Unmuzzling government scientists is just the first step

[dmlfarmer]

Hamloc: That does not answer my question. All that you are pointing out is the mirror image of what farmers do. Climate change supporters claim that science supports their position yet at the same time rejects the science consensus that says GMOs are safe. Both farmers and climate change advocates are doing the same thing, picking and choosing when science consensus is right and wrong. What I want an answer to is how can anyone argue science consensus is right and everyone should pay attention to the science but on another subject scientists are wrong and should be ignored. I just want someone on this list to tell me on what basis they can say science consensus should be followed and when it should not count.

[dmlfarmer]

continued:

It bothers to hear consumers say that climate change is real because 88% scientists agree that man is contributing to climate change but at the same time are telling farmers that GMOs are not safe even though 88% of scientists say they are just as much as it bothers me many farmers are telling consumers that GMOs are safe because 88% of scientists say they are when in the next breath those same farmers are telling consumers that climate change is not real even though 88% of scientists says it is.

[FarmRanger]

Do you want to know why I'm sceptical of the climate consensus? The manipulation of data to "hide the decline" in temperatures; the claim that a majority of climate scientists believe in catestrophic global warming, when that is simply an untrue statement extrapolated from a survey reporting that a majority of scientists believe human activity likely has some influence on climate.
If there was 1/100th of the deception used in GMO science, there wouldn't be a GMO legal anywhere.

[farmaholic]

In a word..... hypocrisy?

It isn't a profane word.

[TOM4CWB]

dml,

The science was settled that the earth was flat... yet that was disproved... just as:

The Universe is expanding... at a slowing rate...

Which is now changed...backed up by science and changed to: the universe is expanding... at an ever INCREASING rate.

The science argument is not science but politics. A theory is debated... and the information used.... determines the validity of the argument... Selected info... means political answer. Climate Change is Political... every one knows this... because that is clear as of course the climate is always changing! This is the nature of our planet and weather producing infrastructures!

[Oliver88]

If a scientist mentions the words "climate change" .....ten years ago it was "global warming" there will be more grants, funding and employment vs one of us evil "deniers".

So I'd say there is an incentive to be a global warming fear mongerer.

The irony is many of the scientists, including the darling of the CBC David Suzuki are totally opposed to GMO's and Gloden Rice.

[dmlfarmer]

Tom, and you don't think GMO is political? Only grown in a handful of countries, outright banned in others, trade restrictions. Now that is political!

You are correct, as science evolves and we learn more science does change its position and that is what should happen. But science also reflects the best information we have at the time.

Science overcomes politics. We found out the earth was round not because of politics but because scientists preserved in spite of politicans and religion (religion has likely suppressed more science than politicans ever have).

[dmlfarmer]

Oliver88: How many scientists are there in the world? Of course you will find some scientists on both sides of any issue. That is not irony, it is critically important that we always question.

You point out Suzuki. Let me counter with two headlines made by Neil deGrasse Tyson
recently:

Neil deGrasse Tyson Infuriates Climate Change Deniers
Neil deGrasse Tyson Tells GMO Critics to "Chill Out"

[TOM4CWB]

DML etel;
What is a 'Scientist?
Dictionary meaning...
"A scientist, in a broad sense, is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge."

Exactly what all of us on Agriville are.

More restricted meaning:
" a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. "

So... now by necessity... we need to know what 'Scientific Method' is.

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

None of these purposes nor their practice require any kind of University Degree.

Red Herring... to pick certain people... because of political stature... Educational snobbery... or media acclaim... to judge how 'good' or 'bad' their opinion is. This is like dust blowing in the wind... the storm in the future will blow all their ideas into the sand dunes of the future! Just because someone is paid public taxpayers money... does not make them any more an authority... than an ant building an ant hill!
Good work if you can get it... and you soon will be replaced!

[foragefarmer]

Chris Hadfield, just gave an interview on CBC, and he's very pleased that Canadian scientists will be able to share information with the Canadian public and scientists around the world once again.

Harper's Con/Reformers, prevent that from happening for four and a half years.

I was hoping he would have preformed "Space Oddity".

"Ground Control to Major Tom" great song!!!