the fact that every concetrated effort to force people to eat a specific food are made by anti-GMO zealots like you who are doing nothing more than parroting unscientific propaganda spoonfed to you by the multi-billion dollar organic industry, the sole existence of which is to sell lower quality and quantity at a huge markup and which wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for anti-science paranoia.

      • mape_ape

        “Except for the fact that every concetrated effort to force people to eat a specific food are made by anti-GMO zealots like you…”

        I have no need to engage with someone who is clearly not interested in an actual discussion. Thanks anyway.

  • Octotron

    Every single living/once-living thing that any human has ever eaten is a GMO…

    • aredesuyo .

      This is the mantra of those who don’t understand the process involved in creating GMO.

      • Octotron

        Says the guy who doesn’t actually have anything to do with creating GMO’s.

    • Adam Kohl

      Ignorance. Different species don’t cross breed… Octotron

      • Octotron

        Umm… ya… that isn’t correct.

        • Adam Kohl

          So, bacteria f**ks corn on the daily and reproduces…. and dogs can impregnate horses…. and snakes can mate with birds…. ok…

  • Seth

    Maybe if a respected scientist, not just a leftist who supports the science of global warming, rejects the science behind GMOs, it means the science isn’t all that good after all.

    The way I see it there are two problems – first of all, science isn’t accessible to everyone. Experts run the studies and experiments and publish the results, and the average person, who knows nothing about it, is supposed to accept it. But bad science can be used for political gain. Remember eugenics? So just because someone in a position to gain from a certain scientific standpoint says the science is legitimate, that doesn’t make it so.

    Secondly, “scientists” are not a monolithic bloc. There are different schools of thought on a variety of scientific topics, and have been throughout the course of scientific history. Remember Galileo?

    if you take politics out of a scientific topic – say, the topic of M theory or the existence of parallel universes – then it’s easier to trust what you’re hearing/reading, to see the range of opinions on the matter, and to determine how sure a particular person is of a particular thing. But once that issue becomes politicized, then it’s muddied. Just because you say a majority of climate scientists support the idea of man-made global warming, that doesn’t make it so. That’s a very absolute statement that ignores caveats and subtleties and complexities that surely exist in the issue. And even if it’s true, it doesn’t mean that in ten years new data won’t change many of those scientists’ minds.

    • Mick

      Thank you. Too many people attempt to cram this issue and that issue into the left-right spectrum and categorize it politically and put people in boxes, an science and facts don’t work that way. I’m a voluntarism leaning anarcho-libertarian, which necessarily puts me extreme right. I don’t buy anthropogenic climate change, I strongly support private ownership of military style weapons, and I don’t buy that GMOs are safe and I don’t trust the FDA, USDA, or Monsanto and Syngenta either. We’re supposed to buy from this….opinion article…that only those on the “left” don’t trust or believe in the safety or wisdom of GMOs? That’s absurd.

  • aredesuyo .

    This is simply because leftists only like science that kills poor people.

  • Joshua Moore

    Its impossible to converse with a Libertarian on this topic. They are so apologetic for private sector agents that they are unwilling to concede that there is reason to be worried about some shady shit Monsanto does. Yes, there is definitely more hype on the left than there should be. Monsanto is not the Evil bastards trying to wipe out life as we know it that the left makes them out to be. BUT they are not on the up-and-up by any stretch.

    • Skylar

      Libertarians have the only solid moral ground on GMO companies like Monsanto. Regardless of how you feel about the science, the government should not be giving them special favors and protection. THIS is the Libertarian position.

      • Joshua Moore

        The Libertarian position is to “leave them alone” even while they buy off or buy up research firms, manipulate data and control oversight agencies

        • Skylar

          Your argument is based on the irrational assumption that this isn’t ALREADY happening in the government, and that it would somehow get WORSE once the incentive of government power is removed from the equation.

          Assuming 2 companies produce a product, why would company B submit products to be rated by a firm that was “bought” by company A? And considering that research is fundamentally reproducible, why would anyone accept faulty data as correct without verification?

          You’re saying that if option A is bad and option B is worse, we should keep option B because option A might still have some problems. Would you like to provide support for that position other than ignorance?

    • Adam Kohl

      You, should not generalize Libertarians.

    • Mick

      You’re a moron. How’s that for generalization?

  • Michael Paulus

    I have no reason to believe that the modifications made to the organisms cause any harm. I do know that they make the plants more tolerant of glyphosate and I am suspicious when the FDA keeps making the safe levels of glyphosate higher. It is best to not ingest herbicides, but this resistance is one of the main functions sought when genetically modifying these plants.

  • Martin Mullikin

    I think the dangers of GMOs go beyond just dangers to humans. Sure, they might not be directly harmful to a humans health. However, call me crazy, but could it be that modifying the genes of any species gene pool is going to severely screw with the environment? I mean I know we’ve already pretty much screwed the environment of pretty much the entire planet, but this seems like a surefire way to seal the damage. It’s already obvious in declining honeybee populations, which is devastating to natural pollination, not just devastating to human’s consumption of honey. People need to think on a deeper level than “human health” when your talking about actual science of serious topics like GMOs. Not everything is black and white.

    • Skylar

      Species were flourishing and becoming extinct, and genes were evolving over time LONG before the past 500 years, when humans either didn’t exist or had minimal impact on the environment. You might as well try to stop the world from turning or to stop the energy from the sun causing global climate change…

      • Martin Mullikin

        Despite your rather simplistic take on a couple different complex topics, you are right that genes have been evolving over a LONG time period. When you make a major change to the genes of a certain species immediately in an area without letting the genes of surrounding species that live codependent in the same ecosystem catch up, you’re going to have imbalances and like I said, screw up the environment even further. Might I suggest an ecology/biology class or two. Oh wait, that would challenge your simple views. As far as the whole climate change thing goes, I’m still skeptical. We’ve only been keeping track of actual temperatures for about the last 100 years, that’s not enough data to assess whether or not humans are causing climate change.

        • Skylar

          If you have any evidence that crops planed in a field are somehow fundamentally modifying local ecology, I’d love to see it. But that data doesn’t exist, that observation has NOT been made, and the assertion that “GMOs are bad because they MIGHT BE bad” is obviously unfounded.

          I’ll let you go on your AGW point, even though there are many scientific methods for determining historical temperatures, even going back millions of years, because at least you haven’t come to a conclusion based on junk science, even though REAL science exists in direct contradiction to the idea that CO2 drives global temperature.

          • Martin Mullikin

            You’re probably right, but I do think that possible environmental and evolutionary disruptions should be monitored and evaluated in a contained study before launching off with new genetically modified “products” with high chances of cross pollination into different species. Anything short of that is dangerous and irresponsible. Just listen to Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park, he knows whats he’s talking about. Chaos theory, man. Hruahahahaha

          • Skylar

            Absolutely. Real scientific research should continually evaluate major scientific advances like this. Politicizing the issue doesn’t help that cause, especially when there is profit to be made from being on the “popular” side of a scientific issue.

