portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article questions global

genetic engineering

All in for science?

some polls and some questions...
Ok, so a poll was released this week about what Scientists tell us vs. what we the public believe.

Eighty-seven percent of scientists say global warming is mostly due to human activity, while only half of the public does.

88 percent of the scientists surveyed said it is safe to eat genetically modified foods, while only 37 percent of the public
say it is safe and 57 percent say it is unsafe.

Question, What happened to the 97 percent of of scientists say global warming is mostly due to human activity that is quoted and quoted again and again? A drop of 10 percent?

Next Question, roughly the same number of scientists believe GMOs are ok to eat. So the question is, are you a person of science or a denier?

who is doing the polling? 30.Jan.2015 13:22


Differences like this can be due to a lot of factors - how the questions are phrased, how the polling is done, etc. - it should be no surprise that differences will occur, even outside the margin of error of each poll.

The most disturbing fact is that the public has been led to distrust science, hence crazy shit like measles making a comeback because gullible people have started getting their information on sites like naturalnews. It is a real shame. The same for climate change - people would rather believe in some absurd scientific conspiracy and get their information from politicians rather than climatologists. It is puzzling and infuriating.

absurd scientific conspiracy 30.Jan.2015 13:59


All sorts of shit out there to pick though and believe or not.

Some people find it hard to believe that Oswald killed JFK, others find it hard to believe that 3 world class marksmen in a triangulated cross fire could only manage 2 good shots.

I turn on MSNBC and they tell me X is true.

I turn on FOX News and they tell me X is false.

the truth is out there.

I can answer THAT question 30.Jan.2015 15:04

Mike Novack

"Question, What happened to the 97 percent of of scientists say global warming is mostly due to human activity that is quoted and quoted again and again? A drop of 10 percent?"

No drop (no evidence of a drop)

I understand that it was not the same question this time around. Even a few words different can make a big difference in how the same set of people answer.

But perhaps even more important, not the same set of people. Scientists have all sorts of different areas of interest and expertise. The first time around it was a group of scientists whose areas provided at least some connection to the question. This time around it was a sampling of the entire association of scientists and so included many whose areas would have no connection to questions about climate.

Note we also aren't being provided with what the other 13% (or earlier the other 3%) were answering. Besides "yes" or "no" there are the "I don't know", "decline to answer because not my area of expertise", etc. Just because 100 - 87 = 13 doesn't mean that 13% necessarily were saying that they disbelieved that human activity was causing climate change. We'd have to see the details of the question and answers to know that.

I know, you might expect scientists no matter how specialized in some narrow field to still be following burning issues of the day. But that isn't true of all of them

Mike 30.Jan.2015 16:08


Fair enough, but besides Scientists having all sorts of different areas of interest and expertise, they also are human beings with all the flaws that humans possess. Envy, Greed, Love, depression, etc. Problems with money, mortgages, kids, grand-kids, retirement, pensions, social security, relationships, etc.

Here is another question or two. If I'm a GMO scientist who has accepted money from Monsanto, is my research/findings suspect? If I'm a climate scientist who has accepted money from the government, is my research/findings suspect?

How can one group of scientist's motives, be perfectly honorable, while the other scientist are paid hacks/whores to be discounted?

I just find it very interesting that many people will pick and choose other peoples facts based on their own beliefs.

If you said, I believe they scientists are right, and Humans are responsible for Climate Change, and GMOs are perfectly save for human consumption, I would find someone with both of those opinions fairly unique.

RE: purported "equivalence" between GMO / climate science 30.Jan.2015 16:41

nice try

First of all, GMO technology is just that :


aka Applied Science.

most GMO 'scientists' are actually PhD engineers i.e., they practice a form of genetic engineering,

that is,

__modification__ of the Earth's natural genetic forms into something anthropogenically 'preferred' (in this instance, corporations who 'prefer' a genetically 'optimal' apple or tomato for agricultural mass production).

Climate and atmospheric science is one of the Earth sciences (aka Natural science). It's not a form of technology, engineering or Applied Science.

