The War On Science: An alternative view
70 2015-02-23 by qthagun
(Note: this article is written to go with the March 2015 National Geographic cover; it is such an excellent piece of propaganda that it can be easily subverted for an alternative viewpoint.)
Do you remember a time before there were Wars, with a capital W, on intangible ideas? As an American who's only in their 30s, I can't say that I do; my first introduction to our political paradigm was the War on Drugs. I still can't really tell you what a Drug is these days, the legal pharmaceuticals we manufacture killing more people each year than the few illegal scheduled Drugs, science showing that sugar and cocaine activate similar reward pathways. In the US our drug addiction rate hasn't really changed since the 1970s, while the amount we spend on drug control each year has skyrocketed from the millions to the tens of billions. We view Prohibition as a charming relic of the past, while we raid medical marijuana dispensaries at home and guard captured opium fields abroad. I guess that tells you what a War on an Intangible Idea entails.
The same media which raised my generation on the War on Drugs, and the following generation on the War on Terror, has a new War for a new generation. Enter: The War on Science. Everything from Climate Change to the moon landings to vaccinations, these uneducated idiots are coming for you! And if there's one thing we know about uneducated idiots, it's that they're organized and good at what they do. And what they do is get everything wrong and cause all of our problems. It's 2015 you uneducated idiots! Don't you know that we have the right answers for everything? That's why we have experts.
We've actually put a few of our own experts to work on this cover photo, lovingly recreating that famous scene etched into all of our memories. Notice our attention to detail, taking care to ensure the dust underneath the LEM's engine is completely undisturbed, with no blast crater or any evidence of propulsive landing whatsoever. Looks just like the real NASA thing with the exception of our devoted worker who's almost spoiling the illusion with his size. We wanted to show everyone just how easy it is to recreate these scenes for a camera (minus the long journey back home to Earth for our worker and crew). But let's not get too distracted by the past; besides pointing out that it is impossible to prove a negative (such as that something didn't happen or that something doesn't exist), we'll leave "removing one of truth's protective layers" (Neil Armstrong, 1994) for another exercise, as this upcoming War on Science has much more immediate political concerns.
Let's start with the careful selection of messages on this cover, the witches we'll need to burn if we want to be warriors in defense of Science. "Climate change does not exist". We are officially 1984 now. "Climate change" is a tautology by its definition. There is no way to define the climate of the entire planet in a static way; it always changes. What also always changes are the political arguments attached to such a vague topic as Climate Change. Most of the media my generation consumed focused on Global Warming, while a few decades earlier the same mobs were whipped up with fear of Global Cooling. Today it is Climate Change and no one can really define it except that it's scary and coming for you. Everyone knows we are polluting our air and our water, but they want you arguing about whether or not the Climate is changing and in which direction. We've covered up the deep recession since 2008 with the explosive growth of fracking, destroying our own land for short-term profit, but instead of looking at that they want to propose carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes, ultimately resulting in a whole new regulating government bureaucracy. We're currently waging war on our own environment and they want you arguing about how we can prevent Climate Change.
Next up in pithy slogans is "Evolution never happened", excellent bait for a controversy as it simultaneously muddies up a topic and then simplifies it to a false dichotomy. Here we have an example of the War on Science already occurring. The definition of evolution itself has evolved multiple times in my lifetime. Discovering mitochondrial DNA and a common human female ancestor of ~200,000 years ago exemplifies the process of science, where continual questioning and investigation overturn our past understanding and open up all new avenues of questioning. It is a thing of beauty to behold. But instead we're encouraged to divide ourselves into camps, to claim we finally have it all right, to choose sides in a battle between the Current Conclusions of Science TM and anyone who would question. All shades of nuance are ignored: you either agree with the Current Conclusions of Science TM or you are an uneducated idiot whose very existence threatens us all.
This is what the cover illustrates and what the War on Science is: an all or nothing proposition. How else could we be made to spend all of our time arguing against ourselves? Simply frame the argument such that both sides are wrong, but both sides have legitimate grievances, and you've engineered a propaganda playground for the unwitting. Keep the medium brief and the content fast; no one has time for anything more than that. We definitely need someone to blame. Everyone senses something is wrong with our world. Wasn't Science supposed to deliver us from this? Maybe all these problems are because enough people aren't going with the flow anymore. That's why we need to regularly reinforce the one conclusion that has never been overturned: we know what we're talking about, because we have our experts working on it.
Which is why we can tell you with complete confidence that genetically modified food isn't evil. Who can say what evil is anyway, but an emotional idea loaded with religious and moral connotations, undefinable by either either science or the law. It's a useful term to generate endless arguments, framing the subject emotionally to engage feelings before thought. Everyone intuitively understands that there is an information war going on, and so often we take our sides first and that is the extent of our communication. We are encouraged to segregate ourselves based on our ideas and when one of the sides we can choose is the Current Conclusions of Science TM, the choice is obvious to many. By definition, the Current Conclusions of Science TM are correct, are they not? Tautologies are true everywhere.
GMOs aren't evil; GMOs are unlabelled in America. In dozens of other countries, GMOs are completely banned. But National Geographic and its American audience just know that there isn't a debate, because obviously GMOs aren't evil. Hip celebrity scientists such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson tell us everything is OK while blurring the distinction between natural hybridization over centuries and transgenic GMOs over years. While GMOs are sold to us with the promise of supernutrition and feeding the world, the ones we get are modified to be pesticide resistant and are covered with toxic pesticides. Instead of transparency and accountability there is a rotating door between the companies making these GMOs and the government agencies regulating them, as the current deputy commissioner for foods at the FDA, Michael Taylor, was previously a VP of public policy at Monsanto. Meanwhile the companies themselves are the ones tasked with the testing to prove the safety of their products - inevitably they find their products to be safe.
Much of this data is hard to get and not available for public access. There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential health effects of GMO food on human health. International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GMO foods and crops. There is no consensus on environmental impacts of GMOs. A recent statement in the journal Enviromental Sciences Europe concludes “…the totality of scientific research outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced; complex; often contradictory or inconclusive; confounded by researchers’ choices, assumptions, and funding sources; and, in general, has raised more questions than it has currently answered.” In short, the science isn't settled at all.
As anyone who has taken part in the vaccine discussion that has exploded on social media over the past month can tell you, it's not really about the science anymore. It's about choosing sides in The War on Science. Who can even tell what sides there are, on such a wide array of issues? With so many disparate hot button issues lumped together, each carefully chosen with a distracting straw-man to burn, National Geographic is here to tell you exactly what to think. With the modernization of the Smith-Mundt act of 2012, it really isn't even illegal for the US Government to knowingly lie to the public anymore. The companies that are selling you these products employ massive public relations divisions, and nowadays you can see the results of spending so much money on advertising when you turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper or magazine.
Thankfully this magazine is here to strong-arm us to the final topic, the most pressing of all, the real target: vaccines. The rhetoric and fear surrounding vaccines is rising; it seems if we don't make a decision soon we face unspeakable consequences. Step out of line, potentially support the wrong side, and experience vicious social ramifications, public shaming, and group shunning. What's the simple conflict here, and what is a non-expert to think? Here the stink of desperation oozes out of the propaganda. "Vaccinations can lead to autism": a milquetoast statement, a clear retreat from the more blunt and catchy "Vaccines cause autism". With such an obvious clue that things might be more complicated than all or nothing, let's take a moment to examine this from an alternative perspective.
The mainstream Current Conclusions of Science TM (in America, God Bless America) are that vaccines are both safe and effective. The gold standard for proving medical safety is to compare human populations with a control group over the long term. Out of the current US Vaccination schedule of 12 different vaccines (compared with just 3 in the 1980s), none of them have ever been tested against a saline control in a human population long term, either individually or as a group. If none of our drug testing included comparisons of populations given placebos, would you trust them? On the other side of the vaccine safety issue, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that federal law prohibits parents from suing drug makers over serious side effects from childhood vaccines. The only way Americans have left to defend themselves, the lawsuit, cannot be used to seek compensation from vaccine injury, and yet they want us to know that vaccines are safe? They had to create a program to handle all the numerous reports of negative side effects of vaccines (VAERS - the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), and yet they want us arguing whether or not vaccines may lead to autism?
This is overt manipulation, and yet a review of history leaves us with the conclusion that it is effective manipulation. Populations have been whipped up with the fear of biological armageddon before, with dissidents fined and jailed for refusal of the current cure du jour. A new wave of people are publically arguing for forced mandatory vaccinations right now, because ultimately their fear trumps your liberties. The efficacy of vaccines has never actually been proven, neither has herd immunity ever been shown to exist. There are outbreaks among fully vaccinated populations. President Obama recently granted immunity to a CDC whistleblower to testify about the efficacy of vaccines to Congress. This is another clear example where the science is anything but settled, but our culture of choosing sides is moving towards a future where individuals no longer have any choice for themselves. There is a comments period open right now for the US Health and Human Services current draft proposal regarding more mandated employer-enforced vaccines for adults, at the same time that the US Government is involved with a lawsuit against Merck (the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine) about the false claims of efficacy of its vaccine.
Jenny McCarthy served as the sacrificial offering in the media, an open warning and example to anyone who would question the current narrative. The government has a monopoly on legal force, and a narrative is forming across the media that such force should be used to override our individual right to bodily integrity and self-determination. We are shown the social effects of questioning the narrative, and anyone that's even questioned the ever increasing vaccine schedule can tell you what those social effects feel like personally. There is a science, with a lowercase s, that is a method, an application, a process that is founded upon open questioning. And then there is a Science, with a capital a S, that is the Current Conclusions of Our National Experts TM, a dogma which does not allow any questioning or deviation from the herd.
We should always be questioning. The truth fears no investigation.
64 comments
14 Amos_Quito 2015-02-23
Excellent work, OP. I agree that in needs more visibility.
The War on Critical Thinking has begun.
13 shadowofashadow 2015-02-23
Nice post, not sure I have anything to add. Just from my point of view this 'war on science' that National Geographic sees is really an awakening of people who are tired of accepting advice from the government and media and are starting to think for themselves.
People have access to more information than they ever had in the past and people are starting to see just how much deception there is in our every day lives.
Most people know that Jenny McCarthy was wrong but the "anti-vaxx" movement continues to grow. Why? Well one reason is because people who are simply preaching being careful and not accepting every vaccine thrown at you are put instantly into the same camp as people who think vaccines give you autism. It's more of the divide and conquer strategy. You can't be reasonable and question things, you are either with us or against us.
2 iki_balam 2015-02-23
what i find shocking is how i agree with the ideas of the 'pro-science' (i.e. we did go to the moon, vaccines are generally good, gmo are generally good, etc) camp, but that the methods of vindicating themselves is so abhorrent. they dont want that 'generally' part.
13 axolotl_peyotl 2015-02-23
See this is why I like this sub.
7 JamesColesPardon 2015-02-23
I knew what this was before I clicked on it. And I completely agree.
13 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-02-23
That Nat Geo cover is possibly the most overt MIC propaganda I've ever seen, holy shit.
People: if a particular issue is specifically being framed as black and white, us vs. them, truth vs. lies - that's a clue that you're being manipulated. It's a propaganda technique. The world, and science, are quite a bit more complicated than that (as should be obvious).
10 zyxzevn 2015-02-23
Real science is against corporate sponsored research and propaganda.
Real science is against secrets and patenting.
Real science looks at all observations instead of trying to push a theory or belief-system.
Real science is questioning all the answers that we have made up.
That is the real war that is going on, in my opinion.
/r/paradigmchange - for everything that is true but not yet understood
edit: lol i did not even respond to the text.
Well it seems that the magazine is trying to give the message:
"You are really stupid when you don't agree with our ideas.
And you are even worse, you are anti-science"
The church did something similar thousands of years ago, when we were
with the "devil" if we didn't pray and give the church our money.
The pseudo-scientists who wrote these articles, are just creating a new "devil".
Which tells more about these writers, instead of those who they call
evilanti-science. If they really cared about clearing the facts up, they would recommend releasing all data and stop suppressing alternative views, conflicting data, and stop corporates from influencing their research. People will always have different ideas, that is how we grow as a democratic humanity. But if you need to suppress them, their is really something wrong with your own ideas.2 Alcorr 2015-02-23
So very well spoken.
7 isaidputontheglasses 2015-02-23
This is beautifully written and wholly truthful.
They may claim there is a "War on Science" in America, but I would argue the bigger issue here is their "War on Skepticism and Free Thought".
3 Peglius 2015-02-23
1000%
6 materhern 2015-02-23
What a stunningly good write up! The perverse notion of "us vs them" in scientific discussion is the same now that pervades the political realm. Its not a discussion of whats best for our country, but a war in which you have to take sides or a side will be taken for you. That it spilled into the realm of science is no shock.
5 Estamio2 2015-02-23
Nice.
You ended with "the herd", and if I may add the interesting shift from "healthcare provider" to "population health" management.
5 Alcorr 2015-02-23
Great post, fantastic all around. This needs a lot more views/visibility.
6 qthagun 2015-02-23
If you know any ways of spreading it for more visibility, please feel free to distribute it.
I'm just amazed that I defended almost every 'anti-science' position, and haven't seen a single shill in this thread. Not even the 'daily average joe skeptics' have shown up and added their opinion.
5 Peglius 2015-02-23
its hard to argue with a thoughtful and truthful spelling out of exactly WHY this cover and modern mass media as a whole is a grand deception
3 Brendancs0 2015-02-23
Because you are not hear to debate, but here to at least open up the question. Can we question the large corporations behind the recent vaccine religion that has began. Why is Global Warming the only environmental movement that can be publicly addressed and cared about? You stated it perfectly, I think the shills have left you alone because you didn't give them any ammo.
3 ChurchBrimmer 2015-02-23
That's because when we do show up to add a view that opposes the norm of this sub we get shouted away. You all use the same tactics you accuse the other side of using and claim to be morally superior.
Don't worry about responding I already know what's coming.
"You're a shill!" [downvote]
"You disagree with me therefore you must be wrong and if you keep disagreeing with me I'm going to insult you. But it's totally different from what the otherside does because I'm doing it."
That should cover the majority.
I'll give you this bub, you wrote a very good article, it didn't have the spelling and grammar issues that most posts on this sub seem to be rampant with. However what you did was just say what anyone says on this sub when saying this kind of stuff (see my above imitations) and big words to sound smart. However you give no real sources, not even in a passing mention, and then take to inulting actual scientists (people who went to school to learn their trade because it requires schooling) such as Neil Degrasse Tyson and intentionally misquote them. Even though if you look at Tyson's response to people like you taking what he said out of context he flat out said he doesn't think GMOs are good or bad, they are a tool and like any tool it can be used for good or bad.
Now I'm going to have a drink and watch the angry comments pour in over the next few days. Should be fun.
1 qthagun 2015-02-23
You didn't address a single thing I wrote. Disagreement is great, but you didn't contribute anything besides that.
Is there a specific claim you require a source for? This is the internet.
2 ChurchBrimmer 2015-02-23
How about any if not all of your claims?
If I were to make a response to all the points you made that I disagree with I would have to post my own article of equal length, but then you would just call me a shill who believes what he's fed by Teh Man, man. Why would I waste my time when we can just cut out the middle man and have an argument on your thread instead of starting a new one?