            Nobody should be willing to wield scientific power like a kid that’s found his dad’s gun. 🙂

    • William

      The environment has been tampering with it’s own “gene pool” for as long as life has existed. Mutations and hybridization has been prevalent throughout all life’s evolution.
      Even if you focus on humanity’s efforts, we’ve been doing this as long as we existed. Do you think bright white, slow, flightless chickens are a natural stage of evolution? We’ve been selectively breeding and hybridizing long before we ever dipped into genetic research in laboratories.

      • Martin Mullikin

        William, read my reply to a similar reply by Skylar. And it’s true to that we have been messing with genetics long before the creation of laboratories and eliminating natural selection by domesticating certain species. It doesn’t make it a good thing.
        But even evolution to that degree takes time. When you make a major change to the gene pool in a certain area without allowing time for the genetics of codependent species in the same ecosystem evolve, you’re falsely creating a huge imbalance. And what is one of the biggest factors that keeps any system, eco or government, in check? Wait for it… a delicate balance.

  • Corey Jones

    I don’t completely disagree with this article but at the same time it’s so one sided that I can’t really support it, because it’s not an abolitionist issue the the writer is trying to make it sound. Some GMO’s are good for you, some aren’t. I’ll agree that left wing scientists can be guilty of denial if something goes against their ideology, but this is not one of those cases.

    • xxx

      Also some GMO’s are good for the surrounding area, some are not. To be honest I am not for or against, as I am not an expert in such matters, but I refuse to be a guinea pig in the mean time.

  • dtownprof

    How is anthropogenic global warming scientific consensus? We can measure the temperature, I think it is inherently scientific to question the cause.

  • Francois Arseneau

    this article is all over the fucking map

  • Celesta

    I’m not a science denier, I’m a government and corporate subsidized, bought and paid for science denier. Scientists have been bought and paid for just like government, politicians, and mainstream media. Got to think for ourselves, can’t trust anything anymore.

    • Skylar

      This is something people don’t seem to understand. Going into a “study” with a conclusion in mind is NOT science. And it never fails that the people funding these studies have a significant financial interest in the outcome.

      REAL science is a rare thing these days, and for the statists and progressives, junk science is a religion. They believe in it without ANY personal investigation into its truth or validity. Write down an opinion, cherry pick some data, call it a study, and you can use it to rob the masses.

  • Alvaro

    Lost me at “well-established scientific consensus like anthropogenic climate change theory”, David Friedman (real libertarian) already prove that is a lie.

    • Skylar

      My thoughts as well. I did read the rest of the article, but when someone just passively mentions that a documented hoax like AGW is a “well-established scientific consensus”, it’s hard to take the rest seriously.

      • Sam Pyeatte

        Dems are fond of saying 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming.
        In the 16th century, 97 percent of scientists thought the world was flat. So, if someone is a “flat-earther,” he believes in the scientific consensus and not what became the truth. Thus, challenging the scientific consensus makes you the opposite of a “flat-earther.”

        • Pelagian

          Of those who were alive at the time, the members of that 97 percent considered it established science that the next ice-age was imminent in the 70’s.

        • My earnings are for my family

          If its not 100% proven, it means nothing. I dont care what scientists think. I care about what they find to be factual from all angles.

        • Miroslav Houdek

          Except that in the 16th century no scientists believed that Earth is flat. Also not in centuries before or after. You can easily look that up, there is a detailed Wiki on the “flat-earth myth” myth.

          If you want to find an argument with scientific consensus being wrong, you should really use the hand-washing blunder, where a guy called Semmelweis tried to convince other doctors that they should wash their hands when they go from doing an autopsy in pathology to OBGYN. But that is a quite rare example – and even in that case you probably can’t call that _scientific_ consensus, because scientific method had not been applied at all. It was just consensus of medical doctors, not scientists as we now understand the term.

    • Onlooker from Troy

      Exactly my thought as well. And there’s a very important distinction that is avoided here, and elsewhere by the believers. That’s the catastrophic part of CAGW.

      The notion that humans using fossil fuels and “dumping” large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere thus raising the global temps, AND that positive feedback effects will kick someday and drive temps up to dangerous levels, is only a hypothesis with no proof whatsoever.

      The whole CAGW “theory” is based on computer models that have been shown to be pretty much useless as they have failed miserably when compared against empirical evidence over the last couple of decades. Yet they present model output as “data”; all the while ignoring the actual evidence. Junk science, period.

    • Mario Lawrence

      The author blatantly and presumptuously speaks of suppositions as facts. I find it insulting actually.

    • dno25

      No doubt crap reporting. No mention of Dr. James Lovelock, one of the founders of the man-made hoax. Admitting that his theories have been proven wrong. No mention of the co-founder of Greenpeace admitting he left because of the lies being told about the man-made hoax. No mention of Dr. Jerry Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, who has run a web-site with a pettition against man-made hoax.

      • Kenneth James Abbott

        And let’s not forget the CRU emails.

        Being caught cooking the books is supposed to be bad for a scientific theory.

    • GuarionexSandoval

      He was QUOTING someone. Paying attention when reading is very important.

    • Kenneth James Abbott

      Consensus is a matter of politics.

      Science is not only independent of consensus, but scientific advances are made in defiance of it.

      Consensus means changing your message, and science means finding the truth and sticking to it. The divide is not this fictional war between religion and science, but the conflict of science and politics.

    • Mason Haine

      Same comment here. For a moment I thought it was Barack writing about “settled science”.

  • Tony Voluntary

    Over 1700 peer reviewed articles saying GMO’S are safe for the environment and for human consumption. 0 peer reviewed articles in the opposite direction.

    • TonyWestover

      It’s not even the peer reviews that matter. There’s zero causal evidence of someone eating Bt Corn or whatever and having that be the cause of their death. It doesn’t need to a be a “peer”, that’s purely an academic construct. A janitor to could find the evidence if it existed.

      GMO nuts are just as anti-science as global warming nuts. It’s always a gloomy future even though they’ve been making their predictions so long that the future is here and their religious predictions didn’t pan out in reality.

      • Mick

        LOL, you just don’t want to find said “casual evidence”. That’s because industry controls what is or isn’t accepted as “evidence”. There is not only “casual” evidence everywhere which indicates risks and safety issues with GMOs, but there are papers as well which have been suppressed. If you were objectively informed on what is “science”, then you would know this. And you seem to indicate that anecdotal evidence questioning safety of GMO would be acceptable to you, failing to understand that industry which controls peer-reviewed science, and which influences and buys regulation in government, discounts any of your so-called “casual” evidence as being anecdotal, and therefore not worthy of mention. LMAO. People like you want to discount “casual” evidence as being “casual”, and then claim there is no evidence. Maybe you could get informed…

        “May 2013, six months after the Seralini
        study release, Elsevier announced that it had created a new
        position, ‘Associate Editor for Biotechnology’. The person
        they hired to fill it was Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto
        employee who in addition was with the Monsanto pro-GMO lobby
        organization, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI)…”

        Maybe you could look up the Seralini study, which WAS peer reviewed and published…until a Monsanto employee and lobbyist was hired by the journal publisher, and despite criteria not having been meet to warrant revocation of his paper, had his paper revoked by the pro-industry journal (another one) who is now in bed with Monsanto. Now…how fukin stupid are you pro-GMO people who want to claim all this tainted “science” that it’s safe. It’s being given to you by industry protectionists, and you’re claiming “scientific consensus”. Consensus is NOT science. But, if you wish to continue eating bastardized, gene-meddled with crops that express Bt toxin, deemed safe after a 90 DAY study…LMFAO…be my guest, ‘tards.

        • TonyWestover

          “LOL, you just don’t want to find said ‘casual evidence’.”

          *LOL* Yeah fine, whatever, I don’t want to find *CAUSAL* evidence. Or maybe you do mean casual evidence, like it wears denim jeans to work or something. Hey, how about this: you find the causal evidence. Oh wait, you’ve been looking for forty years and haven’t found anything.

          “That’s because industry controls what is or isn’t accepted as ‘evidence’.”

          Um, no. Science determines what’s accepted evidence. Don’t blame “industry” because you’re chasing windmills.

          “If you were objectively informed on what is ‘science’, then you would know this.”

          Sounds like you need to be objectively informed on what science is since you’ve been looking for evidence for forty years and haven’t found jack.

          And there was just a buncha blah blah blah till this gem:

          “It’s being given to you by industry protectionists, and you’re claiming ‘scientific consensus’. Consensus is NOT science.”

          I’m not claiming scientific consensus, you are you freakin’ moron! *LOL* You’re the one whining about some study not being in a journal.

          Oh, and Seralini is a hack. He made propagandists sign confidentiality agreements before viewing the study. Because that’s what science is all about, selective scrutiny — oh yeah, and the book deal and the documentary he was making for profit. His study was also widely criticized by people not associated with Monsanto (like that freakin’ matters) for being terribly designed and for reaching conclusions not supported by the data.

    • randakost

      Ugh. That’s not true at all. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies in the opposite direction. Please don’t give ammunition to the anti-GMO crowd, because it will take them less than 30 seconds to debunk this claim.

      There are *many* peer-reviewed studies questioning the safety of GMOs. None of them are credible or stand up to further scrutiny. Most of them have bad methodology and are published in zero-quality pay-to-play journals. Those that are credible don’t hold up to replication or further research. The consensus is clear, GMOs are substantively equivalent to conventional crops and are not harmful to the environment. Let’s be clear with that and not invite someone to post 20 Seralini or Seneff/Samsel papers that we now have to debunk. I get tired.

      • Mick

        Uh yeah, because it’s pretty inconvenient for you to have to explain how Elsevier only revoked the Seralini study of Nov 2012 AFTER they hired a former Monsanto employee and lobbyist, and have admitted that Seralini’s study didn’t rise to the objective criteria required to revoke it…but they did anyway. LMAO.

        • randakost

          Former Monsanto employee (1997-2004) and current Professor at the University of Nebraska. Where did you get lobbyist? Professor Goodman is an expert in GMO safety assessment and was hired as an associate editor to handle reviews of biotechnology, a position he is eminently qualified for. He had nothing to do with the retraction of the Seralini study, it was retracted because it was scientifically unsound and should never have been published in the first place. Any undergraduate in the sciences could have (and did) read that paper and pick it apart. It was a complete mess.

          But then, you know that, Mick, because you’re “a content contributor to a significant international medical website” so you must have read the paper and seen its serious methodological flaws, right? Also, you understand the peer review process and that the decision to retract the paper was made by the editor and not associate editors. You know a LOT about science. You said so.

          • Mick

            I just don’t have time for stupid, so I’m just hitting the high points seen in your first couple of lines. I’m correct in every single point. Where did I get it? It’s called “research”, moron. Something you should try sometime. You can’t deny he was employed by Monsanto and is now an editor for a specially newly created position just for him at a world renown journal publisher. I’m sure there’s nothing nefarious and no pr-GM bias happening there at all when he decides what is and isn’t “safe” and “science”. LMAO. You’re so fukin naive. And, yes, a lobbyist. It’s called the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). They accept industry money and then give favorable “science” in exchange, as well as representation to influence legislation. ILSI was banned by the WHO from further participation in setting safety standards. I wonder why? And this story will just kill you…Egg on face anyone?

            newsweek [dot] com / worm-now-thrives-gmo-corn-designed-kill-it-study-says-232276

            …But ‘tards like you say GMOs are safe, because industry paid “scientists” have told you that it’s safe, and you’d trust the future health and safety of the food supply and environment to people who couldn’t even see THIS shit coming where it concerned a specific TARGET SPECIES they designed this shit to ward off! LMFAO That’s rich. Yeah, all you pro-GM crowd are pretty much stupid asses.

          • randakost

            So your contention is that GMOs are dangerous because evolution happens? That’s not very scientific of you Mick. Did you know there now exist roaches that don’t like the taste of sugar, because of roach traps? Bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics? Well of course you do, you’re a “a content contributor to a significant international medical website.” It’s rather strange that you would choose evolution of root worm as a sticking point then, isn’t it? Very strange indeed. I would think that would be the last thing someone in the medical field would take issue with. Or are you also contending we ban antibiotics?

            I can’t find any evidence that Richard Goodman is a lobbyist for the IFLS. As far as I can tell he spoke at one of their conferences once. You do realize that speaking at a conference or even being a member of a non-profit organization doesn’t make you a lobbyist, right? You actually have to register to be a lobbyist. They have rules and everything. Smart guy like you though, with your credentials, surely you realize that.

          • randakost

            Also, I’m kind of surprised that a guy like you, who’s so smart and up on the science, would choose to get your science news from Newsweek. I’ve seen a dozen articles on this that were far better, more detailed and less sensationalistic (thrives?). Of course, you’re the expert, so who am I to quibble?

    • Mick

      Now Tony…go eat your Bt pesticide producing corn, which was deemed safe after only a 90 DAY study, and for which a peer reviewed paper which studied much longer showed tumorous growths in rats, and which was then revoked by Elsevier AFTER they hired a former Monsanto employee and lobbyist. LMAO. You ‘tard. If you followed the MONEY, you would know better.

  • Jim

    This article is trash. The only real, unbiased studies on GMO’s have proved their toxicity. EVERYONE needs to be skeptical about new science and technologies.

    • Skylar

      That’s not true. The main study touted by anti-GMO people was redacted by the authors, and none of the other studies are conclusive or even suggestive.

      Studies done with an agenda are not science.

    • Mick

      Exactly. We haven’t been at such a thing as engineering organism on a genetic level and manipulating DNA and crossing this and that to be so arrogant and claim it’s safe. If there wasn’t big money and control behind this issue, the FDA would never approve such things without a friggin 50 year study. We don’t have to prove it’s unsafe – they have to prove that it is safe, and I don’t trust data that is funded by GMO industry.

  • solow46

    Would anybody object as strongly to genetically modified humans (GMH)?

  • Michelle Quick

    I guess the 50 some countries banning one form or another of GMO’s must be wrong then, and the US is right…geesh.

    • eccles11

      political consensus is not science.

    • William

      By that logic, those who support a free market must be completely wrong then, going on how many countries ban it.

  • Hap

    At least that was a totally unscientific and a totally
    biased article. You could substitute global warming for each mention of GMOs
    and have one very nice liberal rant going there.

    So far, GMOs, flouride, and vaccine issues have remained
    bi-partisan concerns on both sides of the issue. It would be good to keep it
    that way.

    A libertarian would have encouraged people to exchange
    information, express opinions, and demand their rights to accept or refuse
    service if that is what they want. If I want GMOs, flouride, and vaccines, well
    that’s up to me and I’ll take the risk of negative effects. If I refuse GMOs,
    flouride, and vaccines well, that’s up to me too and I should try to get
    governments to stop poisoning me.

    I am not responsible for children in war-ravaged Africa
    who would gladly finish my plate either, mother. When will collectivists quit
    using that worn-out argument?

  • jdog777

    Scientific Consensus doesn’t mean “good science”… especially when the “consensus” is in question. It is a dumb debate.

  • Adam Kohl

    How, can this even be an article on this website…… I will never understand. This is obviously extremely bias….. being that bias was the original subject of this article. Then it completely just transformed into a Pro-GMO bit piece. There are no studies cited at all to begin with… to support this stand point and to use these two youtubers as examples is absolutely ridiculous. Literally, being Pro-GMO is being Pro-Government. If you know anything….. about it at all.

  • TonyWestover

    Well that hell is this trash?

    “Shermer observes that, while it is true that Republicans are more
    overwhelmingly opposed to well-established scientific consensus like
    anthropogenic climate change theory and evolution, the problem of
    science denial also reaches epidemic proportions on the left.”

    “Scientific consensus” BY DEFINITION is anti-science. Science isn’t about what a bunch of government-paid people agree it is. Science is about falsifiability and repeatability.

    I didn’t bother reading a single word after this sentence. You’re not making a scientific argument, you’re making a stupid schoolyard playground argument. You’re also insulting actually scientific-minded people by saying that only Fundamentalist Republicans (whatever the f%*$ those are) are the only people who correctly identify anthropogenic climate change theory as *not a theory* since it’s unfalsifiable. Their entire body of study is “oh, wait ten years, things’ll get bad!” and then when ten years come they say “oh, wait ten years, things’ll get even worse than we said before”. This stupid cycle has gone on so long that the argument has gone from “we’re going to freeze to death” in the 1970s to “the entire Earth will be a desert” in the 1990s to “well it snowed in Boston and it was dry in Arizona… *clearly* humans and their cars and powerplants are to blame”.

    So spare me the bullcrap of whatever this article was going to say.

    • John Ash

      Scientists believe in ‘space time’ which is about the most ridiculous concept I’ve ever heard. Want me to believe it? Bend it. Bend space. Stop time. All these weird “consensus” things that are based on mathematical theories that can’t be proven and will probably seem ridiculous in the near future.

      • TonyWestover

        “All these weird “consensus” things that are based on mathematical theories”

        Yeah, except they *can* be falsified.

        See, this is the problem when moronic liberal arts dropouts like you try to talk science. Stick to Keeping Up With The Kardashians or whatever and don’t try to strain your brain with objective studies like science.

        • John Ash

          Yeah…..okay, obviously you don’t know me. But just because you can make a mathematical equation that appears to express someting doesn’t mean that this mathematical model is correct.

          Further it doesn’t mean that it will ever be useful data.

          • TonyWestover

            I do you know, you clearly don’t understand the concept of falsification. Until you actually understand the scientific method, your opinion on the matter is illegitimate.

          • John Ash

            Yeah…..okay…..actually took a whole class on that…..

            I guess you don’t understand logical argumentation.

          • TonyWestover

            No, you don’t actually, since you think “consensus” is a part of the scientific method. Like I said, your opinion is illegitimate. You’re spewing emotions about how you wish things were, not what they actually are.

            Again, science is the stupid liberal arts that you likely dropped out of where arguing and whining might get you your way. Science is rigid and methodical.

          • John Ash

            Real science may be, but there is a whole lot of junk scienct out there. And a whole lot of lefties who will fake anything to get the result they want. And a compliant press looking to put it out there the moment they get the press release.

          • TonyWestover

            Yes, and I reject anti-science when it’s masquerading as science. Such as this worthless article and its false premises.

          • John Ash

            I think you’re being disagreeable. Scientific consensus is used often, to basically lend creedence to whatever the prevailing theory is. After all, it’s hard to prove what something IS, so we have to go by something. Of course, it was “consensus” that supposedly claimed that oil comes from dinosaurs and that seemed completely ridiculous to me at the age of 7 when I first read about it.

          • TonyWestover

            I’m not being disagreeable, you’re just a freakin’ nut job who clearly has no understanding of the scientific method. “Consensus” has absolutely nothing to do with science, no matter how much pathetic whining you conjure up over it.

            And unsurprisingly since you clearly don’t understand the scientific method, you don’t understand what a theory is either. A theory doesn’t prove what something is, it explains it in a way that can be rejected. It’s not “proven” through consensus, it’s proven — or rejected — through testing.

            So give it up already. You’re clearly trying to play out of your league.

          • John Ash

            Thanks for the diagnosis, Dr Nutjob!

          • TonyWestover

            Jesus, leave while you still have some dignity. Everything about your argument has been thoroughly dismantled.

          • John Ash

            Seriously, there’s nothing more amusing to me that being called a “nut job” by a liberal. The irony is delicious.

          • TonyWestover

            You were called a nutjob by someone who clearly understand science whereas you clearly don’t.

            The *actual* irony is that liberal use your stupid invalid argument to garner support for illogical, faith-based policies such as inefficient, or “green”, energy or for banning GMOs.

          • John Ash

            Yeah, well, okay, Captain Hypocrisy, where’s your peer revied evidence of me being stupid and crazy? Because that’s what liberals do. You are obviously a liberal, no matter how you vote.

          • TonyWestover

            *LOL* I’m obviously a liberal.

            You’re pathetic. You should’ve quit when I told you to. You have absolutely no dignity left. If you were so obnoxious you could’ve possibly saved some face. But now you’re wrong, defeated, and pathetic.

        • John Ash

          Also, can you please describe time without motion? That would be great, thanks.

          • TonyWestover

            So you’ve never heard of quantum mechanics, huh.

          • John Ash

            You didn’t answer the question.

