• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Monsanto

Henry Bannister said:
But the scientist you want to smear as a 'nut' seems to show that two of the most important 'great things' they do for small farmers are illusory.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that farmers are using more pesticides and fertilizer and getting lower yields than 30 years ago, but they just don't realize it? :rolleyes:
 
Henry Bannister said:
Not the way things are going - seed supply is becoming concentrated into fewer and fewer companies:

http://www.gmeducation.org/latest-news/p207220-the monsanto monopoly.html





To an extent, yes:

http://peakoil.com/enviroment/u-s-farmers-may-stop-planting-gmos-after-horrific-crop-yields

"Some farmers across the United States may stop planting genetically modified crops after poor yields are increasing costs beyond what they can absorb.

According to Farmers Weekly, those farmers are considering returning to conventional seed after increased pest resistance and crop failures have meant smaller GM crop yields over non-GM counterparts.

Farmers in the U.S. pay about $100 more per acre for GM seed. "

That's fine while there are still a lot of companies selling seeds. If people buy into the idea that the gmo science is settled, and Monsanto and friends get a monopoly farmers will have nowhere else to go.
Click to expand...

Peakoil.com?

:dl:
 
!Kaggen said:
Henry, welcome to jref.
Thanks for your input.
You should just realize now before you proceed to waste a lot of time that most of the commentators on this subject here on jref have no "skin in the game" and as such can be safely ignored.
Click to expand...

How very convenient to ignore impartial observers. Perform the simple additional step of declaring your opponents to be shills and you get to have a monopoly on The Truth (TM). Speaking of monopolies...

Dymanic said:
Once they've gained a monopoly, their seeds don't have to match their hype.
Click to expand...

Er, even if they could achieve a monopoly, they still have to match the hype:

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/reporter/advertising/
 
Polaris said:
Er, even if they could achieve a monopoly, they still have to match the hype:
Click to expand...
Truth in advertising laws are rather easily circumvented by escape clauses like "actual mileage may vary".

That aside, once they achieve a monopoly, they no longer even need the hype.
 
Henry Bannister said:
What evidence do you have that Heinemann is a 'nut'? You do realise that Brainster made up that slur about him being an AIDS denier and a 9/11 truther?
Click to expand...

Don't blame me for your inability to read. I did not say Heinemann is an AIDS denier and a Troofer.
 
Dymanic said:
Once they've gained a monopoly, their seeds don't have to match their hype.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about that. It's not as if Monsanto will destroy all the non-GM seeds and they would need considerable clout to get the politicians to protect their monopoly position.

If Henry Bannister's Peak Oil link is accurate, it would appear that mother nature is already fighting back with GM resistant insects and roundup resistant weeds. Maybe Monsanto's quest for a monopoly will be stopped dead in its tracks before it gets started.
 
Last edited:
Dymanic said:
No laughing dog that time, at least.
Click to expand...

:dl:

The Central Scrutinizer said:
The source makes the claims not worth pursuing. Skeptics know this. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:bigclap

I just want to clear the air regarding Heinemann. Brainster brought up that Lynn Margulis is the one with the views on HIV denialism/9-11 Trutherism, and Heinemann only shares the same career field with Margulis. I don't know what other woo he's connected to, other than the source presented.
 
Skeletor said:
I just want to clear the air regarding Heinemann. Brainster brought up that Lynn Margulis is the one with the views on HIV denialism/9-11 Trutherism, and Heinemann only shares the same career field with Margulis. I don't know what other woo he's connected to, other than the source presented.
Click to expand...

Though it was rather a strange connection to make. If we were discussing architect X and I mentioned that Richard Gage is both an architect and a 9/11 CT loon, well, why would I do that?
 
psionl0 said:
If Henry Bannister's Peak Oil link is accurate, it would appear that mother nature is already fighting back with GM resistant insects and roundup resistant weeds.
Click to expand...

It would hardly come as a shock. Other sources, possibly more reliable, are reporting the same thing.

Publishing in the journal Nature Biotechnology, US and French researchers analysed the findings of 77 studies from eight countries on five continents that reported on data from field monitors.

Avoidable, it seems, but then antibiotic resistance in bacteria was perhaps also avoidable.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
The source makes the claims not worth pursuing. Skeptics know this.
Click to expand...
It's a judgment call. Skeptics know that kooks do not possess any Midas touch that transforms truths into falsehoods, and that anyone willing to do the work of pursuing a claim to its actual source may find it to be well supported despite having fallen into the hands of biased or otherwise non-critical thinkers somewhere along the way. When we discussed this on page 6, I agreed with you that the burden really falls upon the claimant to do that work, and that it is reasonable to expect that many people here will not consider themselves obligated to even look at material linked through "information sources" with names like "Wake Up World".

I cannot, however, go along with you when you extend this to a general disdain for "open access journals". Putting the "E" in "JREF" gets a lot harder if the de facto rule is that only the most well established scientific journals are acceptable as sources, because those who stand to learn the most from our efforts here are the ones least likely to have easy access to that material. Tell the truth: do you have the right to look down your nose at those who would stoop to reading open access journals? If the source under discussion had been a recent article in, say, the Journal Science, would YOU have been able to access it? Are you a subscriber? Affiliated with a subscribing institution? Would you have been willing to pony up the dough for a one-time view? Because if not, your dismissive "An open access journal. Figures" really does look like an excuse to dismiss, unexamined, material which might support a claim you've already rejected going in.

A timesaver for you, no doubt, but in my opinion, not very skeptical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom