Science

The Left's Bad Ideas About Science Are More Harmful Than the Right's

The contemporary anti-science left

|

This year is the 10th anniversary of a book called The Republican War on Science. I could just as easily write a book called The Democratic War on Science.

The conflict conservatives have with science is mostly caused by religion. Some religious conservatives reject evolution, and some oppose stem cell research. 

But neither belief has a big impact on our day-to-day lives. Species continue to evolve regardless of what conservatives believe, and if conservatives ban government funding of stem cell research, private investors will continue the work. 

By contrast, the left's bad ideas about science do more harm.

Many on the left—including a few of my fellow libertarians—are paranoid about genetically modified organisms. These are crops that have DNA altered to make them grow faster or be more pest-resistant. The left calls that "playing with nature" and worries that eating GMO food will cause infertility, premature aging and a host of other problems.

The fear makes little scientific sense. There is no reason to think that precise changes in a plant's genes are more dangerous than, say, the cross-breeding of corn done by American Indians centuries ago or a new type of tomato arising in someone's organic garden. Nature makes wilder and more unpredictable changes in plant DNA all the time. 

Yet the left's fear of GMOs led activists to destroy fields of experimental crops in Europe and, most tragically, bans on GMO foods that might help prevent hunger and malnutrition in African and Asian nations. 

Leftists often claim to be defenders of progress, but they sound more like religious conservatives when they oppose "tampering with nature." 

The new movie Jurassic World, in which scientists tamper with DNA to create a super-dinosaur that gets out of control, doesn't just recycle ideas from the original Jurassic Park. It recycles the same fears that inspired the novel Frankenstein 200 years ago—the idea that if humans alter nature's perfect design, we'll pay a terrible price. 

But it's nature that is terrible. We should alter it. "Living with nature" means fighting for food, freezing in the cold, and dying young.

The left's anti-science fears also prevent us from building new nuclear reactors, especially after Fukushima and Chernobyl. But those reactor designs were already considered obsolete. Future reactors could be far safer and would reduce our dependence on carbon-producing fuels. 

Humans thrive by improving technology, not abandoning it. 

Lately, some people think they're "erring on the safe side" by avoiding vaccinations. The result is outbreaks of diseases like mumps and measles that we thought were all but eliminated. In Nigeria, conspiracy theories frightened people away from getting polio vaccinations just as we were on the verge of eradicating that crippling disease. 

The left also objects to science that contradicts their egalitarian beliefs. A few years ago, I interviewed scientists who had discovered ways in which male and female brains differ from birth. The scientists told me that they wanted to continue such research, but political pressure against it was too intense. Men and women clearly have different aptitudes, but today leftists demand that government punish any company that treats genders differently.

Few scientists today would even study relative IQs of different ethnic groups. They know they'd be de-funded if they discovered the "wrong" facts. 

I say, follow the truth wherever science leads. "Science Wars" is the subject of my next TV show. 

Last week, I reported how SeaWorld had been smeared by animal rights activists. The activists responded with more smears. 

They claimed my producers and I wouldn't talk to animal trainers seen in the film "Blackfish." But I tried interviewing them—they refused to talk. The activists also claim we based our report on views of Bridget M. Davis and Mark Simmons, but I don't even know who they are. Then they claimed we got all our information from SeaWorld, but that, too, is a lie; of course, we consulted independent sources. 

As often happens, activists put politics before reality. 

COPYRIGHT 2015 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

NEXT: Why the GOP's Rainbow Presidential Lineup Won't Solve its Minority Problem

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. shut up teathuglikkan

    1. careful now; don’t talk to em that way. They’re liable to take you out back and shoot you

    2. Woody, you are ignorant beyond belief. Seek medical help soon.

      1. Homeopathic doses of Stossel seem to be having no effect.

        MC should ask Governor Jindall for an exorcism.

  2. “But we are the party of science! Or was that eugenics? Eugenics is kind of a science, right?”

    /prog

    1. Eugenics can only occur as government programs. There can be no Walmart Eugenics. No Wells Fargo Eugenics. No Amazon Eugenics. The way to make absolutely sure that no program of eugenics will ever occur again is to make sure that no government becomes powerful enough to do eugenics.

  3. Humans thrive by improving technology, not abandoning it.

    If even we never developed any new technology again, humans could still thrive if the parasitic govt withered away.

  4. What a hoot! John Stossel lecturing anyone on the value of listening to science. And of course leveling charges at both liberals and conservatives. Let’s see what a libertarian like Stossel had to say about listening to scientists.

    He once said on Fox “Americans believe in lots of silly stuff. Start with climate change.” Then he quoted that bogus petition of 17k scientists denying climate change. Then he went to novelist Michael Crichton for expertise on the climate, ignoring every single science organization.

    And then he said
    “Sounds like socialism to me. . . . Let me just say that this, at bottom, is a hatred of capitalism and a hatred of industrial production.”

    Yeah, for Stossel science is engaged in a conspiracy theory. What a science respecting libertarian.

    1. I missed the part where you used data to refute that it is a hatred of capitalism and/or industrial production.

      1. Using data to prove stuff is for nerds. The cool kids just assert whatever they wish to be true and then throw out idiotic ad-homs and strawman arguments at anyone who disagrees.

        1. All the cool kids know that you just make non-falsifiable hypothesis so you never even have to worry about facts and other tedious matters.

    2. Jackand Ace|6.17.15 @ 10:23AM|#
      “What a hoot! John Stossel lecturing anyone on the value of listening to science.”

      Jack,
      Still waiting to see the hulabaloo about the study showing fracking to cause earthquakes.
      I mean you were thrilled that humanity was going to have to revert to wood fires or some such! Now, what happened with that study, Jack?

      1. about the study showing fracking to cause earthquakes

        My dental hygienist is a lovely young lady, but the last time she started to babble about a 4.4 earthquake in Alberta’s oil (and I guess gas) field and tentatively mentioned fracking as a cause. Fortunately for everyone, she was working in my mouth, so I haven’t had to react.

        1. The bastion of fracking apologia, the United States Geological Survey, says:

          Fact 1: In the United States, fracking is not causing most of the induced earthquakes. Wastewater disposal is the primary cause of the recent increase in earthquakes in the central United States.

      2. Fracking Study? It was apparently a figment of Jack’s imagination. But the liberal EPA has even said they could find little or no evidence to support that claim. So much for Jack(ass).

      3. You mean like this one, shit-for-brains?

        http://www.nature.com/news/ene…..es-1.13372

        1. See the kink two posts above you? “Wastewater disposal is the primary cause of the recent increase in earthquakes…”

          Guess we need to ban wastewater disposal too, huh?

    3. Every single prediction that climate science has ever made, and I don’t mean most, I mean ALL, have failed.

      When this happens, what you have is called ‘junk science’.

      There is also no proof at all that GMOs are harmful to humans, but progtard rail on incessantly about the evuls of GMOs. Same deal with fracking.

      Progtards are the party of junk science. They are no more enlightened than SoCons who say the earth is only 6000 years old.

      1. Every single prediction that climate science has ever made, and I don’t mean most, I mean ALL, have failed.

        But, but, but… CONSENSUS!!!!!!!!

      2. +1 for Hyperion. These mindless progressive types should try going to the “JunkScience.com” website.

      3. “Every single prediction that climate science has ever made, and I don’t mean most, I mean ALL, have failed.”

        You mean the steady rise in temperature that was predicted 80 years ago and has, in fact, happened? Yeah, some failure.

        1. You mean you are an idiot?

        2. Seems to be exactly the same temperature pattern as it was 50 years ago so not sure what you are talking about

    4. Re: Jackass Ass,

      John Stossel lecturing anyone on the value of listening to science.

      A lecture you should heed, when you bow-down to purportedly “scientific” predictions like “There will be NO snow in the Alps by 2010!” and “Polar bears are getting thinner!”

      He once said on Fox “Americans believe in lots of silly stuff. Start with climate change.”

      And what is controversial about that, Jackass? People do believe a lot of silly, milenarist stuff like the end of the world, and climate change.

    5. @Jack

      Yawn.

      You have been so thoroughly refuted on this subject SO MANY times, that I don’t think I’ll play anymore.

      1. The puppets seem to want to dance.

    6. He once said

      More passive-aggressive debate from joepboyle. It’s what bureaucrats do.

      1. Wait, Jackass is Joe?

        Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    7. CAGW is silly.

    8. Your screed exposes your inability to deviate from the liberal (democrat) line. How sad for you.

      1. He was for Hilary until she was a loser. But he’s so enlightened and blessed to be for her again.

    9. Oh! A new game: Spot the fallacies!

      Non Sequitur, Red Herring, Ad Hominem. Appeal to the stone.

      How many did you get?

    10. Wait, wasn’t Michael Crichton a Doctor, as well as a novelist and screenwriter? Are you saying that someone who clearly researched to death each of his books wasn’t capable of it on Global Warming? Because I seem to recall that book, “State of Fear”, being heavily evidence based.

  5. What a hoot! John Stossel lecturing anyone on the value of listening to science. And of course leveling charges at both liberals and conservatives. Let’s see what a libertarian like Stossel had to say about listening to scientists.???? ????? ???? ???????

    1. Is Jackass Ass really a middle-eastern furniture salesman?

      1. Agreed! YOU HEAR THAT JOBFISH.COM – bring me the Arab Furniture Sales Bots!

        1. I just thought of a great name for an Arabic furniture store….Ottoman Empire

          *awaits narrowed gaze*

          1. (and I know that the Ottomans were Turks, just go with it)

            1. That’s good, but it’s not Sofa King good!

  6. Hnnnnnngh! Get so tired of anti-anti-GMO strawmen.

    Okay I love progress. I love the idea of GMO for great justice. HOWEVER, practically speaking the most common GMO adaptation that is used on food crops isn’t PEST resistance it is PESTICIDE resistance. So the problem with GMO as it stand today and why GMO labeling is actually a good idea is that many GMO products have higher levels of pesticides.