          • TonyWestover

            I answered your question!

            God you’re pathetic. Like I said, you’ve clearly never heard of quantum mechanics.

          • John Ash

            Yes, you answered the way liberals always do, with obfuscation.

          • TonyWestover

            No, I answered in a way that highlights your completely obnoxious ignorance. You should quite while you’re ahead because you’re only feeding me ammunition.

  • Regressive Goosesteppers

    “{and critics like Chris Mooney were quick to point out, correctly, that science denial is predominantly right-wing.”

    That is an absolute lie. The Left Wing’s anti-science rap sheet is incredibly long, goes back at least a century and is FREQUENTLY accompanied by violence and extremism. GMO denial, antivaxxing, Fracking causes earthquakes, Animal “Rights” cultism and the bizarre anti-meat/anti-research testing propaganda it pumps out, eugenics, anti-Nuclear hysteria, dietary and nutrition voodoo, homeopathy, yoga, transcendental meditation, every alternative medicine quackery, cognitive behavioral creationism, Kennewick Man. All concepts and ideas that ahave been historically extolled and deeply cherished predominantly, if not downright exclusively on the Left, which frequently dismisses any science that it does not like as being manufactured and bought by the same Corporate Boogeyman they scapegoat for everything else.

    As for Chris Mooney, he’s nothing more than a pseudoskeptical political hack. He has Zero interest in promoting science or rational thought; he exists solely to (a) sell books and (b) promote and aggrandize the political party he is attached to. His arguments frequently stem from emotionalism, sensationalism he constantly engages in goalpost moving and outright fabrication of facts to suit his embarassing pre-conclusions. His argument style can best be described as, “I am right and you are wrong, and since I am right I never have to prove myself”.

    All one needs to do is “compare” the two sides and define what we mean by “anti-Science”. Republicans are accused of being “anti-science” for two issues; their opposition to Evolutionary theory (which is actually pseudoscience; they’re not calling for the dismantling of science as the Left does with say, GMOs or nuclear physics,, they’re simply creating their own unsupported theory and offering that instead; if we’re going to claim that that qualifies as “anti-science”, than the Left still leads by lightyears, after all most of them get evolution completely wrong, look at the cognitive creationists) and their skepticism to the global warming industry, the billions of dollars it rakes in and the way hysteria of such is used to accumulate political power for the Left to do everything from close down fast food drivethrus to imposing Pyramid Scheme-esque “carbon credits” and taxes (as if demanding an adherence to scientific method instead of blindly repeating “the science is settled” in the hopes of securing another billion dollars tot he good folks at Solyndra is “anti-science”).

    No, it’s the Left Wing that has spent the last century calling for us to tear down techonology and science and prop up and worship the State instead. Whether it was Marxist labor union propaganda trying to eradicate the assembly lines that have benefitted humanity so much then, or whether it’s a desire to let millions of human beings starve to death because someone told them GMOs are bad because they contain ingredients that are like, all science-y big words and hard to say and therefore must be like, totally bad for the Earth, which Leftists anthropormosize and have turned into a downright deity just as deserving of scorn and skepticism as any religion on the right.

    PS, where are all these violent Right-Wing groups that use bombs, molotov cocktails and death threats to halt the progress of science? They exist all throughout Left Wing politics, which extolls and idolizes them in it’s media and speeches. Groups like PETA, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, HSUS, SHAC, ALF, ELF, “Monkjey Wrenchers” and countless others. If the Right Wing is, as you assert with absolutely no evicence, unquestionably more anti-science than the Left, than where are all these groups hiding?

    • American-By-Choice

      Well for the Left… it’s “SCIENCE!”. Which they hold up as infallible and omniscient.

      For sound, sustainable adults, science is merely a disciplined study of the physical universe. Its findings are not sacrosanct, as the study is on-going and evolving.

      In truth, the Ideological Left is the caricature that it projects upon its opposition. They’re children and fools… most of whom will outgrow it.

      Some do not of course and sound examples of such are seen on TV everyday, as the media convers Bill & Hill and the re dux of their regime as portrayed by The Jeffersons of Pennsylvania Avenue.

  • eccles11

    Can we get a source for Bills opinion on GMO that isn’t a decade old?

  • 2nenga

    Arsenic is natural, too. Try it.

    • John Ash

      arsenic is fine in small amounts.

      • 2nenga

        And yet this runs against “common sense,” likewise with e.g. radiation. Zero tolerance rules! So… how much M is there in GMO? IFAIK it’s small amounts.

    • Did you know that breast milk contains formaldehyde?

      • 2nenga

        Yes.
        Did you know normal soil may be 10ppm uranium?

  • Jeremy Little

    I find it interesting that climate change is used as an example of accepted fact when the problem that many on the right – and indeed even many independents – have with this is any dissenting research has been marginalized, discouraged or even outright buried. Science is the pursuit of knowledge regardless of if it fits with already decided upon theories. If equal amounts of funding had gone to both sides of the theory instead of being overwhelmingly in favor of it already being true then it might be more widely accepted. Maybe not among the far right, but certainly with individuals such as myself.

    To be clear, I’m not 100% against the possibility, I’m just not convinced and the utter disregard of any reasonably stated argument against only drives me further from acceptance.

    • American-By-Choice

      Yeah, well, Im not 100% against any theory…

      Except the one which claims that input from adherents to the cult which has a 100% failure rate, should be considered in endeavors searching for success.

      That AGW is being touted by the Ideological Left, is all one really needs to know about it, to reject it.

      AGW is a farce and the advocacy for such is a tragic farce.

      The Leftist Cult produced Eugenics prior to AGW and for precisely the same reason. The Science was said to be settled then… and that is ALWAYS the first clue, that such is a lie.

      As: Science is NEVER SETTLED… Science is a journey, not a destination.

  • Mick

    Europe does have a much better track record in two respects, and that’s when it comes to their food supply safety and their diet. Both are much better and more natural than the typical US diet. Europe bans a lot of cancer causing crap that the FDA & USDA says is safe. After more than a decade of learning better about the motivations and subversive tactics of those gooberment agencies which are in the pockets of big pharma and big agriculture….I’ll take a pass on them advising me what’s safe. On this one, I’ll actually listen to what the Europeans have to say. Their overall health and lower incidence of certain diseases in their smaller and less industrialized fishing and farming communities speaks for itself, as does those in other parts of the world.

  • John Ash

    I’m sorry, but I think the left is more anti-science. They are now insisting that you can’t look for differences between male and female brains, that GMOs are deadly, that a fetus is not even human (screw DNA!!!) and many, many other things that are anti-science. They are now calling for “academic justice” to stop any science that may have offensive or anti-left conclusions.

    The right simply doesn’t want to fall into the trap of agreeing with climate change and then getting whacked with a $5000 “screwing up the planet” tax. It is directly in their self-interest to state that they do not believe in global warming.

    This is different from being truly anti-science.