2 lucio1bn 2015-02-23
I couldn't agree more with you, man. This is why this nonsense so full of shit makes me angry: because there is no real scientifical arguments when this subject comes to discussion, its always THE EVIL MEDIA IS MAKING US THINKING WRONG STOP THIS BULLSHIT, but no one is able to come here and say ok you're wrong about vaccines because of this paper, because of this specific data and etc. You guys are so busy trying to blame media on these War on Science thing that you could not avoid to be drag onto the very same War, you just chose the opposite site. You aren't really on the sidelines as you like to think you are guys, you are on the very epicenter of it writing texts like this one, it's against your poorly way of thinking about science that scientists writes those articles. You want an argument? Ok, let's have an argument, but a scientifical one, not a full of shit and godamn bad made up conspiracy stuff
Ok, I understand that we are in a sub named as "conspiracy" but I came here sometimes to read about some off the media ideas that actually make me think different and make me able to question the society and stuff like that, and I never comment here but I can't stay quiet when I read dumb things like this article.
Sorry about poor grammar, english is not my first language and I'm still learning it
1 qthagun 2015-02-23
If you have information that contradicts any of the claims in my post, you're welcome to share it. You haven't contributed any argument yet.
2 ChurchBrimmer 2015-02-23
Tell me something. Could I share any information from any sources that you would accept? Or is it more likely that you would claim that they are "in on it"?
(I suspect the latter)
1 iki_balam 2015-02-23
it's not the idea that they're arguing against, its the debate about the idea. that was part of the scientific method; the critique and analyzation of data.
4 Talorca 2015-02-23
But but but they can prove that you're going to burn now! Isn't that more impressive than ethics?
What this cover is really disguising is the increasing move to restrict peoples access to science. Our return to hipsters feudal dark ages and it's copyrighting of ideas, authoritay and a 'right minded' scientific priesthood that will satisfy their personal inadequacies. Scientists can hardly fight very effectively against such political movements.
It doesn't bother the Gay Theists that people hate them and through them what they try and associate with themselves because that is what they want.
4 anacardo01 2015-02-23
What else is there to say but :slow clap:
3 M5446K 2015-02-23
National Geographic believes in science... except for when it involves the Kennedy Assassination
3 Brendancs0 2015-02-23
But niel degrace tyson says i should be happy the corporations are poisoning me.
2 random_story 2015-02-23
Exactly why the Nat Geo cover makes me furious... and then just makes me depressed that Nat Geo is now on my list of publications I don't trust. I don't know why I thought they were legit, but it's just so obvious what they are doing with that cover. Totally irresponsible and shockingly sensational for a magazine like that. I'm really disappointment, especially because every year for the past five Christmases I've bought my step mother a one year subscription to National Geographic and it's become a tradition that I renew it every year. Well I can't very well tell her sorry, but they are evil. Lol. Sigh...
2 Akareyon 2015-02-23
I can't upvote more than once, and upvotes are cheap - so let me just join the choir giving praises and thanks for a beautifully written, thoughtful, and balanced analysis; for the distinction between science as in "the scientific method" and lysenkoistic ScienceTM; especially for the calm and reasonable way you put forth all the arguments I could not have formulated this way, simply out of sheer anger at this blatantly Orwellian thought crime propaganda.
Where there is darkness, there is light... it shows how desperate the high priests of Scienctism must be to keep their followers in line, and that should give us some hope that this will soon be over.
Again: thanks and kudos!
2 iki_balam 2015-02-23
up vote for you
2 Peglius 2015-02-23
what a fantastic article, such a great read. I'm ashamed that I just posted the picture and a title, this dissects the heart of these issues, thank you for this
2 un1ty 2015-02-23
Status quo is a very dangerous and effective tool.
Celebrity worship - MKULTRAs data delivery channel.
Wasn't it Aldous Huxley who warned of a future with too much information and people would be too inundated to care, let alone see truth in it all?
The rise of fascism.
This is my fear: this will become TOO EASY for the state apparatus to perform thanks to metadata collection and storing. ALL FUTURE REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS COUNTRY HAVE THEIR DATA AGGREGATING AS WE SPEAK. That includes whoever may be the next president.
Good luck, America. You'll need it.