GMOs are a technology (applied science). All the scientists and engineers associated with it, are researching/outputting a product, a technology, that will be utilized for commercial end purposes.

(so-called, and ill-named, 'geoengineering' is the Applied Science offshoot of the natural Earth science that studies atmospheric processes themselves - i.e. in the direct and specific interest of __modifying__ the natural state of Earth's atmosphere itself)



Anyway you Deniers (like your bed-friends the Creationists) need to get basic foundational terminology straight prior to hysterically tilting at windmills.

Yuk - new menu please 30.Jan.2015 19:02

Pete Sakes

I don't (wont) eat "engineered" foods!
Even if the cook has a "PHD".

When the Government and the Media quit lying to you? ...you might know one day. 30.Jan.2015 19:45

Tracy Mapes

Matrix Blue Pill/Red Pill

Until then, the only firm decision you can make about life is trying to Destroy them, or to the4 best of your ability - Live without them in your life.


I say, "We give them a Fucking They will never Forget."

nice try 30.Jan.2015 20:39


hummm,... interesting response.

Actually, I personally believe 99.99 percent in evolution. (since nobody can be absolutely sure of anything, including devout zealots or religion or science) I have no conflicts.

Again, I'm just interested in peoples responses to the questions. Its interesting how people attempt to justify their own prejudices, agendas, and beliefs.

Pete Sakes 30.Jan.2015 20:45


why not? If you put the contents of GMO corn, soy or something into some sort of spectrum analyzer or other apparatus, could it tell the difference in simple carbohydrates?
Do you believe their is some sort of nanite technology that is going to infect and harm you? seriously? something has you freaked out. What is it? Face your fears.. please let us know.

Chemists Don't Use Spectrum Analyzers 30.Jan.2015 22:35


They use something vaguely equivalent called Chromatography

(From Wikipedia; useful, but built by suckers):
"Chromatography (/?kro?m?'t?gr?fi/; from Greek ???a chroma "color" and ???fe?? graphein "to write"[1]) is the collective term for a set of laboratory techniques for the separation of mixtures. The mixture is dissolved in a fluid called the mobile phase, which carries it through a structure holding another material called the stationary phase. The various constituents of the mixture travel at different speeds, causing them to separate. The separation is based on differential partitioning between the mobile and stationary phases. Subtle differences in a compound's partition coefficient result in differential retention on the stationary phase and thus changing the separation.

"Chromatography may be preparative or analytical. The purpose of preparative chromatography is to separate the components of a mixture for more advanced use (and is thus a form of purification). Analytical chromatography is done normally with smaller amounts of material and is for measuring the relative proportions of analytes in a mixture. The two are not mutually exclusive."

So anyway, the problem is that the cut-and-paste genetic technology will lead to chemical insanity very soon. We are now learning that all (or most) standards of DNA are bounded by "telomeres", and held in check by DNA methylation.

We don't know what Doctor Frankenstein will create yet.

Why bet our whole future on Doctor Frankenstein?

Just for the record, blue 31.Jan.2015 05:25

Mike Novack

They may also use spectral analysis. Back in the 60's when I was at university, my summer job was working for a biophysics lab that did just that. Chromatography, gas, gel, or paper, is useful to separate substances which can then be analyzed but that requires that they be stable substances. Not useful if the compounds exist only for very short amounts of time as intermediate products in a reaction involving catalysts. So .......

Force the chemicals through quartz tubing at high speeds allowing them to mix at a junction (and so the reaction starts then/there). Depending on the speed through the tubing a certain distance downstream represents a certain amount of time after mixing. Using spectral analysis through the tubing, determine what substances exist, though of course you don't know how much of each. But you know what you started with, know what you ended up with (you can measure how much of these) and you know what but not how much for in between so solve the differential equations for your answer << I was working on the differential analyzer, turned me off to computers since we had a mean time between failure of about 10 minutes >>

blues 31.Jan.2015 06:57


It was warm summer day in the year 3300 BC.