    • grism

      Each side uses science when it fits their specific agenda, and ignores it when it doesn’t. Trying to prove one to be worse than the other is a waste of time.

      • John Ash

        Well, true, but the hypocrisy of the left screaming “Luddite! Anti-science!” is ridiculous when they so quickly turn their back on it the moment it doesn’t back them up.

    • Barlingwood

      But this is just the problem with AGW denial, what if they ARE costing the economy 5000$ in screwing up the planet action, that is being externalized by the current economic system governed by people who have bought politicians to ignore the problem. This is a real problem for the right, what when there is some danger to all our health and wellbeing being brought about by people just wanting to make money? We solved the ozone hole problem through government action banning CFCs, how would libertarians have solved this problem?

    • Mick

      I’m sorry, but your statements and conclusions are completely retarded. Science is not a left or right matter. The problem with you conservatives is that you want to couch everything in terms of left or right. GMOs have been shown unsafe in numerous studies and anecdotal evidence, which has been suppressed by pro-industry journals, and scientists and government regulators on the take with Monsanto and Syngenta et al. That’s not a “left” issue. That’s a TRUTH issue.

      • John Ash

        Hah, yeah, Mr Science, because science is great, except they keep just magically “covering up” all the good stuff, which, oh, BTW, is doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. So you just blame Monsanto. GMO people are so incredibly anti-science it’s fascinating.

        • Mick

          I’m sorry, did you have a position here that is cogent and which you can articulate? So far, it doesn’t sound like it.

        • Mick

          newsweek [dot] com / worm-now-thrives-gmo-corn-designed-kill-it-study-says-232276

          Yeah, we just blame Monsanto based on no reason at all. LMFAO

  • David Feith

    This entire article is trash. The fact that there is a “good” GMO, this “golden rice,” doesn’t “establish” the science. How do we go from that to any of the obviously biased conclusions in this article. It’s basic premise is “I know what I’m talking about because I say so and anybody that disagrees with what I think is in stupid science denial.”

    • Eric McCann

      The article is based on what science already knows about GMO’s. Not one study can find any danger. Go research it for yourself you moron

  • Shawn M. Smith

    The thing that bugs me about this whole thing is that no one is arguing facts. It is all about whether or not a person (Scientist or not) agrees with the current consensus. This is completely wrong think. In the past, established consensuses included “The Earth is Flat” and “The Earth is the Center of the Universe”. Any school kids that didn’t sleep in class knows the story of Galileo.

    The agreement of people does not make scientific fact. Not even the results from a theory prove anything beyond “We’ve gotten closer”. I mean no disrespect to Einstein, but the fact that there have been many advances made from his work cannot be considered definitive proof that the speed of light is a constant nor that the Theory of Relativity is 100% accurate. Until something is proven, it isn’t proven and science that operates on established opinion is not science at all, but propaganda and agenda. Yet the article seems to indicate that anyone that disagrees with current group agreement (not proven facts but theories upon which a majority have decided to take as canon) is engaged in pseudoscience when this system itself is pseudoscience.

    I’m not trying to claim here that Global Warming is valid or not, nor GMO safety. I have my opinions on these subjects but I know that they are just that, opinions. I do, however, take issue with efforts to stifle debate and, more importantly, research. Things like consensuses are all too open to manipulation via funding and threat. Companies like Monsanto have enough money and influence to buy “expert” opinions and have done so. Big Pharma is regularly being caught hiding known harmful effects for profit and pay out settlements for such as a matter of conducting business.

    So, I really couldn’t care less how many “experts” agree. Show me the facts and the proofs. Otherwise, your consensus is just an expensive opinion that got more funding than others.

    • DarthTrader

      So I am wondering has Monsanto slid a few bucks to “The Libertarian Republic”. I have seen No Consensus regarding GMO’s except for those in Power who have shut down normal labeling precautions that should be in place. This is like the Tobacco Companies in the 1950’s only the Consequences could be much, much, much worse. This is not a piece about Libertarian issues . . . no, this is a propaganda piece by Gov’t Stooges.

      • Eric McCann

        You haven’t looked up any studies obviously. Your whole argument is based on your bias.

  • James

    Wow, what an asshole. Claiming that GMO’s which have caused tumor growth throughout the body of rats who were fed GMO corn throughout their lifespan and who’s offspring can no longer reproduce by 3rd generation are safe. Guess we should just ignore that inconvenient study.

    • Eric McCann

      Yes, we can ignore that false study, because it wasn’t peer reviewed. The rats they tested on almost always get cancer. The study couldn’t even be reproduced and thus, couldn’t pass a peer review. ASSHOLE

  • xxx

    I think the biggest form of obvious danger is that the gmo’s DO NOT REPRODUCE. You buy the seeds from Monsanto or such and then that’s it. You have it for that year. Period. What happened with old methods? Saving the strongest, most productive ones? Gone. Farmers must rely on seeds from genetic means only? Hold the world’s money supply, you can control mass amounts of people. Hold the world’s food supply and who can resist?

    • Eric McCann

      That is a lie, they reproduce, their contract states that you cannot use the seeds to regrow crop with them, so that you can buy more.

      • Mardorang

        The biggest problem in that situation aren’t the seeds themselves, but the patents. If your neighbor’s Monsanto seeds cross pollinate with yours because he could not contain them then you are in violation of a patent through no fault of your own. Say goodbye to the farm when Monsanto comes to sue.

        • Eric McCann

          That has never happened, and would never happen

  • Resist_Tyranny

    “science denial is predominantly right-wing” Hilarious. It started on the left with so called environmentalist lying and distorting facts to achieve social agenda, and that is the stronghold today, including the anthropogenic climate change theory, I mean lie. Here is a REAL climate scientist explaining the climate and injecting some real, unadulterated, unmodified scientific fact. search on youtube-

    Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

  • you forgot to mention homosexuality and the question of when life begins. Throw science out the freaking window on those two.

  • Mark

    I prefer the buyer beware approach. buy from who you know, or permit yourself not to care about what you buy and suffer consequences (or reap the rewards). Same as buying a car without a warranty, a home without a home inspection, or anything else.
    There is nothing written in law that prohibits private citizens from warning their compatriots about supposed or real threats in the food supply, lemons on the dealership lot, or homes in a flood prone area.
    I would personally like to hear from someone who’s done research and has no vested interest in the outcome I choose (unlike a government agency or corporation telling me what I should or should not do, and why).

    • TonyWestover

      That’s not the problem and you know it. The problem is that GMO nuts *want* laws, they don’t want to merely exercise their free speech. And how the hell they ever found a home in the liberty movement with their overt statism is beyond me.

      • Mark

        Can’t argue with that. There are VERY few instances where you will here me utter the phrase, “there ought to be a law…”

  • IskurBlast

    As I have said before, I only need to stand in line at a whole foods market for 5 minutes to get a months worth of anti-science bullcrap. And its not just GM foods.