    Oh wait, nevermind, no one cares. Sorry. Forgot where I was. Chip the luddies to bity-bits! Yay!

    1. RealSlimShader|6.17.15 @ 11:39AM|#
      “HOWEVER, practically speaking the most common GMO adaptation that is used on food crops isn’t PEST resistance it is PESTICIDE resistance. So the problem with GMO as it stand today and why GMO labeling is actually a good idea is that many GMO products have higher levels of pesticides.”

      And that strawman is certainly it trouble.

    2. They don’t have sinks where you come from?

    3. HOWEVER, practically speaking the most common GMO adaptation that is used on food crops isn’t PEST resistance it is PESTICIDE resistance.

      Enabling higher productivity per acre, thus requiring fewer acres to be plowed under. You realize that we have less land in crops now in the US than we have in the past, yes? And that much former farmland is reverting to nature, yes?

      Plus, I think you’re wrong that GMO is for pesticide resistance. Pesticides kill bugs, not plants, so why would you need pesticide resistant plants? I think you mean herbicide resistance.

      So the problem with GMO as it stand today and why GMO labeling is actually a good idea is that many GMO products have higher levels of pesticides.

      That needs a citation.

      1. 1A protections are one of those “soft” rights for the left, especially where industry is concerned. Compelling speech isn’t a violation, it’s best practices. Who cares whether it has any scientific validity to give it even a patina of legitimacy.

      2. Monsato, in particular (the only one I have any familiarity with) develops plants that are resistant to roundup (read:salt & vinegar). That’s about the extent of my knowledge on the subject.

        1. Monsanto’s Roundup resistant crops are made so that farmers can control weeds using Roundup (about the most effective broad-spectrum herbicide out there) on their fields, killing only the weeds and leaving the Roundup resistant crops to thrive.

          As near as I can tell this is a win-win for everyone concerned. Farmers gain higher production with fewer inputs, consumers get lower prices and Monsanto gets to sell both seeds and Roundup thus improving returns to shareholders.

          Of course, these are all bad things to your average environut.

          1. It’s also a win for the environment when you consider that controlling weeds with Roundup enables farms to avoid tilling, which saves on diesel fuel for tillers, preserves soil health, and avoid soil erosion.

            1. Yes, indeed, the reduction or elimination of tilling was something that entered my thoughts while I was mentally composing my comment but somehow didn’t make it into the final product.

              Also, as mentioned below the low toxicity of Roundup is a great improvement over the higher toxicity of many of the narrow-spectrum or targeted herbicides which may require the application of several different products to kill different weeds.

        2. I spoke recently with a farmer who is opposed to Roundup, He said that it does work well to control weeds. However, the genetic modifications themselves may be benign w/r/t humans, but the herbicide does get absorbed by the plants, and its toxicity or lack thereof to humans uncertain at best. It seemed to be a reasonable argument. From what I read, regulatory agencies are at least thinking about banning the active ingredient again.

      3. Plus, I think you’re wrong that GMO is for pesticide resistance. Pesticides kill bugs, not plants, so why would you need pesticide resistant plants? I think you mean herbicide resistance.

        BT corn is intended to be pest resistant and was only intended to be found in livestock feed corn, but was subjected to recalls because it was found in crops intended for human consumption (despite the fact that the specific anti-insect toxin is completely harmless to humans).

        The *amount* of pesticide/herbicide is a red herring. I’ll take more roundup and less paraquat any day of the week (Agent Orange anyone?). Moreover, the move to organic isn’t/doesn’t solve the problem. Rotenone and Copper Sulfate are literally approved as organic herbicides and are acutely toxic (as an irritant) and, while chronic rotenone exposure hasn’t been linked to anything, rotenone has been shown to precipitate Parkinson’s Disease and Parkinson-like conditions in rat models (nothing as damning as drinking alcohol gets you drunk, but certainly more rock solid than any disease “caused” by round-up).

        1. You’re referring to Starlink which was one of many varieties of BT corn on the market. Most are approved for human consumption. Starlink had not (yet) been approved for human consumption, but wound up mixed in to the human food supply anyway. It’s no longer on the market because better varieties have been approved.

          Point is, yes most BT corn IS approved for human consumption. And yes, BT is completely harmless to humans, which is why organic farmers use the bacterium themselves.

          1. yep. it is safe according to the manufacturers own short term studies. Not that they could have a conflict of interest.

            1. According to everything we know about biology.

              According to the fact that the protein the BT gene codes for has been tested on humans and is not toxic. And according to the fact that there are no other known chemical changes in the content of the corn.

              But, I guess maybe there is some magical change in the aura of the corn that could be harmful, right? because it certainly isn’t in what’s actually IN THE CORN.

              1. I think it’s pretty obvious by now that Smithy is a horrible racist piece of shit that doesn’t want poor people in third world countries from getting rice or corn that could substantially reduce their malnutrition.

            2. Not to mention the fact that as Hazel pointed out, BT is the pesticide of choice of organic farmers.

            3. If the KKKorporations told you that smelly brown stuff coming out you ass was shit, you’d probably assume it must be chocolate and make a sundae out of it, wouldn’t you?

          2. yep. it is safe according to the manufacturers own short term studies. Not that they could have a conflict of interest.

            1. Posting it twice doesn’t make it true.

            2. Didn’t you just say that – dipshit?

              1. The squirrelz are mocking him too.

        2. BT is approved for organic use…

      4. Plus, I think you’re wrong that GMO is for pesticide resistance. Pesticides kill bugs, not plants, so why would you need pesticide resistant plants? I think you mean herbicide resistance.

        This is a tactic of the anti-GMO movement lately. By claiming that Roundup is a “pesticide” they get to claim that GMOs cause more pesticides in food. It’s a grotesquely disonest lie of course, a deliberate perversion of the language that is obviously designed to mislead people. But they think they are super clever and smart for coming up with it, so they repeat it a LOT.

        1. I found about 4 websites calling roundup a pesticide in less than 5 minutes. Only 3 that called it what it is (herbicide) The left is truly evil and will lie cheat and steal to make their point . .

    4. the most common GMO adaptation that is used on food crops isn’t PEST resistance it is PESTICIDE resistance.

      I see the dishonest anti-science left continues to conflate herbicides with pesticides, in a deliberate effort to mislead people.

      Roundup is a HERBICIDE. It does not kill insects, it kills PLANTS.
      Roundup resistance is also key to allowing farmers to practice no-till farming, which prevents soil erosion, sustains soil health, and is better for the environment.

      Try again you lying disonest fuck.

      1. Roundup

        CONSENSUS! VICTORY IS OURS!!!! Right? …. Guys?

      2. drink a gallon of roundup and see if it is a pesticide.

        1. It’s completely non-toxic. Seriously. Doesn’t taste good, but won’t hurt you. At all. Period.

        2. Derp da derp da tiddly terp.

        3. Drink a gallon of vodka and see if it is safe for human consumption. Because apparently, you have no concept of dose/response. Because you believe in ‘science’.

          1. After this thread, I might need to.

        4. Drink a gallon of water all at once and see how you like that.

          1. Or milk.

            Ban Milk!!! It’s poison!!!

        5. Actually I recall watching a Michigan State University Ag Extension video on the use of Roundup that featured a chemist who was a member of the development team. He mixed a correct mixture and took a swig. He said that “drink very much and you’ll get sick as hell, but it won’t kill you”.

          That was a long time ago and I don’t know if he’s still alive, but it impressed the farmers at that ag symposium.

          1. More than one scientist extolling the virtues of the then-new miracle pesticide DDT would astound audiences by taking a handful of the stuff and swallowing it while giving lectures promoting it.

        6. It would probably make me sick, but I don’t think that would help in determining if it is a pesticide or not.

        7. Drink a pint of anti freeze, fool. Is anti freeze a pesticide? Ignorant comment.

      3. Pesticide – a word generally used to cover all materials utilized to combat disease and insect problems (Herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.) Although it is commonly utilized to include only insecticides.

        1. Yes, commonly it is used to only refer to insecticides, but the anti-GMO liars think they are super-fucking smart by deliberately using it in a way that is different from the common usage. Why are they deliberately using the word in this way, do you think? It couldn’t POSSIBLY because they know that most people are going to hear the word “pesticide” and think “insect killing”.
          No, I’m sure it’s completely an innocent usage and not intended to mislead anyone.

          1. Another reason not to lump herbicides as pesticides is that they’re also used for removing crop species such as after a harvest or to switch over to another crop, which is different from insecticide and fungicide use.

            1. Yes. But the main reason is that insecticide (which most people call pesticide) usage has actually declined because of the introduction of Bt crops.

              The use of the herbicide Roundup has increased, but other pesticides have decreased. By lumping herbicides with pesticides, the anti-GMO people can claim that “pesticide use has increased” which is misleading. Deliberately misleading.

              The ONLY reason to use the word “pesticide” to cover Roundup is to intentionally lie about the fact that the use of what most people think of as pesticides has infact DECLINED.

    5. DERPITY DERPTY DE TIDDELIT DERPTY DERPITY DUMB!

    6. If non-GMO food is such a good thing, how about the non-GMO food manufacturers just voluntarily label their stuff “Non-GMO” instead of using government coercion to force GMO products to be labelled. Oh wait, never mind, then statist asshata like you who can only get hard at the thought of using force on other people won’t be able to get off anymore.

    7. They are herbicide resistant. You don’t have much to worry about unless you are a weed. Well, even then…..but, whatever, man, it SOUNDS scary.

    8. MIT.edu website as an interesting article on GMO. They see real benefits, especially with additional research.

  7. This is such an intellectually dishonest argument. You trot out opposition to stem cell research and evolution (which are mainstream on the right) and contrast them with opposition to GMOs (which are not mainstream on the left by any means — name a major Democrat who opposes GMO!). I won’t disagree with you that the left is stupid whenever research goes against their knee-jerk egalitarianism, so you’re fine on that.

    The most serious and egregious omission on your part is the complete absence of the phrase “climate change” from this entire article. There’s an argument to be made that government shouldn’t interfere in regulating the climate and that the market will take care of whatever regulation needs to be made (it’s a difficult argument to make but you should give it a shot) but your article saying that Democrats are bad on science doesn’t mention it at all!!

    There is an intellectually honest argument to be made that libertarians are better than both Republicans and Democrats on science issues. You just didn’t make it and chose to lie instead. Disappointing.

    1. (which are mainstream on the right)
      Bullshit.

      1. Stem Cell Research:

        Obviously by “stem-cell research” the author is referring to “embryonic stem-cell research”. I assume this needs no debate. Here is a list of mainstream conservatives:

        Jeb Bush: “Governor Bush took the side of the right-to-life constituency in a battle to prevent the use of public funds in support of stem cell research.”

        Mike Huckabee: “Pro-stem cell research but not embryonic stem cells. (Nov 2008)”

        Bobby Jindal: “Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines”

        Rand Paul: “opposes embryonic stem cell research”

        1. “Obviously by “stem-cell research” the author is referring to “embryonic stem-cell research”. I assume this needs no debate. Here is a list of mainstream conservatives:”

          Obviously, you just moved the goal posts.
          I repeat: Bullshit.

          1. Aww, little conservative baby gets mad when presented with the facts. So sad.

            The only debate is about embryonic stem-cell research. There is no debate about non-embryonic stem-cell research.

            1. Re: dudemeister,

              The only debate is about embryonic stem-cell research. There is no debate about non-embryonic stem-cell research.

              You make it sound like they’re both the same thing, dudemeister, especially here: Rand Paul: “opposes embryonic stem cell research”

              Unless you also allege that Paul tends to talk in the third person when referring to himself.

              Let’s figure out exactly where you are on this, principle-wise: would you advocate for the selling of human embryos for scientific research?

              1. Yes, I have no objection to selling zygotes for scientific research. If state governments want to regulate it like they regulate abortion, that’s fine. I would oppose a blanket ban of sales of human zygotes.

                1. Re: dudemeister,

                  Yes, I have no objection to selling zygotes for scientific research.

                  We’re talking about embryos, not zygotes. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a person can have a strong position on the rights of a human being (including an embryo) to life. That does NOT mean the person is “anti-science.”

                  There are plenty of people who object to the use of animals for scientific research, even going to the extreme of invading laboratories and destroying property. You may want to call those people “anti-science” if you want, but that doesn’t mean those who harbor such strong feelings for the welfare of animals are denying Science itself, just like those who harbor strong ethical and moral principles against using human embryos for research are denying Science.

            2. Aww, little conservative baby gets mad when presented with the facts. So sad.

              Sevo? Conservative?

              You must be new. Word of advice. Lurk moar!

              1. Lol, next he’ll be calling him a bleever.

                That should go over well. *grabs bag of popcorn and waits for the Sevo smackdown*

            3. Embryonic stem cell research should be opposed on moral and ethical grounds. I don’t know anyone that is opposed to adult stem cell research.

              1. I’ll defend the Bushies on this, too.

                GW’s policy was basically “I’m not going to allow government money to be spent on expanding Embryonic stem cell research. You can work with the strains you have, or you can spend private money”

                A fairly libertarian answer. (Not for libertarian reasons, but.. meh)

        2. We no longer need embryos for stem cell research. There is no need to even have the discussion.

          1. But some people once had wrongfeels about a Sensitive Subject and therefore let’s harp on a dead letter rather than address how badly his party fails on the science front.

            1. I was just making a wild quess that Jackland Ace doesn’t even know this. Most of the progs who rail on and on about science on political sites, don’t know the least about the topic. See: Tony.

          2. Exactly right. The thought should be appalling to anyone with a sense of morals and ethics.

        3. So you just automatically assume that your assumptions are fact ?

          You seem to have ignored half of your assumption that opposition to evolution are mainstream on the right.

          I grew up in a household with two grandfathers who were Baptist lay preachers. No one I have ever known in my life thinks the world is 8,000 years old.

          The only people I have heard say that the earth is only 8,000 years old are progs trying to make a false point.

          The quotes you posted say only that they are against using public money for embryonic stem cell research. None of them said they want to make it illegal. They are proposing a compromise between competing interest in the country instead of shoving one side down the others throat.

          No need for you to lie and make false assumptions and present them as fact unless you have a very dull ax to grind and it seems you do.

          I hate liars.

          1. See my other post about evolution.

            1. More lies?

        4. So you just automatically assume that your assumptions are fact ?

          You seem to have ignored half of your assumption that opposition to evolution are mainstream on the right.

          I grew up in a household with two grandfathers who were Baptist lay preachers. No one I have ever known in my life thinks the world is 8,000 years old.

          The only people I have heard say that the earth is only 8,000 years old are progs trying to make a false point.

          The quotes you posted say only that they are against using public money for embryonic stem cell research. None of them said they want to make it illegal. They are proposing a compromise between competing interest in the country instead of shoving one side down the others throat.

          No need for you to lie and make false assumptions and present them as fact unless you have a very dull ax to grind and it seems you do.

          I hate liars.

          1. what does the Christian bible say?

            1. It says you should repent.

            2. The Christian bible does not say anything about the age of the earth.

              The 6000 year number so bandied about was the result of calculations using the lifespans of various biblical and historical figures.

              James Ussher or Usher (4 January 1581 ? 21 March 1656) was the Irish Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and church leader, who today is most famous for his chronology that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as “the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October… the year before Christ 4004”; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC according to the proleptic Julian calendar.

          2. I think there may be a subset of the Baptist church or other evangelicals that believes the 8,000 yr old story.

            There is a lot of confusion surrounding this. One explanation states that the Bible describes many “Ages” of creation on earth. The ages themselves can be hundreds of thousands of years old. Don’t assume God uses man’s definition of ages. The “young earth creationists” think that this current age is 6000 – 8000 yrs. old. This is supposedly the age when God prepared the earth for man, not the actual age of the planet.

            Don’t assume all Christians believe the young earth theory because we don’t That red herring is used by liberals to denigrate Christian beliefs.

            1. There are, but they certainly don’t make up a majority of Christians (or conservatives for that matter– Catholic vote was for Obama in 2008.)

        5. So to you, the only opinions that matter come from politicians? I think you’re ignoring the large number of people who believe and champion the positions Stossel highlights.

          His observation is accurate. Prohibiting use of public funds does little to influence research in that field. Indeed a libertarian might support this prohibition as something a government should not be engaging in.

          Is your post meant to somehow dismiss the large vocal contingent that stands in the way of aiding nutrition via GMOs and feeding starving people? Are you covering for people who don’t believe vaccines are safe? Or is the suffering not of a concern for you?

        6. Also likely quite irrelevant given that embryonic stem cell research is being replaced by induced embryonic stem cell research, a fast growing field.

          It’s far better too. Instead of treating patients with embryonic stem cells from some embryo, which would cause an immune reaction because they are not the patient’s own cells, they can take the patient’s own cells, turn back their biological clock until they are essentially embryonic stem cells, and then use those cells to treat them.

    2. Re: dudemeister,

      The most serious and egregious omission on your part is the complete absence of the phrase “climate change” from this entire article.

      That’s because that topic ?the left’s war on science by calling “Deniers” those who have SEEN the predictions forwarded by the climate change doomsayers been proven wrong by facts? has been covered many times.

      It is one thing to say Evolution is “just a theory”. It is QUITE ANOTHER to advocate for economically-destructive policies to avert a catastrophe that is not real. Saying that “The Volcano God is angry because we’re all sinners who consume too much” is as ANTI-SCIENCE as anyone can get.

      1. Unless you have good data about how Pele feels when we consume less.

      2. Unless you have good data about how Pele feels when we consume less.

      3. Once you start calling those who disagree with you ‘deniers’, you have left the realm of science and entered the realm of religion. The left has become nothing more than a religious cult and the result is that they are no longer interested in open debate. Instead they try to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with them through witch hunts backed by the force of government tyranny.

        1. Re: Hyperion’s Statist Chipper,

          Once you start calling those who disagree with you ‘deniers’, you have left the realm of science and entered the realm of religion.

          Or advocating for putting them in jail, like some politicians (and even scientists!) have suggested.

          A person can be labeled a crackpot when he or she denies facts, like the spheroid shape of the Earth, or even Evolution (for which one can show plenty of evidence coming from different sources). But Climate Change is entirely based on PREDICTION, not on DEMONSTRABLE facts. That’s not science, that’s just speculation, but calling people names or threatening them for not BELIEVING these predictions lands everybody in CUCKOO LAND.

          1. The left have done jumped the shark on almost everything.

            1. Almost? I think bye now it is everything..

              1. Benefit of the doubt that they could jump the shark on more stuff.

      4. Well it’s a real phenomenon alright, the issue is whether the government should be doing something about it. My view and the libertarian view more generally is no, the government is not capable of seriously aiding innovation — it’s better if this innovation is left to the market to figure out. In fact government-subsidized utilities are often to blame for stifling innovation in alternative energy.

        So even if it’s been discussed elsewhere, Stossel owes his readers a mention of this important issue. He failed to do this, which made his article a largely straw-man anti-liberal diatribe,

        1. Re: dudemeister,

          Well it’s a real phenomenon alright,

          Of couse, as climate changes all the time. What is NOT real is PREDICTIONS = science. That’s RELIGION.

          the issue is whether the government should be doing something about it.

          Government can’t even keep bridges up.

          1. Actually, predictions are the essence of science. I predict that a particular treatment will have a given effect, and observe whether or not it does.