UNDAE : What the Fuck is Lothar doing?
MAGDON : He is mixing tin nodules he found in the creek with copper nuggets he dug out of the hill and smelting them to make something he calls Bronze.
UNDAE : Lothar will anger the sun god Zool for if Zool wished tin and copper be combined then Zool would have done so.
MAGDON : Lothar says Bronze is stronger than Copper and the Bronze spears stay sharp and will protect us from the hill people.
UNDAE : We don't know what Doctor Frankenstein will create yet.

o 31.Jan.2015 18:26


That's too slick by half.

Who are you?

Here's One Of Their Goals: 31.Jan.2015 19:06


Physicists wonder; why is there so much matter, yet very little (equally likely) antimatter in the universe?

Biochemists wonder; why is there so much d-RNA, yet NO (equally likely) l-DNA in the world?

Some kinds of topology would describe it. In 3-space, you can have "right-handed" structures that are symmetrical to "left-handed" ones. For example, some high-speed spinning wheels need "left handed" screws (eg. some automobile tires, some fans). If you look at a "right-handed" screw from either end, it still screws clock-wise.

Any significantly complex chemical assembly will have a "right-handed" and symmetrical "left-handed" version. Like, for example DNA. It screws right-ways, (we only know the difference because Emanuel Kant said there must be one He was right, but philosophy sucks anyhow).

So the New Scientists of course wish to build people with left-handed DNA. Heart on the right; liver on the left? Who knows?

What could go wrong?

blues 31.Jan.2015 19:14


Who am I?

Somebody who isn't obsessed with Simple Score voting, and doesn't believe its the answer to everything from free and fair elections to getting the crab grass out of my lawn. Its just another way of electing corrupt, incompetent, self-centered politicians. SSV won't educate the general public that Kardishian's butt is not germane to their daily lives. We get the government we deserve.

"Who votes means nothing, who counts the votes means everything" - Joseph Stalin.

I assume this also includes SSV...

Blues, I'm sorry to piss on your SSV jihad , but its getting old, and nobody is going to adopt it except for maybe the Oakland city counsel.

97% of atmospheric scientists 31.Jan.2015 19:16


I am technically a scientist due to my degree and job. Being a scientist with one area doesn't really give you special insight into other topics, but you might have above average general knowledge about many science topics up to about the college sophomore level. For example, if you are a cancer researcher at OHSU, you probably wouldn't be that helpful in answering a question about bird behavior, neurology, or agriculture, much less optics or volcanoes.
I think they asked people with a background in earth science and meteorology what they think about climate change

Simple Score Voting Is Actually The Answer 31.Jan.2015 19:28


...to everything that is wrong with our society.

The average everydays would truly care if they had actual input (of course they don't).

It sucks that 2,000 years of "political science" is holding them back.

cp 31.Jan.2015 19:30


maybe. But maybe Earth Scientists, Meteorologists, have less to lose because they are not feeding their families from grant money that expects to find Man Made Climate Change. Meteorologists and their computer models blew last week's GIANT Snow Storm forecasts on the east coast. So how can you believe computer models 20 years out? Are Meteorologists that incompetent compared with government funded climatologists? 9 years ago Al Gore said in 10 years the world would end!!!! There is an Al Gore Doomsday countdown clock. Its now at 360 days left, until the end of the world according to Al Gore. The people who created it were tired of people making doomsday predictions that nobody ever followed up on, hence the doomsday clock.

Simple Score Voting 31.Jan.2015 19:31


and 2000 years of crabgrass will be cured..

beliefs vs. ideas. 31.Jan.2015 19:34


Blues, you might want to pay attention here.


You Are Really Scared Shit Of Simple Score Voting! 31.Jan.2015 19:41


The blowback is coming in is fast and hard now...

Really Scared 31.Jan.2015 19:50


yes, thats it. I'm Really Scared. you have foiled my master plan now...

strange thread 03.Feb.2015 06:27


I'm not sure why this one thread has so many comments. Magnetism? Because here I am adding another.