    Look at the outbreaks of once almost eradicated diseases we are dealing with now such a measles because liberal parents aren’t getting their kids vaccinated because Madonna said it was bad.

    • Jeremy Rawley

      Antiscience zealots, be they anti-vax, anti-GMO, creationists, or whatever, should all be locked in prison for felony fraud, criminal negligence, and perhaps child abuse.

      • Catroast DuJour

        Yes, let’s start taking away people’s rights in droves because of their beliefs. Then we will all think the same… in the Dark Ages. People that think like you are the real monsters here.

        • Jeremy Rawley

          Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall “promote the progress of science and useful arts”, not retard it.

      • Eric McCann

        Why are you on a libertarian page?

  • James Anderson Merritt

    The thing with water fluoridation is that its main — perhaps only — benefit comes from topical application. Putting fluoride in the water is done not because that is the best way to apply fluoride (it is, in fact, a very wasteful method), but because it is a CONVENIENT way to go for those who want to be sure that everyone is exposed to fluoride. Our family dentist gave our son topical fluoride when he was small — there were no health problems, and his teeth are in great shape today. But I wouldn’t want him to drink water with fluoride in it and I don’t want to drink it, either. I respect the decisions of others not to ingest such water. I will not FORCE or vote to force my family or my neighbors to drink water that has anything in it, other than what is minimally necessary to make that water safe for consumption. Such a position is not “anti-science,” or even “anti-medicine.” As far as we know, the tooth problems prevented by fluoride are not communicable, so there is no analogy on that basis between fluoridation and vaccination. Nobody endangers my or my family by not ingesting fluoride. And even if fluoride ingestion were effective, medical ethics demand that patients be able to refuse treatment: putting “treatment” in the public water supply makes this very difficult, and so is actually against ethical practices! Yet, in raising such points, I and those who think similarly are often marginalized as science-deniers by the champions of fluoride. The same tactics of brow-beating and marginalization are also used against “climate skeptics” in that debate, and are just as obnoxious a form of bullying, guaranteed to cause resentment and create enemies, instead of fostering cooperation and open (and, dare we hope, productive?) inquiry.

  • JD

    Science doesn’t have a political ideology. It only seeks the truth. And the fact is, there is ample evidence supporting both evolution and global warming….thus there is a large scientific consensus supporting them. With GMO’s, there is no such consensus. They might be safe and they might not be. Bill Nye feels how he does on GMO’s because the evidence just isn’t there to suggest they are safe. If it were, he would take the side of the evidence.

    • Eric McCann

      Yes it does have an ideology. It’s called consensus, Every time I hear it it makes me cringe, rather than consensus, people need to be focusing solely on evidence. There is plenty of evidence to suggest GMO’s are not harmful, and little to no evidence that they cause harm at all.

      • Eric McCann

        How do you know what side Bill Nye would take? Do you know him personally? Or just because he agrees with your idea of science, and he is an authority figure, it must be true?

      • normdplume

        Scientific “consensus” is malarky. This is analogous to scientific “orthodoxy”. Scientific orthodoxy has shown itself, time and again, to be the outright ENEMY of truth. Keep in mind the players on the field. What agenda is served by those advocating for carbon taxes and the like, to “control global warming” or whatever?

    • Buddusky

      And science is performed by humans… who often have a political ideology and certainly always have bias whether they want to admit it or not. THAT is science.

    • TonyWestover

      There’s ample evidence showing that humans and carbon emissions have pretty much no effect on the earth’s climate. That’s the truth which you refuse to see.

      “Bill Nye feels how he does on GMO’s because the evidence just isn’t there to suggest they are safe. If it were, he would take the side of the evidence.”

      Bill Nye has zero integrity. He’s a former children’s entertainer and now he’s an opinionmonger. He has zero regard for science.

  • Mario Lawrence

    “Science denial also seems to have been quite successful legislatively as of late, with. . .heavily Democratic Portland, Oregon voting against fluoridation in its water. . .”

    Wait a minute…
    “Science denial”?
    lol you don’t actually believe flouride is put in water because Uncle Sam cares about your dental health do you? There are Walls of Text that claim how wonderful flouride in the community water supply is.
    But with everything going on… and with everything that people have experienced, and how much wrong our authorities have done to us… and with what science we have learned to the contrary of what we were told… do you really really expect people to believe that the government flouridates water because it gives a damn about their TEETH?

    Holy smokes… Did I seriously just read an article where the author played “informed critic” after speaking of supposition as fact?

    I’m done.

  • Trevor

    Among other problems, the article pretends that there is a scientific consensus in favor of water fluoridation, when the reality is that not only does science prove that it is dangerous, but it is not even clear how effective it is. Therefore, it is a dangerous lie to say that opposing water fluoridation is “science denial”.

  • Jordan Weikel

    GMO’s might be ok, but flouride is definitely bad for you. It’s a poison. You lumping it in as part of your argument makes you less credible.

  • dbhalling

    Do your homework, consensus is not science “while there is a strong consensus among climate scientists that the theory” But even more importantly AGW advocates lie about the data over and over and over. That is not science that is religion.

  • Sam Pyeatte

    The reason the left doesn’t like GMO foods is because they provide a way to feed more people. The left wants a lower population, hence more dead people.

  • Ben Around

    If catastrophic anthropogenic global warming was a well-established scientific consensus what happened to it? Now all I hear about is anthropogenic climate change theory. It must a tacit admission that the consensus on CAGW was wrong.
    At least ACC is called a “theory” so to question a theory is legit. The term “denial” comes from those with an emotional attachment to their theory.

  • mchughjj

    Overall not a bad take, but as a couple people have mentioned, implying
    that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are dangerously warming the
    planet (and to believe otherwise is science denial akin to a debate on
    evolution) is a very twisted argument. I would take precisely the
    opposite viewpoint. There would be no scientific need for alternative
    theories to address whether species evolve were it not for the Book of
    Genesis and a large number of folks who interpret the Bible literally.
    Thus, we have a conclusion (the earth was made in seven days and
    relatively recently) looking for a science-like explanation, so we have
    creationism or intelligent design filling the void. This is precisely
    what climate activists have been doing. Taxing evil energy is the goal
    (because humans are a scourge to the planet), and whether the earth is
    warming or cooling or we’re getting more or less rain is irrelevant.
    All that’s needed is a story…any story. The fact that the earth
    hasn’t warmed significantly since 1998 despite rising CO2 levels is
    “countered” with meaningless, and sometimes dubious, observations like
    ranking a recent year as the Xth warmest on record, or noting how
    unprecedented it is to have a pretty ordinary hurricane strike the area
    with the densest population in the US. Or let’s roll out vapid
    arguments like 97% of scientists believe the climate is changing.

    • IskurBlast

      Fundementaly the alarmist side isn’t about effective strategy but simply guilt and sacrafice.

      Say hypothetically that we discovered that an increace in solar output in the next century would raise the earths temperature by 3C in the next 100 years.

      We are faced with 3 choices.