2 txstoploss 2015-02-23
Hitler had Lily Tomlin switchboard phones, cabinets full of paper files and punch-card 'tabulating machines'. I don't think Stalin had any kind of automated data collection. Look how well they did! /s
2 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2015-02-23
You have all the words from my brain.
2 JesusHussein 2015-02-23
People who get dogmatic about science are just as deluded as the bible thumping religious freaks.
1 bitcoin_noob 2015-02-23
"The truth fears no investigation"
Beautiful.
And how I wish I knew what Neil Armstrong was referring too in his emotional speech where he said we needed to remove one of truths protective layers.
1 wearealllittlealbert 2015-02-23
Superb piece that really gets at the core of what is wrong with this cover. Bravo!
But there is war on science alright. It's a war being fought by official corporate and government science against all other scientific challengers to the status quo. It's a tough one to win with the resources those Goliath's have at their disposal, and you can almost feel them clamping down lately, especially with respect to the vaccine issue. Worse, goverment science and corporate science have effectively merged, so this truly is a monster.
Another weird thing about the cover is the inclusion of the Moon landing. That's actually not about science, but history, just like any other theory of an historical conspiracy. It's not even about science, but they threw it in there anyway just to make sure you got the message that if you are a so-called anti-vaxxer ant-GMO, then you're right up there with the craziest of conspiracy theories.
It's such a blatantly transparent strategy.
1 FormalPants 2015-02-23
There's nothing crazy about not accepting the official story of the moon landing.
Barring the questionable film there is literally no evidence of the moon landings.
2 wearealllittlealbert 2015-02-23
I certainly don't think it's crazy, but many others do. My reference to the Moon landing is that in the mainstream, the Moon landing is the craziest conspiracy theory of them all.
1 RenegadeMinds 2015-02-23
I was just in a discussion and brought this up.
The general topic was "peer review & the scientific method". Inside of that, we got on to the topic of vaccines and I pointed out that the debate has become purely toxic as the 2 sides shout past each other. Evidence is ignored. Name calling ensues.
"Science" is the new religion, and its priests and parishioners are as rabid, vile and irrational as any other fanatical religious zealot.
1 txstoploss 2015-02-23
If it were only that; what's worse is when it becomes the State Science Institute, with government coercion on its tool belt.
1 Brendancs0 2015-02-23
This needs more upvotes!
1 STARVE_THE_BEAST 2015-02-23
Can you post this on a blog somewhere so that we can more comfortably link to it from social media?
1 Outofmany 2015-02-23
Great essay. This kind of headline from Nat Geo is really just a bullet point for issues to remain skeptical over.
1 iki_balam 2015-02-23
TL;DR polarization is bad, politicization of topics is worse
1 wolfshead1 2015-02-23
Thought I'd throw in some validation (I believe) of this excellent post from one of the many scientists (fancy that) that agree.:
“Science can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and... non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so... Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science... In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.”
— Feyerabend, Against Method
0 timo1200 2015-02-23
Here is some further reading on the Global Warming Fraud.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/31-12-2013/126523-criminal_global_warming_fraud-0/
0 southwestont 2015-02-23
" Today it is Climate Change and no one can really define it except that it's scary and coming for you." First definition to show up on the internet, and the definition I would use as well, "a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels." So what exactly are you talking about when no one knows how to define it?
0 WideAwakeNWO 2015-02-23
My thought after reading this was how they present us with politicians, either Republican or Democrat nothing else.
0 Brendancs0 2015-02-23
I did want to comment on the fact that Nat geo has long been a propaganda piece. It holds no ground for any questioning any official narrative. I remember I watched a special on zero dark thirty, countless times they explained torturing and would immediately cut to someone basically justifying it.
0 anonagent 2015-02-23
Seriosuly? National Geographic is propaganda only because you disagree with their opinion.
the fact that the right wing has gotten huge lately, along with their Reaganomic, traditionalist, religious fanatic bullshit that could rival fucking ISIS is just fine? are you fucking insane or a propagandizer?