I think the question merely points out some obthevious logical fallacies, along with the importance of actually understanding statistics before just quoting them. The either/or at the end, mixing two completely unrelated topics and suggesting that an answer to one determines an answer to another, is classical logical fallacy. People can evaluate the available information on their own and come to their own, independent conclusions, without relying on "scientists." Refusal to take the word of "scientists" is not the same as ignoring Science.

Scientific studies and Science itself often say COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS than "scientists, " much the same way that church officials often say and do things at odds with the teachings of their own religions.

Case in point: Any idiot can see that all mammals share brain structures, behaviors, and reasoning skills strongly suggestive that all mammals have
the capacity to think and feel, just like humans. A thousands years if scientific study has presented nothing but supporting evidence for the theory of
Non - human mind. However, up until only the last twenty or so years, scientists themselves denied that any animal other than humans could think or
feel. In some (increasingly limited) circles, you can STILL find "scientists" making this absurd, utterly unfounded claim. Why? Because conducting
cruel and usually unnecessary experiments on non human animals is where the money is.

... just like there's money in Monsanto.

People can evaluate the available information on their own? 03.Feb.2015 07:05


Really? That sounds like a rational proclamation. So why are people who question Climate change predictions of pending doom treated like sub-human primate troglodytes and those who question GMO's claim of save food are considered reasonable skeptics?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan.

Climate change is not even an extraordinary claim. 03.Feb.2015 09:25

The Loose Gooseler

Excellent question, O. Before I answer, let me give a very brief introduction to how the greenhouse effect works.
Every element or compound is reflective of certain wavelengths of light, and absorbs other wavelengths of light (this is what makes things colored. For example, leaves absorb many wavelengths but primarily reflect green light, so we see the green and say that leaves are green). Visible light, for the most part, can pass right through carbon dioxide gas. But infra-red light (which we perceive as heat) is reflected back. The result? Light from the sun goes right through the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, hits the earth and generates heat. The heat that is reflected off and which would otherwise escape into space is reflected back onto the earth by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The more carbon dioxide you have in the atmosphere, the more this happens. Are you with me so far? This isn't even really climatology; it's just basic physics. The light properties of carbon dioxide can be determined in a high school physics lab (yes O, even a school high school physics lab).
The second part: when we burn petroleum, it puts extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
There isn't really anywhere to go with the above two statements other than global warming. And it's pretty hard to argue with the physical properties of carbon dioxide, or the fact that petroleum burns into carbon dioxide.
So why are climate skeptics treated like "sub-human troglodytes"? Because they typically are either willfully misunderstanding the information, or refusing to understand it, or ignoring it, because they stand to lose a lot of money if climate change were to be taken seriously by policymakers, or because they are just plain old dumb and have allowed themselves to be mislead by the first group. Don't get me wrong; science is built out of skepticism and questioning. But you don't see climate skeptics actually reading research and finding errors in the methodology or something. You see them repeating sound bites from Fox News.
Why do we care so much? Because the stakes are huge. I don't give a cold fuck if policymakers believe in the Higgs boson or not; I think it's pretty cool that they discovered it at last, but it doesn't really matter at this point in our history. But we are talking about flooding cities, ruining agriculture, and mass extinctions.
As for GMO skepticism, it's kind of a different matter. Lots of GMO skeptics are not in disagreement about the science, but about other parts of the idea, like concentrating power in the hands of one corporation, using wind-pollinated crops like corn to grow pharmaceuticals and then getting pharmaceuticals into people's food by accident, and so on. It's less interesting of an issue to me, so I'm only spending these three sentences on it right here.

Loose Gooseler 03.Feb.2015 10:20


That's wonderful, except it hasn't happened. According to those same scientist CO2 has risen from .004 percent of our atmosphere in the past 100 years to .002, yet we have not seen any significant increase in warming as those 1980s and 1990s computer models predicted. None and I mean not one of those computer models has been accurate. I'm basing this on what was predicted vs. what turned out to be true. So its normal to be skeptical about claims that have NEVER come true. There are billions of dollars at stake for researchers, green energy companies, etc. based on people's desire to predict the future.