            Einstein’s theory of relativity makes implicit predictions about the orbit of Mercury; those predictions turned out to be accurate; that is why we know his theory was accurate.

        2. “straw-man anti-liberal diatribe”

          Welcome to this commentariate. Just know there are those of us lurking who don’t carry Republican water. But, as you are sadly experiencing, the locals tend to circle the wagons when the groupthink is challenged.

      5. Excellent argument.
        +1 for Old Mexican.

    3. opposition to GMOs (which are not mainstream on the left by any means — name a major Democrat who opposes GMO!)

      Two thoughts:

      Would Congresscritters count? Because a bunch of them voted against GMOs (well, for GMO labeling, but I think we can all agree that’s a proxy for being anti-GMO):

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..-Labeling#

      Name a major Republican who opposes stem cell research (not federal funding of stem cell research, and not harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses, but stem cell research itself).

      1. See that’s just unfair. You’re declaring GMO labeling as being a proxy for being anti-GMO while refusing to allow “harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses” as a proxy for stem-cell research. Let’s have a fair debate here.

        1. You can take your “fair” and fuck yourself with it.

          1. Okay, replace “fair” by “reasonable”. Does that make you happy?

            1. You don’t exist within the realm of “reasonable.” How could you be relied upon to make a reasoned argument?

            2. You have no right to call for a fair argument when you make assumptions and present them as facts.

              You want a fair argument then you present a fair argument.

            3. *drink*!

        2. You name four politicians as examples of how the entirety of the right wing thinks then you want others to be fair?

  8. Evolution:

    Rick Perry: “in Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools!” “evolution is just a theory”

    Rick Santorum: “there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution”

    Admittedly it’s hard to find Republicans who publicly oppose evolution in no uncertain terms because they tend to get excoriated by the mainstream media.

    1. Keep strummin that tune bro. We’re all very impressed by your enlightenment. And of course you’re right that the pressing concerns of the day are what politicians think and feel about the age of the planet and how humans got here.

      Is there a theoretical moment progressives could arrive at where they suddenly realize they’ve been talking and arguing like children over childish issues for the entirety of the “twenty first century”? Is any progressive even capable of stepping back and wondering “wait a minute, what the fuck are we talking about?”

      As nice as it is to imagine such a moment, the answer is no, which is all to the good for us. Keep on exposing yourselves as cloistered elitists banging on about whatever neo-Malthusian phobia leaves your not-at-all religious sensibilities cold. Progressives couldn’t look more ridiculous right now if they were decked out in puffy pirate shirts, so please carry on. You guys are on top of all the important issues.

      1. I am not a progressive.

        1. God damn dude, I’ve never seen anyone wrong about -everything-. Until now.

          1. wow, that’s an intelligent argument. you got more where that came from? i just can’t wait!!

            1. Holy shit, you can’t even comprehend the difference between derision and conversation. Is all of your brainpower spent on breathing through your mouth?

              1. and you need to take a refresher course on sarcasm 🙂 surely your invective is better than “is all your brainpower spent on breathing through your mouth”! so disappointing, i expect better from a genius like you.

                1. That should give you an idea of exactly how much I think you’re worth.

                  1. and yet you keep responding. come on baby, i know how much you care. it’s all about the chase for you, isn’t it? i’ll keep running and i know you’ll keep running behind me.

                    1. What is that, some kind of “dare?” Oh, how edgy.

        2. As Dave Chapelle said about whores, you may not be a progressive, but you’re certainly wearing the uniform.

          1. lol, i just wrote a comment about how i think the government shouldn’t regulate climate change, so i don’t think my libertarian credentials need questioning.

            1. I nominate the above post for Dumbest Fucking Shit I’ve Read All Day.

              1. oh baby, i love it when you talk nasty to me. keep it coming.

            2. Well, that’s at least 8% libertarian.

      2. Is there a theoretical moment progressives could arrive at where they suddenly realize they’ve been talking and arguing like children over childish issues for the entirety of the “twenty first century”

        Sadly, I lol’d because this is obviously never going to happen.

    2. I actually went to a Texas public school.

      He was talking out of his ass. We were not taught creationism.

      Go fuck yourself demsock.

    3. Can you link to one piece of fossil evidence that shows one species evolving into another ?

      That is why it is a theory and that is why smart people educate their children that it is a theory.

      1. exactly. that is why we also have the theory of gravity. it is just a theory after all, i mean, no one has actually seen a “graviton” or some energy/particle which makes gravity work.

        1. Is the Theory of Gravity a theory ?

          Is it taught as a theory or as fact ?

          Is Global Warming a theory ?

          http://www.globalresearch.ca/g…..here/10783

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja…..g-cooling/

          1. I am pretty familiar with the formula for gravity, and unless you are hitting relativistic speeds, the Newtonian mechanics there have always worked out as expected. Attempts to find faults with that formula have been going on for centuries, and they have all come up short. Compare that to the record of the AGW cultists and their consensus predictions…

            1. ‘theory’ can mean something like ‘guess’ or it can mean something like ‘explanation’. Two different meanings. This kind of thing happens a lot in English. And, not much guesswork in Newton’s theory of the motion of objects, of which gravity is a part. The equations work very well at, as was noted, sub-relativistic speeds.

    4. If evolution is a fact and man descended from apes, why are there still apes?

      OK, that’s a somewhat less then serious argument that you could probably refute if you were smart enough. But it should make you stop and think, if only for a minute or two. Admittedly, that may be beyond your capability. .

      Another thought provoking question is… If Mickey is a mouse and Pluto is a dog, what the hell is Goofy? Selective evolution? 🙂

      1. Mickey: Look Walt, I don’t wanna leave Minnie cause I said she’s crazy, I said I want to leave her cause that Bitch is fuckin’ goofy!

      2. Weapons-Grade-Stupid argument JohnD. Not just “less than serious”.

      3. Ummm……..humans ARE great apes.

        And Pluto? Petplay.

      4. Late to the party and at risk of missing sarcasm on your part, but fuck it: we didn’t descend from apes, we are believed to share a common ancestor

    5. I still don’t see how you think a bunch of Republicans being retarded makes Democrats any less retarded.

  9. I don’t like this formulation. At all. Its like putting anti-vaxxers solely on the Left. They were on the Right long before junk science made a group on the Left. That they advocate policies that will harm more people when they are wrong is a utilitarian argument that is problematic at best.

    1. Re: Brett L.

      I don’t like this formulation. At all. Its like putting anti-vaxxers solely on the Left. They were on the Right long before junk science made a group on the Left.

      That doesn’t excuse the Left at all.

      That they advocate policies that will harm more people when they are wrong is a utilitarian argument that is problematic at best.

      We can argue this using Deontological ethics and say it is immoral to use force to impose a policy. The HARM is in the forceful act itself, even if the intentions are noble.

      1. Not to mention it’s leftist martinets pushing for legal injunctions against conscientious objectors. Apparently, for many opposed to giving parents a choice in which school their children attend, requiring vaccination should be sine qua non to admitting them.

      2. That’s true, but my point is that the Right has no Deonotological leg to stand on, as they would gladly advocate for a similar policy and only began lobbying for religious exemptions after they lost the fight for public opinion.

      3. I haven’t heard this phrase in many years. Thank you for bring it up. It’s a little more uncommon than “duty and/or obligation. For that matter ethics in general seems to be uncommon today.

  10. I was very disappointed that John Stossel left out the left’s use of junk science to justify their latest attempts to coerce people into living in energy poverty.

    And their refusal to admit the destruction it wreaks.

    Climate science should be front and center at any argument as to the anti-science attitude of the left. In the case of climate science, not only are they ignoring good science, they are actively seeking to corrupt and enthrall the institutions that perform science.

    1. And when that fails, they’ll bitch and whine so loudly about a scientist’s tacky Hawaiian-style shirt that it will distract everyone from the results of any scientific inquiry performed by said scientist.

    2. I was very disappointed that John Stossel left out the left’s use of junk science to justify their latest attempts to coerce people into living in energy poverty.

      Why bother arguing the minutia when the premise is flawed?

    3. “I was very disappointed that John Stossel left out”
      What, was he supposed to include everything about how non-scientific and anti-scientific the Left is? How could he get it all in one article? John, you left out that Bruce Jenner still has male DNA. John, you left out that the Left crucifies scientists who admit that human intelligence is inherited. Etc.

  11. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

    1. I like him even more when the creeps he enrages swing by to mewl pathetically.

  12. Friend of mine who is neck deep in the GOP is anti-vax and anti-GMO, in addition to being a Young Earth Creationist. Sure, it’s common on the Left, but definitely not exclusive.

    1. don’t say that here…the right wingers, i mean libertarians (wink, wink) will flame you. Surely only the progs are anti-science. We will never see a: “The Right’s Bad Ideas About Science Are More Harmful Than the Left’s” or anything calling out the low IQ Right Wing Nut Jobs on this site.

      Reasons formula:
      Democrats = Horrible
      Republicans = Good
      Libertarians = do we even write about Libertarians?

      1. Oh, I see. You’re our Bo replacement.

      2. And that bothers you why Smithy ?

        Why is it that you have your panties in a wad over who associates with whom ?

        The Democrat party is a coalition of many factions.

        How do you self identify ?

        Prog

        Socialist

        Liberal

        Communist

        Where do you fit yourself in and why the fuck are you so bothered by the free association of others ?

        1. I am a libertarian. Been one for eight years.

      3. What do your solar panel subsidies make you?

        1. my solar subsidies made me money when i had them installed. I get no subsidies now. If the idiots you elect give me ways to get my tax money back, i will take advantage of it. I never asked for the subsidies. I never voted for anyone who created them.

          Let me guess, you use _nothing_ which the government subsidizes, right?

      4. Hmm. I need to come here more often. I must have missed the articles that said Repubs = good.
        Reason seems to have little use for either major party. Not that I have a big problem with that.