1 Nobel_Lies 2015-02-23
You're not very clever
-1 TIPTOEINGINMYJORDANS 2015-02-23
This is silly. Evolution did happen. We did go to the moon. Vaccines don't cause autism, the problem is the threat of mandatory vaccines. Gmo is not evil, even if Monsanto might. Climate change does exist.
6 Shillyourself 2015-02-23
Well you've missed all the points!
1.) Evolution does happen. The intention here is that you will make the giant leap from this statement to "Man evolved from the early hominids." This conclusion is not scientifically supported.
2.) We have some circumstantial evidence that says we went to the moon, but there is a combination of circumstantial evidence and scientific dilemma to suggest that we may not have.
3.) Vaccination science does work. The additives contained in vaccines like mercury and aluminum, dating back to the 1930's, are strongly correlated to the appearance and rapid growth of autism.
4.) GMO's aren't evil because that doesn't even make sense. They have not been studied throughly over time, they are not labeled, and they are in bed with the regulatory board.
5.) Climate change is and always has been happening. That it is being accelerated by humanity, and by what means, is completely unsubstantiated science.
4 j-pHil 2015-02-23
quality post upvote for visibility. /s
1 iki_balam 2015-02-23
i agree with all your points, but the idea of OP's post is that there is no room for grey, just black and white sides.
0 xWolfbornex 2015-02-23
Didn't you understand a single word the man said?
0 TIPTOEINGINMYJORDANS 2015-02-23
I did
1 xWolfbornex 2015-02-23
Your reading comprehension must be shit. The whole point of the piece was to point out how stupid it is to take these debates as a black or white issue, and that's exactly what you've done.
1 TIPTOEINGINMYJORDANS 2015-02-23
Nah it's pretty stellar. Why are you so mad bud?
His point is based on the false premise that those statements are anything but black and white.
6 Shillyourself 2015-02-23
How's life under the bridge?
-1 jcslzr 2015-02-23
I dare you to watch "Apollo Zero" in youtube, and honestly tell me that the moon landing was NOT fake
1 xWolfbornex 2015-02-23
Your reading comprehension must be shit. The whole point of the piece was to point out how stupid it is to take these debates as a black or white issue, and that's exactly what you've done.
5 Peglius 2015-02-23
its hard to argue with a thoughtful and truthful spelling out of exactly WHY this cover and modern mass media as a whole is a grand deception
3 Brendancs0 2015-02-23
Because you are not hear to debate, but here to at least open up the question. Can we question the large corporations behind the recent vaccine religion that has began. Why is Global Warming the only environmental movement that can be publicly addressed and cared about? You stated it perfectly, I think the shills have left you alone because you didn't give them any ammo.
3 ChurchBrimmer 2015-02-23
That's because when we do show up to add a view that opposes the norm of this sub we get shouted away. You all use the same tactics you accuse the other side of using and claim to be morally superior.
Don't worry about responding I already know what's coming.
"You're a shill!" [downvote]
"You disagree with me therefore you must be wrong and if you keep disagreeing with me I'm going to insult you. But it's totally different from what the otherside does because I'm doing it."
That should cover the majority.
I'll give you this bub, you wrote a very good article, it didn't have the spelling and grammar issues that most posts on this sub seem to be rampant with. However what you did was just say what anyone says on this sub when saying this kind of stuff (see my above imitations) and big words to sound smart. However you give no real sources, not even in a passing mention, and then take to inulting actual scientists (people who went to school to learn their trade because it requires schooling) such as Neil Degrasse Tyson and intentionally misquote them. Even though if you look at Tyson's response to people like you taking what he said out of context he flat out said he doesn't think GMOs are good or bad, they are a tool and like any tool it can be used for good or bad.
Now I'm going to have a drink and watch the angry comments pour in over the next few days. Should be fun.
1 iki_balam 2015-02-23
it's not the idea that they're arguing against, its the debate about the idea. that was part of the scientific method; the critique and analyzation of data.