      #1 Do nothing.
      #2 Adapt to the changes.
      #3 Tax the hell out of our economy in the hopes that we can invent something to stop it, even though its highly unlikely to succeed.

      Remember if you choose 3 it precludes you from doing 2 because of limited resources.

      With guilt removed the obvious choice is #2. It is only because of guilt associated with AGW that people insist on choice #3.

  • Dora flores

    And yet America’s infant mortality rate is abysmal and embarrassing, behind Cuba for God’s sake!

    • TonyWestover

      Yeah, that’s because America actually classifies births as births instead of waiting a week like Socialized medical countries do. In Europe the people are so sick in the head that they don’t even name their babies until they leave the hospital.

      So in addition to horrible heath care, Socialized medicine also brings you horrible health statistics!

  • Cro Mag

    Makes one wonder… if the leftist blind-spot regarding GMOs extends to other fields, such as anthropogenic climate change- which was global warming up until a few years ago, and global cooling up until the 70’s. Could it jus be the nature of institutions (climate research) to be alarmists, and leftists to be anti-western, just reinforcing each other?

  • I think that these comments prove that the answer to the headline is, “no”.

  • Orson OLSON

    THEORY uber alles! ‘Cuz Richard Feynman was a crock.

  • AAron Hinman

    There is a whole other issue that got left out of this article and that is nuclear denial. I’m a conservative and I freely admit that conservatives are too married to carbon. But I also admit the carbon age needs to end though and for more reasons that just global warming (like for example, Russia and Iran using oil and gas revenues to fund terrorism, WMD programs and territorial expansion).

    Unfortunately the only way to end the carbon era is to nuke it. Anti-nuclear activism comes largely from the left. Typically the most one hears from the left on nuclear is that they want it as part of an “energy mix”. Well unfortunately there is no mix and there never will be. Nearly all of our energy, save for a handful of small feel-good projects that contribute a pittance to our power grids, comes from high-density sources. Solar and wind simply cannot supply our energy needs. Their crippling drawbacks are hard-wired into the orbit of the Earth around our Sun, its rotation, and the density and composition of our atmosphere. Our civilization can only run on high density fuel sources. We cannot go from high density to low density and low reliability. If we want to abandon carbon, we have to go nuclear.

    The left ignores this at all our perils.

    Germany is the worlds biggest investor in solar power. However the Germans emit six times more CO2 per kw/h as France does and France is 85% nuclear. If you want to stop AGW, then it’s nuclear or nothing.

    • TonyWestover

      Why the hell should the “carbon age” end? Hydrocarbon fuel sources are the most efficient fuels sources available except for nuclear fuel sources which are way too expensive right now.

      And AGW is a religious belief, not a scientific theory. There is yet to be any falsifiable, causal evidence that man is causing the earth to warm.

  • Mick

    Read it and weep.

    newsweek [dot] com / worm-now-thrives-gmo-corn-designed-kill-it-study-says-232276

  • Crispy Sock

    This article forgot to mention (probably deliberately) the anti-vaccine stance of the right wing, especially Libertarians. Pro-vaccine Libertarians are in a minority in the Libertarian camp.

    The anti-GMO attitude of *some* (I judge half, most of these people are far-left rather than liberal) liberals could be construed as anti-science, but in my opinion the jury is still out on whether they’re good for the environment. Also, there are good GMOs and bad GMOs, the bad ones being those engineered with pesticides and herbicides, since these compounds can be stored in human fat. This is my opinion as a liberal.

  • Clifford Rogers

    It is unfortunate that the school system has failed to teach science in such a way as to encourage skepticism. As an example, I notice the word organic being bandied about in quotes as if we should pay attention to it. Let me explain for those who missed elementary school science: if it has carbon in it, it was, at some point in time, alive and therefore organic. There are no such things as inorganic foods. You can have food grown without pesticides, herbicides, or dirt (Google hydroponics), for that matter, but that does not make it more ‘organic’ than any other food grown in any other way.
    I would suggest that anytime you here someone used the words ‘settled science’ when discussing climate change, run the other way. They know not what they say. There is, by the definition of science, no such thing as settled science in any of the various sciences. Anyone who tells you different is incapable of having a serious discussion let alone debate. They can only seek to silence you with attacks that do not relate to the subject.

  • Zakk Osborne

    I think I’ll wait for another 10 years or so and see what the digestive cancer rate does, thank you very much. Until then, I’ll stick with my organics and GMO free stuff. Maybe if the company behind this GMO push didn’t act like SPECTER out of a James Bond novel, I might have a softer opinion about it.

  • Levi Dietrich

    This is a silly article….. The science isn’t Firm yet on GMO safety, neither is it on GMOs being dangerous… There are many scientists on both sides of this…. This is a very young topic. I don’t consider it to be solved in the least. Some crops, may be great, others, may cause problems, we have yet to see. And citing the “golden rice” GMO is as bad as Citing the rat study. Both are dishonest studies… BTW it would take a shit ton of “golden rice” to give a person the required DV…

  • Jason Christie

    It’s equally poor form to claim that all GMOs are safe. And the negative effects of fluoride are well known.

  • I must take issue with part of this article. Portland, Oregon’s voting down flouridation of its water was not a case of science denial. It was a case of not wanting to mess with what many say is the purest municipal water in the country.

    • Great point!

      Assuming this was the case for enough Portland voters (and I’m not questioning your assessment, since I have no information one way or the other), there is an excellent explanation for the votes of “left” leaning folks who joined the anti-fluoridation wing nuts. (And I’m not saying all anti-fluoridation folks are wing nuts. Some are, though.)

      In my opinion a similar case can be made for folks on either side of both the GMO and the climate change arguments. Some are evidence-based and some are ideology-based. Science is often inexact. Policy based on science is many times more so. (One might say “exact-less.”)

  • After a discussion with my brother, who seems to think that scientists, in general, skew their work according to their politics, I decided to see what other people said on the matter.

    I haven’t read far into the comments, however, I’m old enough to remember similar sounding nonsense from the FAR, FAR left of the 60s and 70s. It was a relatively common practice then to complain about “capitalist” scientists.

    Anyone familiar with a bit of history and political theory would, I think, realize that totalitarians on both the right and the left* are known to use this form of “denial” and name calling against science that threatens them.

    Not being a climate scientist nor schooled in botany, I’ll leave it to others as to which side are the (apparently somewhat mythical?) flat earthers. I have to guess, though that if the consensus on either point is as strong as indicated that there are a LOT of scientists who voted for Mitt AND a lot who voted for Barack in the consensus.

    Or, to put my opinion of science another way, I can’t remember EVER wondering who my physician, nurse, dentist, or ESPECIALLY surgeon voted for. Science don’t work that way folks–not good science, at least.

  • Stephen Cole

    Boy, get a load of the science deniers coming out of the wood work! Impervious.

6K Shares
Share6K
+117
Tweet43
Pin3
Share
Stumble3