        1. “Little Use”? If it weren’t for the D’s and R’s, there wouldn’t be too much for Reason to write about, except for the movie reviews.

      5. I’ll add to your formula Jim:

        Note: If any credible argument is made that appears counter to this formula, circle the H&R wagons and vociferously shout it down.

        1. i hear you. i am waiting to see anything which calls out Republicans.

    2. So basically, he’s a consistent anti-scientific wackjob.

      I mean, it sort of make SENSE to hate GMOs if you think that God personally created every plant and animal in it’s present form. At least he’s not grossly contradicting himself.

      It just doesn’t make sense if you claim to believe in evolution and respect science and are happy to trot out scientific consensus on climate change.

    1. Thanks for the link. Great stuff. Sad parts though:
      1. He had to preface the article, even at MIT, with, “As a Democrat myself…”
      2. The comments.

  13. Norman Borlaug was credited with saving over a billion lives when he created a drought resistant strain of wheat in Mexico. He was once hailed as a great man and humanitarian, but now is looked as the evil scientist who embraced GMOs. I think liberals are really pissed that science keeps on finding more and more ways to support the population of the earth. They won’t be happy until there are 10,000 people left eating heirloom tomato salsa with stone ground blue tortilla corn chips made from organic unfertilized corn that yields six shriveled up kernals per cob.

    1. And they personally, because of their brilliance, deserve to be one of the few.

      1. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

      2. Their brilliance? Really? Did you type that with a straight face?

        1. I’m pretty sure that was sarcasm.

    2. I think you hit it on the head there man. Today’s left is a religious movement. They may pretend otherwise but all the signs ? especially the fanaticism and defense of the indefensible ? point to it. Their beliefs are practically always based on feelings, not facts or logic, and they refuse to be engaged in anything that requires them to debate using facts or logic. Heck, the base tactic is to silence anyone objecting to what they say, do, or want to do, by accusing them of being deniers, anti-science, racists, or whatever. On the left, in the new religion, big government has replaced god. It now is the benevolent entity in charge of meting out justice and punishment. It’s marxism in a nut shell.

      Every religious movement needs its doomsday scenario and hell to keep the plebes under control. The disastrous consequences of Global Warming Climate Change serves the same function to the leftists as hell does to the old religions. Non-believers must be punished.

      1. Yeah what he said.

        At least the Christians wait until one is dead before receiving God’s punishment.

        Global warming preachers want to put us in jail NOW.

        1. Global warming preachers want to put us in jail NOW kill us.

    3. “Norman Borlaug was credited with saving over a billion lives…”
      Dang! I wish that when I die people will say, “Issue Ninja was credited with saving over a billion lives.” That would be so wonderful, wouldn’t it? Not much chance though I guess. But, still, that would be so cool.

  14. Science comes in several flavors including physical, chemical, and biological. None of those three describe behavior. One science does ? biobehavioral science; an orphan, actively rejected.

    As we humans likely near the end of our days by our own hands, it is only that scientific orphan that can save us from ourselves. We can employ its principles to repair the four, secular cornerstones of any society; namely, government, law, education, and medical delivery.

    We have the means. That which we lack is the will.

    Employing biobehavioral science to save ourselves will not come from top down. Quite the opposite! Those in power ? governmental, legal, financial, and sociological ? will oppose employing biobehavioral science. Its use must come from bottom up ? from the people themselves.

    Firstly, they must acquaint themselves, in a context of criticism if not outright ridicule, with the basic principles of biobehavioral science. Difficult? Not really.

    http://inescapableconsequences.com .

    Secondly, they must elect others who have similar knowledge to positions of power. Success will require a new political party ? an apolitical party based upon science and liberty.

    The proverbial sands of time are against success. We humans can overcome that challenge if we start now.

    If not, remember that science says, “Behaviors, including behavioral deficits. have their consequences.”

    1. So, if I understand you correctly, we should establish a technocracy governed by experts in psychology, medicine, and related fields to engineer society according to the theoretical framework of the biobehavioral sciences?

      1. What could possibly go wrong?

        1. I’m starting to think L. Ron Hubbard was right.

      2. Isn’t this the plot of Friedman’s favorite scifi series? Only the called it psychometrics instead of biobehavioralism, IIRC.

        1. Look, it doesn’t matter what words you use to describe “bullshit,” so long as I get rich.

        2. You mean psychohistory.

          Psychometrics (of adult second language proficiency) is just what I do for a living.

          1. Sorry I labelled your astronomy as astrology.

            1. Heh. No worries. Cronbach’s alpha is currently in the House of Leo, so a Pisces like me is supposed to be forgiving to at least a 0.7 if we want good fortune to come our way.

          2. Psychometrics (of adult second language proficiency) is just what I do for a living.

            Who uses your services?

            1. And is it a “cash only” bidnezz?

      3. sounds fun, doesn’t it?

    2. secular cornerstones of any society; namely, government, law, education, and medical delivery.

      So houses will build themselves, crops will grow themselves, and clothes will magically appear on our bodies ?

      Self interest is the cornerstone of biobehavior. Even Mother Teresa did what she did with her own self interests at heart.

      The invisible hand captures the beauty of self interest and human behavior without the need to diagram it and worship it.

    3. “As we humans likely near the end of our days by our own hands”

      Indeed – we have never been fewer, poorer, less technologically advanced….wait a minute..!

    1. That’s been coming for a while. I had to shift from being a 1099 contractor to a regular employee in a previous job because of the increasingly stringent IRS definitions. I’m pretty sure strippers and hair stylists are next.

      1. Yeah, Andrew Stack kamikazed the IRS office in Austin over this issue.

  15. I think that on average right-wing conservatives are probably more anti-science than leftists. The problem is that the left is have been WAY more sucessful in getting their anti-science prejudices implemented in policy.

    Just for example, christian conservatives rail against evolution, but it is difficult to find any school district in the entire country in which evolution is not taught.
    By contrast, the anti-science left has been sucessful in stalling the development of nuclear power pretty much everywhere and in enacting GMO bans and labelling laws in several states and localities.

    It’s also not that the left is generally more anti-science than the right, but that the media tends to give them a pass and treat the left’s anti-science prejudices as having some sort of credibility, when it really doesn’t if you bother to look at the science. Whenever some journalist takes a serious in-depth look at GMOs they generally find that the anti-GMO position is total horseshit. But there’s a large number of lazy journalists who let their left-leaning biases lead them by the nose and that tends to result in them bending over backwards to treat the anti-GMO crowd as some sort legitimate environmentaist movement.

    1. I think that on average right-wing conservatives are probably more anti-science than leftists.

      I would posit a theory that you hold this notion because younger people (those more likely to have an affinity for technology, and to some extent, the science that makes it possible) are more likely to be liberal, and the right tends to be an older demographic that generally doesn’t express a desire to learn much beyond what they know.

    2. That’s pretty much Stossels point. The right may have the anti-evolution nutjobs, but they aren’t implementing policy changes that would crash our economy. You could argue that teaching creationism in schools is a policy change (and a dumb one at that) but we already had a Federal case on this (Kitzmiller vs. Dover) which destroyed any legal justification for these policies.

      Whereas the left is implementing policies that are preventing people from getting food, which to me is criminal and FAR more damaging.

      1. There’s a subtle difference. Stossel is saying that the particular issues the left is anti-science on are more harmful, so given equal political power, the left is more dangerous. I’m saying it’s more that the anti-science left has more political power than the anti-science right, and therefore is more dangerous. They’ve been more sucessful in implementing their harmful policies than their right-wing counterparties. If they actually were equal in power then right would probably be more harmful, but thankfully the anti-science right is a pretty marginalized group.

        1. I agree with Stossel. Even if the right could impose its wishlist it woyld be less harmful. The right wants to teach mostly metaphysical dogma, while the left wants to impose order onall aspects of our lives: wgat we eat, drink, burn or use.

      2. Yes, but to state it better than I did up above: This argument sucks because it implies that it would be fine for the same people to implement huge government spending that hurt millions of people a little bit as long as it helped more people a bit more. The solution is wrong at a moral level before you get to analyzing whether or not they achieve what they set out to do.

    3. I don’t know. The left claims to be pro-science, but most of the science they spout off is, in my experience, incorrect

    4. I think this gets it exactly right.

    5. Just for example, christian conservatives rail against evolution, but it is difficult to find any school district in the entire country in which evolution is not taught.

      I would posit that this phenomenon is really because you don’t know the criticisms of evolution by its detractors. It’s equivalent to saying climate change deniers don’t believe in radiative physics yet still teach those physics at schools. It’s really only a contradiction because their position is misstated.

    6. I think that on average right-wing conservatives are probably more anti-science than leftists. The problem is that the left is have been WAY more sucessful in getting their anti-science prejudices implemented in policy.

      This compresses multiple political axes into a single conservative/progressive axis.

      Through the generation I have known, conservative involvement was motivated by religion, but fueled by the dollar whereas progressive ideology was fueled by nothing other than pure zealotry.

      If I had to argue along the same one-dimension; Christians didn’t put evolution in science class because they thought it was science, they opposed evolution’s inclusion in fundamental science curricula. Progressives tend to be the one’s who will adopt an idea, slap the science label on it, rape the practice of science relatively wholesale to generate consensus, and declare victory over their ‘denier’ opponents.

      Being more simplistically sensational; I’d say ignoring, disagreeing with, or defying someone makes you significantly less anti- that person than raping them and wearing their skin.

      1. Nevermind that clumping “Christians” into a single monolithic group is a gross oversimplification in itself. Catholics, for one, accept evolution.

        1. So do very many Protestants. In addition, many Christians are liberal, and vote democratic. And of all those I’ve known, I’ve yet to meet someone that seriously claimed the earth was ~7000 years old.