Asia, Russia, India, Africa, South America, as these peoples come online and use more and more energy, they will extract what they can.

Make no mistake over the next 500+ years all fossil fuels that are commercially accessible will be mined, drilled and utilized everywhere on the planet or we humans will reach our carrying capacity and choke ourselves out, unless you believe we are not indigenous creatures to planet earth and god put us here and has other plans.

o 03.Feb.2015 23:11


9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occured since 2000.

2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

Next I want here you arguement about how the moon landing was faked and how the world is flat, only 6000 years old and how the sun orbits the earth.

So witch is it?
Are you batshit crazy or just a climate prostitute?

p 04.Feb.2015 05:35


as bat shit crazy as anybody here who is a GMO science denier..

The good news is the increase in 2014 was 1/100 of 1 degree. Thats in the range of error rate on equipment.

you should be happy the earth is not really warming as all those computer models predicted. Thats what we normal people call good news.

You do believe its good news right, that things aren't as bad as scientists of two decades ago claimed right? You can't admit it can you.. only painted smiles on your race right?

I would hate to go though life socially maladjusted and miserable incapable of being happy.

only painted smiles on your face right? 04.Feb.2015 07:04


it always amazes me that certain people either have no sense of humor, or can't experience joy and happiness.

ignoring facts makes you happy! 04.Feb.2015 08:40

The Loose Gooseler

If you were told that you had terminal cancer, would you get one hundred second opinions from other oncologists until you found that 3% of them said that it was possible that you did not have terminal cancer, then go about your day with a willfully ignorant grin on your face? You could go around saying, "I'm not dead! Those oncologists made claims that NEVER came true!"
We want to save the world, and we believe that we can. That doesn't doom us to unhappiness. It is possible to be happy without having to shut out the parts of reality that are unpleasant or scary.
I don't know what makes you think that none of the climate predictions have come true. Some of the changes are so obvious that is is hard to miss. Have you seen Mt. Hood in the summer? Remember what it looked like even just ten years ago in the summer? There was much, much less rock exposed and much, much more ice. More white, less brown. Every year the Arctic Ocean has less and less summer ice. Interestingly, groups that are usually climate deniers, like oil companies, are happy to use the predictions of climatologists to plan more shipping through the Arctic Ocean based on the ice shrinkage. Glaciers everywhere are receding so fast that it is kind of hard to wrap your mind around; in some cases, over a kilometer a year. And just reading thermometers shows that, as P pointed out, yes, it is getting hotter.
As a side note, your arguments carry more weight, O, if you don't intersperse them with imagined little diagnoses of the other posters here (you know, name calling like "maladjusted", "incapable of being happy", "having a fragile ego", and so on). It kind of makes you sound like a spoiled little kid.

no questioning the facts 04.Feb.2015 19:39


considering the facts at best are flawed and at worse have be admittedly falsified to justify a political agenda, yes, I question the those so called straw man facts. (Mann and the University of East Anglia email admissions for one).

But the biggest fact is this, the earth has not warmed significantly in 18 years. That is a fact. Its not a prediction, not a computer model, its a fact.

Loose Gooseler 05.Feb.2015 08:53


speaking of illogic, you can't look at a mountain and say there is less ice so therefore the earth is warming.
That's like me saying I wore a heavy coat today, so the earth is cooling.

Even the LA times is trying to dismiss the same logic you are using because Antarctica ice is growing, not shrinking. (LA Times Does Antarctic sea ice growth negate climate change? Scientists say no )

So you can't have it both ways. Either expanding means nothing, or it means the earth is cooling or vise-versa.

I'm not using either of these as facts to promote the majority of public opinion that Man is not the cause of global warming if global warming is even happening.

Every time some evidence shows up to counter the Climate change argument those same government funded scientists huddle to come up with an explanation of why it doesn't matter, and they are still correct. Its getting old, and that's why most people don't believe it.