Reply With Quote
How do you feel about GMO's Boo?
Maybe the real teabaggers are the liberal gots?But but tea party
How do you feel about GMO's Boo?
only evolution is something a lot of republicans don't believe in. And for the vaccinations: Democrats.
GMOs are a huge scam. GMO "food" is not better than organic food. GMO seeds are a scam to enslave farmer to the annual seed purchases and the required polluting chemicals.
I think evolution and climate change denying are the purview of the far right. Avoiding vaccinations would probably be 50/50 but avoiding vaccinations re: autism is probably more left leaning while the right who avoid vaccinations probably do so more because "the in government can't tell me what to do."
GMOs would probably be more to the far left, though I would imagine that as more farmers get upset over lack of ability to reseed, that might change. I've not met enough moon landers to make any kind of observation there. Sometimes crazies are apolitical.
If it's not obvious by the fact that I started with "I think", these are my observations and are not a conveyance of empirical evidence.
Actually you have that wrong. You find that in the fundamentalist christian types. Believing intelligent design does not mean evolution isn't real. Both can be real.
Just because someone believes a higher power may have helped in forming our world doesn't mean they reject evolution.
Is it something like how liberal policies enslave their voters for SNAP, and other subsidies?
Lots of the anti-vaccine crowd is religious nuts too.
No, as a person with a couple of science based degrees I can address this at least. Science is about answering questions with evidence and proof. In this regards the issue of climate change is moot, the scientific evidence is solid.
re tea baggers ... Political flat liners rather than scientific ones, perhaps promoting ignorance is their shtick in order to be appealing to the more low brow voter base
there are still a lot that don't believe it though.
The left has their share of religious nuts too. Like Fred Phelps (of Westboro Baptist infamy) and Obama's pastor just off the top of my head so that doesn't automatically mean right-wing.Lots of the anti-vaccine crowd is religious nuts too.
Science is also about testing materiel that is in conflict with the current belief. Climatology has become a religion when opposite views are shunned instead of looked at.
so the Westboro are leftist exactly why?
Your views were looked at and rejected. There is a difference. And how you can say this when you have been on your soot crusade and they very obviously looked at the degree of forcing?
You just want refuted arguments to be accepted carte blanche. Isn't going to happen, dumbass.
“The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.”
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-sen.-jim-...rticle/5386634
I would agree with that. We can change temperatures a little, but climate is a whole different thing.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the differences between climate and weather.
i know the difference.
You wouldn't think we'd be able to pollute large bodies of water or air, but here we are.
Why wouldn't we be able to affect climate?
No, no and nooooooo!
science is about proving or disproving a question that in itself has some validity. The climate deniers for 99.9% of the time will pose a rediculous statement, which is not a question and when there is no proof either way will then claim it is proven or valid. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We are NOT talking about climatology, we are talking about climate change and many different forms of science are involved. Also religion is a faith, it does not require scientific proof, but rather a philosophical or theological proof which are VASTLY different things. Climate change denial fails simply because the scientific proof that could support it simply does not exist at any meaningful level. The Koch brothers, notable financial supporters of climate denial have notably refused to fund scientific research but instead have spent hundreds of millions on political opposition. We're they confident of any reasonable chance of finding proof they would get their Chq book out fast enough.
don't waste your time splainin science to an blind ideologue who "believes" science that doesn't agree with his "science" is a religion.
I said Fred Phelps was because he was a Democrat. Ran for office as a Democrat several times in the 90's, never as anything else.
Not better, but not worse. Some foods are genetically better. (Golden rice?)
GMO's for the most part are designed to yield better by resisting disease, insects, fungus, herbicides, flood, and drought.
Where do you see reliable sources claiming that GMO food is better for you? Better for the world and environment maybe.
Are you fighting the war on science? Gmo soybeans now have some roundup ready varieties with no patent restrictions.
Golden rice? not this again. there's no proof that its Vit A? actually is bioavailable and actually solves Vit A deficiency in humans.
GMO is a scam to enrich Bayer, Syngenta, Monsanto, while poisoning ground and water with glyphosate and soon anAgent Orange component.
Also, the sterilization of ground (no insects, worms, fungus, etc) results in poor, denatured soil so the GMO crop is less complex, less nutritious.
Resisting science? Not this straw man again. GMO is not ALL science. It's corporate profiteering while poisoning the planet. The BIG lie is that glyphosate deteriorates after a 7 - 10 days, but it's found in food, in breast milk, in placenta.
A person can be skeptical of any one of those issues and still support the rest.
But national geographic just wants to shout....SCIENCE, and end the conversation
Very unscientific.
Magazines aren't scientific. They sensationalize to sell.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