    7. I personally believe this is perception caused by the media. I come from a very conservative Christian family. I’ve been in and out of church my whole life and I’ve never heard anyone seriously say that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Most people I’ve known also readily accept micro-evolution but they start to get a little lost when it comes to macro-evolution, you know a T-Rex becoming a blue jay kinda thing. Even though I’ve had some basic Zoology at university, I admit that I get a little lost in macro-evolution myself. Not that I don’t believe it, just I don’t fully understand it, kinda like how I suck at Calculus and it’s not a subject of interest for me.

      No one seriously thinks that God made whitetail deer, then blacktail deer, then elk, then moose, then cottontail rabbits, then jackrabbits, then snowshoe hares.

      Most of the shit we see on TV is absurd to capture attention. If a conservative Christian came on TV and said just run of the mill stuff no one would pay attention. They have to say absurd shit or no one will even listen. Same goes for any subject really.

  16. “There is no reason to think that precise changes in a plant’s genes are more dangerous than, say, the cross-breeding of corn done by American Indians centuries ago or a new type of tomato arising in someone’s organic garden.”

    stopped reading here…if the author “thinks” this, they have zero ability to write on the subject.

    1. How do you currently avoid DNA from non GMO crops invading your genome?

        1. You know what else manufacturers a pesticide? Peppers. You know what else is highly toxic by the pound? Vitamin C. Its funny how non-threatening those substances are. But no one ever describes them thus.

          1. those facts kind of destroyed your ability to say anything of substance? Typical low IQ drone.

    2. That is pretty much the consensus view of the National Academy of Sciences and numerous other scientific organization.

      Cross breeding crosses in millions of unknown genes randomly.
      With genetic engineering you sequence one particular bit of DNA, you know exactly what protein it codes for and you cross in ONLY that particular gene.
      Givne that the genes of wild relatives are generally unsequenced and we have no idea what most of them code for or do, there is no reason to believe that that is any less risky than crossing in ONE specific gene that you have sequenced and know what protein it creates. If anything, it is a safer presumption that conventional crossbreeding is riskier.

      The fact that the gene comes from (or rather was originally identified and sequenced in) a different species doesn’t really have any bearing on whether it’s riskier to cross in or not. There’s no known theoretical reason why it would be. There’s lot of known theoretical reasons why crossing in millions of unknown genes from a close relative would create lots of risk.

    3. Genes are scary. /anti-GMO argument.

      Seriously,offer a reason why a gene introduced by transfection is, somehow, someway, inherently evil, while one introduced by painstaking centuries long selection processes is inherently innocuous?

      Do you even know what genes are? And how they work?

  17. “There is no reason to think that precise changes in a plant’s genes are more dangerous than, say, the cross-breeding of corn done by American Indians centuries ago or a new type of tomato arising in someone’s organic garden.”

    stopped reading here…if the author “thinks” this, they have zero ability to write on the subject.

    1. I love when anti-science retards out themselves.

      1. thanks for confirming you have no clue what you are talking about drone.

        1. Says the asshole who would condemn children to blindness and death rather than let them eat GMO rice or corn.

          Maybe there’s no reason to think that because the scientist have done rigorous studies and experimentation to see if those changes are harmful (experimentation that is reproducible no less).

          Or you could read what Hazel wrote above in regards to the safety/nonsafety of GMO vs Cross-breeding.

    2. stopped reading here…if the author “thinks” this, they have zero ability to write on the subject.

      HAHAHAAHA!

  18. Why have science when you can have consensus?

    1. Nice. Pithy and true.

  19. What about the butterflies?!?!

    Seriously. The use of herbicide resistant GMOs has allowed farmers to use herbicides on their fields to kill milkweed that would have otherwise harmed the crops. Milkweed is the monarch butterfly’s only food source, so their numbers have suffered greatly as a result. Well, I guess that’s what you get for only eating one thing, stupid butterfly.

    1. At least monarchs are built to digest their moncrop, unlike pandas. Who are essentially vegan ominvores who can’t often breed or keep their young alive due to malnutrition. The Intelligence who designed pandas is an asshole.

      1. But they’re so fucking cute.

        Also, didn’t that intelligence give us the ability to discover the knowledge that allows us to clone things now?

        1. I’ll bet Panda bacon tastes worse than turkey “bacon”. They can die off.

          1. Just clone enough for kids to see the cute little buggers at their local zoo.

            Or GMO the fuck out of them till their bacon tastes like bacon (this goes for turkey’s too).

            1. Butterflies? Panda bears? Oh no. Next those GMOers will be making unicorns extinct. Oh wait…

    2. So when the milkweed becomes resistant and becomes a “superweed” … problem solved.

      1. Then the monarchs might evolve and get bigger and meaner, taking small children and house hold pets.

        1. MOTHRA!

  20. John,

    You left out global warming. You know, the thing you’ve called a myth and that scientists think could basically make the planet uninhabitable in a couple hundred years.

    As for nuclear reactors… In principle I think they probably may be a good idea, but the idea that people should look to Fukushima or Chernobyl and shrug like you do seems profoundly short-sighted and anti-scientific.

    1. I LOVE YOU!

      1. Don’t hug the woodchipper amsoc, it’s a trap.

        Wait, what am I thinking? Give it a nice big kiss.

        1. It’s my hypothesis that the derpy trolls on this website (amsoc, Tony, Bo, etc.) are just depressed and lonely people desperate for attention. Whenever I see one of them commenting, I make sure to tell them that people love them and they are special, smart, etc. Arguing with them just encourages the derp.

          1. Hmmm, that is an interesting theory. I may start trying that.

          2. I look for luv wherever I can find it

            1. Now I’m thinking of the song “Looking for love (in all the wrong places)”.

    2. Just so we’re clear: more people died in the tsunami than the meltodwn at Fukushima. And the exclusion zone in Chernobyl seems to be floutishig. Nuclear energy seems less disruptive than coal on any basis I know of.

      1. Just so we’re clear: more people died in the tsunami than the meltodwn at Fukushima. “

        This is something I see repeated over and over with the anti-nuke crowd. They are obsessed by anything they can use to make nuclear energy look bad but totally unfazed by the other real bad shit they do. Chernobyl was a combination of a terrible design, sloppy maintenance and work, and stupid people not following protocol. And it happen in the progressive’s social paradise because of the progressive social paradise’s belief system put into practice in the real world. And yet, this doesn’t sink in. A natural disaster that causes a problem not related to nuclear energy can kill a ton of people, and yet,luddites will not bat an eye at that.

      2. Downtown Hiroshima was supposed to be uninhabitable for 100,000 years. A few decades ago they had to put up a memorial there next to McDonalds to keep people from forgetting the A-bomb even happened. I have never understood this.

    3. Re: American Stolid,

      You left out global warming.

      Ah, so it’s Global Warming now. What happened to Climatey Changey and “we’re all doomed unless we commit to socialism?” Very scienty.

      but the idea that people should look to Fukushima or Chernobyl and shrug like you do seems profoundly short-sighted and anti-scientific.

      The depth of your stupidity is breath-taking. Fukushima was the result of a major natural catastrophe. Chernobyl was the result of Communist arrogance. Neither of those things are evidence of non-viability.

      1. I wonder about the livability/recovery of Fukushima after the eqrthquake/tsunami v. New Orleans and Katrina?

        If the news cycle is any indication, Fukushima wasn’t as bad as Iraq or Syria. Far fewer people killed, far fewer displaced for far less time, and far less man power spent ‘rebuilding’.

      2. Did you catch the introductory phrase? You know, where I said that they may be a good idea. Part of the problem with righ-wing libertarianism is that right-wing libertarians don’t know how to relax.

        I thought Chernobyl was a result of an operator experiment gone wrong–not Mao Zedong. Do libertarians think that all nuclear reactors are going to be located in stable countries with enlightened cadres of Randian engineers running the show? For your thyroid gland, let’s hope so.

        1. Do you keep a running tally on the millions your philosophy has killed? Is it better than counting sheep?

          1. You mean Nordic style social democratic Welfare states? I don’t know. Maybe someone fell into a fjord once.

            1. What about the non Nordic style where they don’t have North Sea oil for the capitalists to bring to the surface to pay for their socialism and the US Government to pay for their defense against another lefty style government in their neighborhood.

              Venezula would be a nice little socialist paradise if it weren’t for the capitalist pig wreckers.

        2. The argument for nuclear power is not that accidents will never happen. It’s that the actual consequences of accidents are far less serious than many people think they are. And moreover than the death rate due to nuclear is considerably less than other forms of energy.
          Not a single person died at Fukushima or even developed radiation sickness.
          The number of deaths from Chernobyl was in the dozens. That’s far less than the number of people who might be killed in an airplane crash. If wer’e talking a major nuclear accident every 20 years, that’s miniscule. Thyroid cancer is curable, and a couple of thousand cases is tiny compared to the toxic effects of coal or smog across a whole population. Nevermind the CO2.
          The hazards of radiation are vastly overstated. Nobody has ever been able to detect increased cancer rates at the levels of radiation emitted by nuclear plants, or what is currently present in most of the Chernobyl of Fukushima exclusion zones.
          People could go back and live their tomorrow if government policy wasn’t being driven by absurd levels of paranoia.

    4. They should shrug.

      Chernobyl is the sort of thing that can’t happen with any sort of reactor made on a design newer than … 1960 or so. And even then you sort of have to try to blow it up.

      Only the USSR or its ilk would continue to run and build such reactors that long, or that widespread.

      So it’s irrelevant.

      Fukushima? Far more hype than actual harm, and again, a design obsoleted by more modern ones, if far less obsolete and far less prone to issues than the Chernobyl type.

      Total realistic death toll from Fukushima? Rounds to zero, no matter what lunatic hippies tried to say about it “killing thousands in America” or “poisoning the whole Pacific”.

      There exist multiple reactor designs, right now, that physically cannot suffer a core meltdown, even with no cooling at all.

      The problems are solved. Have been for decades.

      Thinking we need to kowtow before the spectres of such disasters (and “disasters”; remember how luddites screamed about Three Mile Island, another “death toll exactly zero” non-disaster?) to be “scientific” betrays a deep ignorance of the problem space.

      1. Put an end-italic tag in there after “irrelevant”, since plainly “editing” is not something Reason can be bothered to implement.

      2. Exactly.
        Fukushima is basically a big nothing in terms of death toll, or even meaningful identifiable cancer cases.

        Three simultaneous reactor meltdowns in the midst of a devestating natural catastrophe. The Tsumani killed 30,000 people. And everyone is focusing on Fukushima.

        The exclusion zone is mostly nominal radiation levels except for “hot spots” ginned up by anti-nuke activists running around with geiger counters. Radiation hot spots can be found randomly all over the country, because, guess what, background radiation levels have a natural variation!

    5. “could basically make the planet uninhabitable in a couple hundred years.”
      Um, no. Just no. Sure, the temperature is increasing, and human generatio of greenhouse gases contribute to that. But uninhabitable in a couple hundred years? Hahahaha!!! Bloggers say that.

      If you look at the actual peer reviewed scientific studies and their predictions of temperature increases, they are far more modest that what the politicos are saying. That’s because what politically motivated people do is they mine the studies and pick the highest limit of the highest estimate any study has posited even fleetingly, whereas realistically, the mean estimate is much more reliable, and it is also (inconveniently for you apocalypse-anticipators) far more modest. Also far more a matter of dispute. For example, for the expected doubling time for CO2, there is not a consensus within the range of even a hundred years.

      So no, the annihilation of the species is not at stake.That’s just plain retarded. Frankly, the anti-GMO crowd does considerably more tangible harm than the anti-global warming crowd, in part because even if the environmentalists got everything they wanted politically, their agenda would still do little to mitigate global warming; in fact, their opposition to nuclear energy likely makes them counterproductive.

  21. “religious conservatives reject evolution, and some oppose stem cell research…
    (b)ut neither belief has a big impact on our day-to-day lives”

    Unless you live in Louisiana or Tennessee where biology class is a recitation of Genesis. Yeah, let’s just replace science books the Bible. It’ll be fine.

    1. Except Louisiana, if you bother to research it like I just did, now, because I knew you had to be wrong – but evidently you haven’t – merely allows teachers to “supplement” the actual science curriculum with Whatever Stupid Crap.

      (And it will definitely be stupid crap, where that happens, no doubt about that.)

      If they’re just “reciting Genesis” they’re both ignoring the required curriculum and doing so on their own, rather than a statewide mandate.

      You speak as if the State of Louisiana changed the law to require “biology class shall be reading Genesis”. That’s not remotely true.

      (Considering how little “science” high school students actually learn everywhere – that is to say, “basically nothing” – I don’t know that it’d really make much difference.

      Especially because this crazy “Internet” thing won’t let them not realize they’re being fed a line.)

      Christ, is this Slate?

  22. “religious conservatives reject evolution, and some oppose stem cell research…
    (b)ut neither belief has a big impact on our day-to-day lives”

    Unless you live in Louisiana or Tennessee where biology class is a recitation of Genesis. Yeah, let’s just replace science books the Bible. It’ll be fine.

    1. Re: extinctplanet,

      Unless you live in Louisiana or Tennessee where biology class is a recitation of Genesis

      The point that Stossel is making is that the fact some schools may reject the teaching of Evolution as established fact does not mean you’re being deprived of your property. Instead, policies purported to avert the “effects” of Climatey Changey can make you POOR for REAL.

      You can learn about Evolution by going to your local library. Instead, you CAN”T simply opt out from public policy when the nice thugs with the guns point those at your head while asking for your acquiescence.

      1. Also, the left claims to be pro-science because they reject creationism, but most of them haven’t even the slightest understanding of evolution. I took an anthropology class when I was in college (around 2006) and the textbook relied on group selection theory.

        1. ^This can’t be stated enough.^

          I know plenty of leftists (life scientists even) who bungle over stupid simple stuff like common ancestry.

          They “believe in evolution” without realizing that they’re just saying they believe in ‘not Christianity’ and that ‘people came from apes’.

          Loads of Christian kids will grow up knowing more about both Christianity and Evolution than theirs will about either.

          1. Yup.

            I mean, they happen to be right, but they don’t know jack shit about the “science” in question.

            “Knowing true science-derived factoids” is not the same as “knowing science”; they’re disparate things.

            1. Leftists believe that all the animals which exist inherit behavior via genes – its Evolutionz!!! – but they believe that humans cannot inherit behavior via genes, because that would mean the the sexes and the races could be genetically different. With the Left it’s never really science, it’s always just politics.

            2. But this cannot be. Ive been repeatedly assured that they “fucking love science”!

    2. Is this real? Can you provide evidence that Louisiana and Tennessee text books don’t talk about evolution at all?

      Totally serious question.

      1. I went to public school in Mississippi and we definitely did learn evolution. I can’t speak for the hicks over in Alabama, though…

        1. I’m a hick from Alabama and we definitely were taught evolution. I’m now a hick from Georgia and I can guarantee my daughter and granddaughter were taught evolution.

          Anyone saying southern schools don’t teach evolution is a liar with a very questionable agenda.

          1. Agreed

      2. No. He can’t. First of all many Lousianans get their esucatfrom Catholic schools, which teach Genesis in Catechism and evolution in biology.

  23. As often happens, activists put politics before reality.

    You can’t have a perfect world if you first don’t deny the real one, Stossel. That is the bread and butter of the Marxian left.

  24. But what is your position on wood chippers, Stossel?

    1. Love the chipper, hate the chip!

      1. I have heard they are akin to the Tree of Liberty and in need of periodic watering.

          1. Blood makes a terrible lubricant for metal machinery

            1. A proper politician is primarily made up of greasy fat.

  25. Nobody is anti-science, just some people aren’t very good at understanding it. The whole idea of “anti-science” is in itself a religous crusade to out the non-believers. Probably one of the stupidest crusades yet since in this case there are virtually no non-believers and haven’t been for a long time.

    1. I agree. People often are unscientific in their thinking, but science is too much of a political club & shield in modern Western societies to have much open opposition to it.

    2. Nobody is anti-science, just some people aren’t very good at understanding it.

      I disagree. There are people who don’t understand and they do get labelled as anti-science. However, there are people who understand completely and are willing to exploit it to their own ends. I have no problem with them seeking their own ends, but when they sacrifice science as a means, they are anti-science.

      AGW is the perfect example. Studies repeatedly show that very young people, despite specific education/awareness programs, don’t give two shits about AGW. They are doing the fields of ecology and climate a disservice.

    3. “Nobody is anti-science”

      The people who should “consensus” in response to arguments are certainly anti-science.

  26. Science is the new intellectual truncheon of the left, but only when it supports their ends. Wrapping issues in science amounts to little more than rehashed, repackaged political propaganda.

    1. DO YOU EVEN SCIENCE, BRO?!

      It says a lot about this age when its most famous and lauded scientists are Bill Nye, Dicky Dawkins, and Neil de Grasse Tyson. A LOT!

  27. I have been educated in the South since the 6th grade. I have never been forced to take a single class on creationism or hear about it in school.

    Conversely, I have been forced to take mandatory environmentalist courses and one on ‘civic engagement’ taught by a professed Marxist that included a good dose of derpy leftwing hackery. The readings all lacked citations or sources of any kind. My favorite was on the evils of trade and industrial agriculture that threatened to displace third world farmers. This in an article arguing on the dangers of the lack of biodiversity with its real world example being the Irish potato famine…the author never realized the irony or contradiction in her inane arguments.

    I had to pay for this shit.

  28. Please don’t confuse yourself with scientists who research IQ differences and get political pressure for doing that. They are doing science. Your article on Sea World was just a piece of unsubstantiated crap. There’s a world of difference between the two, and the fact that both get critical response doesn’t make them any more alike.

  29. I hope John writes the book. I will definitely buy a copy.

  30. The article’s title is wrong. The anti-science attitudes on the left–paranoia about GMOs, reluctance to build new nuke plants–are nowhere near as harmful as the anti-evolution, young-earth creationism, and pro-pollution anti-environmentalism on the right. (The article also taxes the left with anti-vax-ism, but that attitude is more prevalent on the right than the left.)

    Most of all, though, the right is trying to de-fund basic scientific research. The Democrats, since at least Bill Clinton, have consistently advocated increased funding for basic science, particularly biotech. Basic scientific research gives us our hi-tech edge in the world and prevents us from being a nation of peasants.

    1. Serious question: Even IF (and we’re going with “if” here, as the anti-evolution /creationism assertion is dubious, as discussed above) conservatives don’t believe in evolution, so the fuck what?

      The truth or falsity of creationism has literally ZERO bearing on my day to day life, nor that of literally tens of millions of people. It has no impact on whether a person is good at his job as an electrician, waiter, accountant, secretary, barista, lawyer, whatever. It has no correlation to a person’s moral worth. Why get so worked up?

      1. On the other hand, inhibiting technological progress by opposing things like fracking, nuclear power, GMOs, and industrialization of the third world does negatively impact lives

      2. Woodchip, because right-wing anti-evolutionists and creationists are trying to hijack the education system. Do you have children? Do you want young-earth creationists and evolution-deniers deciding what science they should be taught?

        1. As opposed to left-wind market creationist that own it now? Whats more dangerous, a bunch of church people teaching creationism along side evolution or shit bags that believe in market systems that, no bullshit, kill people.

        2. I guess as the token resident ID/Creationist reasonoid, I’d like to point out that my tax money is already taken from me against my will to teach kids what I view as just another creation story (Evolution, that is), so I can relate to your angst. In all honesty though I don’t think most Creationist/ID proponents are that worried about hijacking your vaunted “education” system any longer. Most have given up and are homeschooling, at least where that is still legal.

          On a slightly related note, I find it interesting that the Libertarian crowd who are so suspicious of government promoted narratives, are so unquestionably sold to the narrative that more than any other has been promoted and protected by the government for the last half century. I.e. the Supreme Court holding this one theory must be taught to grammer school children, and no competing theory can be taught along side it. Most Atheist Libertarian friends I have are so sure that the government has had this ONE thing right, they’ve never even bothered to (honestly) consider the competing evidences from the ID crowd and institutes, which is interesting to me.

          Of course the entire conflict between Creationist and Atheist Libertarians is because of the existence of compulsary and state funded education. Get rid of that and there is no conflict.

        3. You still haven’t answered my question, which was “So the fuck what?”

          I don’t give a damn whether the guy cutting my hair believes that God created the Earth two hundred years ago, that the two-hundred-year-old Earth is flat and triangular shaped, or anything else. In something like 99% of the jobs out there, the truth or falsity of evolution is completely irrelevant.

          So long as he’s not trying to make laws saying NOBODY can research the origins of human life, his beliefs are immaterial to me. It’s liberals who are trying to control others here.

    2. Are you high? The majority of the right are not anti-evolution, young-earth creationist, or pro-pollution. There are a lot to be sure, but it’s nowhere near a majority. But by all means, provide some evidence that the 35 state legislatures controlled by Republicans are pushing any of those things through. And while you’re at it, please elucidate us on how they are quantifiably MORE harmful than stopping technological progress, feeding hungry people, and getting them the nutrients they need to not go blind or die.

      Also: Fuck you, cut spending. (The private sector outspends government handouts for R&D 3x over.)

      1. butbutbut without Democrats sponsoring favored groups, there would be no SCIENCE!!!

      2. DesigNate, I used to work in biotech research in the industry sector and I know how it works. There are two problems: 1. Industry funding of science research is heavily dependent on the economy. When the economy turns sour, basic science research is the first thing the companies cut. And 2. Industry-funded science tends to be more focused on immediate applications and the development of short-term profitable technologies than government-funded research. The large majority of measurements and discoveries in basic science have no immediate applications themselves but (paradoxically) make possible the development of the next generation of profitable technologies.

    3. Name a location where “anti-evolution” and “young-earth creationist” idea have actually been enacted as government policy.

      These people are already marginalized and powerless. The anti-GMOs people aren’t.

      1. HazelMeade: Texas, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, Arizona.

        http://www.slate.com/articles/…..tives.html

        1. Allowing a teacher to teach different theories along side evolution does not mean that they have enacted government policy to force them to teach only creationism.

        2. Perhaps you might comment on what the Slate article actually says. There is a big difference in ” scholarship programs for disabled children and children from low-income families ” and ” the state of Florida has enacted the teaching of anti-evolution and young-earth creationist ideas. ” The second idea makes it appear Florida has required the teaching of these ideas in all schools, which is not true.

          FL resident with relatives and friends who are teachers in both public and private schools.

    4. The Democrats, since at least Bill Clinton, have consistently advocated increased funding for basic science,…

      As long as it supports their beliefs.

      The article is right about gender-related research. Want to see government research shut down? Suggest that a white person or a man can innately do something better than a black or female.

      And yet there are stark disparities between white/black IQs and strong evidence that the female brain is poorly adapted to physics, engineering and abstract reasoning in general.

      1. BambiB, I’m talking about funding development of new technologies. Biotech, computer science, physical chemistry. Not sociology.

      2. And yet there are stark disparities between white/black IQs

        Skin color and IQ are both inherited, and they happen to correlate in the US in some way; in other nations, they correlate differently. So, while there is a correlation between race and intelligence, there is no causation.

        and strong evidence that the female brain is poorly adapted to physics, engineering and abstract reasoning in general

        The primary difference between male and females is not that one is better than the other on average, but that males tend to have a wider spread. That means that you get more males among Nobel prize winners, and you get more males in insane asylums. At the individual level, there are no consistent differences.

        1. I prefer it when females have a wider spread.

  31. Nobody expects the Science Inquisition !

    But Vaxxers , folks who don’t believe in the absorption spectrum of CO2, and crank blog commenters helped make Mooney’s rant a political and publishing success.

  32. Nature makes wilder and more unpredictable changes in plant DNA all the time.

    If that’s true, then why is genetic modification necessary? Why not just do the cross-breeding as has been done historically? Could it be that it might take thousands of years to make the same changes that can be done in the lab in a few days? Is it unreasonable to think of genetic modification as evolution at hyper-speed? And shouldn’t that concern us?

    Yet the left’s fear of GMOs led activists to destroy fields of experimental crops in Europe and, most tragically, bans on GMO foods that might help prevent hunger and malnutrition in African and Asian nations.

    The problem in many of those regions isn’t a lack of science, but an overabundance of people.

    But it’s nature that is terrible. We should alter it. “Living with nature” means fighting for food, freezing in the cold, and dying young.

    Straw. Man. Flogging.

    Here’s another one: Because we can build a bomb big enough to destroy the world, we should do it. After all… it’s “science”.

    1. If that’s true, then why is genetic modification necessary? Why not just do the cross-breeding as has been done historically?

      Because nature doesn’t select for the kinds of properties that actually are beneficial to humans. In fact, nature selects for the stuff that is actually dangerous to humans, like disease resistance and invasiveness.

      Is it unreasonable to think of genetic modification as evolution at hyper-speed?

      Yes, that is unreasonable.

      And shouldn’t that concern us?

      Even if it were, it shouldn’t.

      The problem in many of those regions isn’t a lack of science, but an overabundance of people.

      No, it’s not. Human development and progress requires large population sizes and densities. There is never an “overabundance of people”.

  33. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
    http://www.freelance-cash.com

  34. ” if conservatives ban government funding of stem cell research, private investors will continue the work.”

    Or foreign governments will pick up the slack.

  35. I read a few days ago that some country in the EU, or the EU itself, has banned Roundup. (I haven’t read all the comments above, so maybe this was discussed.)

  36. I largely agree with the article, but I think it’s sloppy in the same way the left is sloppy when talking about this.

    The left calls that “playing with nature” and worries that eating GMO food will cause infertility, premature aging and a host of other problems.

    Lately, some people think they’re “erring on the safe side” by avoiding vaccinations.

    Debating whether GMOs or vaccinations are “safe” or “dangerous” is like debating whether objects made of wood are “safe” or “dangerous”: the premise doesn’t make any sense. All currently approved GMOs are clearly safe, although it would be possible in principle to construct dangerous GMOs. All the childhood vaccines are generally safe and effective, but some vaccines have problems.

    Those problems are sometimes subtle; for example, the TB vaccine generally has a modest protective effect for children, but forces some healthy adults to undergo otherwise unnecessary and potentially harmful chest X-rays.

    Ultimately, the government should generally get out of the business of determining the safety and effectiveness of GMOs or vaccines by regulation and leave it up to individuals and private associations to make their own choices.

  37. A study that should be done but likely never will. Examine brain tissue from homosexuals and people who have had “gender reassignment” to see if any of them are chimeras with chromosomes in their brain tissue that don’t match their physical gender.

    Wouldn’t even have to get permission to take and examine samples from deceased people that have put organ donor on their driver’s license or donate their bodies to scientific research.

    Take a chunk of brain, microtome it into a bunch of slices and go looking for XX or XY chromosomes where they shouldn’t be.

    Then we’d find out if there really is anyone in a body of the opposite gender.

    It’s well documented that there are human chimeras with various body parts made up of cells of the other gender – though it’s normally only known when it involves mixed up sexual organs or if a person has two different skin colors. A man could live his whole life with a female liver and never have a problem, never know it – and autopsies (AFAIK) don’t test for chromosomal gender of the various organs in a corpse.

    1. How chimeras often form is when fraternal twin zygotes merge very soon after fertilization. If they’re both the same gender then there’s no problems at all. If they’re opposite genders then problems may arise in various intersex formations of sexual organs. If not then the person will appear to be a completely normal boy or girl. If a woman’s ovaries came from a chimeric mix with a female fraternal twin, then none of her children will have DNA that comes close to hers, their DNA will be a mix of their father and their mother’s merged fraternal twin sister.

      It could be that chimeras where a person’s brain is of the opposite gender to their body is rather common, and if such is true it would change our knowledge about how human reproduction operates.

      But of course someone has to *go and look* for the evidence.

  38. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  39. John, you need to read, SCIENCE LEFT BEHIND: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left (2012) by Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell.

    Very well written and researched.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/16103…..kasfc49o_e

  40. The fear that humans will be destroyed by their own technology is a valid one. It is calculated (I hear tell) that we will never run out of coal as an energy source because we will poison the planet with carbon dioxide if we use it as an energy source and kill our selves off.

    The notion of accidently creating some genetically poisonous species seems fairly valid as well.

    But to your credit , nature is cruel , and harsh , and happy to kill off the weak , the careless, the foolish , etc etc etc. I need only remember when ,as a child , I saw my families house cat chasing down a mouse. And showing up later with the dead beast in it’s jaws , to understand the truth of the “dog eat dog” world of nature.

    And I have long ago determined that we live in a world of mass hysteria. If you’re not crying that the sky is falling , people are busy , they have other things to do with their time, they have their 12 hour a day jobs , and the kids to deal with , and making dinner, and fifteen zillion charities ringing on the door bell looking for hand outs, or your time…

    And we live in a world of FUD (Fear , Uncertainty , Distrust) where if your political opponents can’t win your followers over , they can make your followers stop and wonder if you’re telling the truth , even if by just making up baseless accusations , a very common tactic in politics that now leaks into everything.

    1. (cont) What we need is to change the rules. Truth should win out in a discussion , not FUD and Mass hysteria. Until those rules are changed, you can double check your facts as often as you like, but the guy who’s just making up crud is still going to win the debate.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.