Green heads to explode: 'elimination of GMO crops would cause hike in greenhouse gas emissions'

From PURDUE UNIVERSITY and the “better living through genetics” department comes this press release that is sure to setup an impossible quandary in the minds of some anti-GMO zealots who also happen to be climate proponents…

Planting GMO crops is an effective way for agriculture to lower its carbon footprint.

Model predicts elimination of GMO crops would cause hike in greenhouse gas emissions

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – A global ban on genetically modified crops would raise food prices and add the equivalent of nearly a billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, a study by researchers from Purdue University shows.

Using a model to assess the economic and environmental value of GMO crops, agricultural economists found that replacing GMO corn, soybeans and cotton with conventionally bred varieties worldwide would cause a 0.27 to 2.2 percent increase in food costs, depending on the region, with poorer countries hit hardest. According to the study, published Oct. 27 in the Journal of Environmental Protection, a ban on GMOs would also trigger negative environmental consequences: The conversion of pastures and forests to cropland – to compensate for conventional crops’ lower productivity – would release substantial amounts of stored carbon to the atmosphere.

Conversely, if countries that already plant GMOs expanded their use of genetically modified crops to match the rate of GMO planting in the United States, global greenhouse gas emissions would fall by the equivalent of 0.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide and would allow 0.8 million hectares of cropland (about 2 million acres) to return to forests and pastures.

“Some of the same groups that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also want to ban GMOs. But you can’t have it both ways,” said Wally Tyner, the James and Lois Ackerman Professor of Agricultural Economics. “Planting GMO crops is an effective way for agriculture to lower its carbon footprint.”

GMOs have been a source of contention in the United States and abroad, as some believe genetically modified crops pose potential risks to human health and the environment. Three U.S. regulatory agencies – the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency – have deemed GMO foods safe to eat, and the United States is the global leader in planting GMO crops and developing agricultural biotechnology.

But in many European and Asian countries, consumer and economic concerns have led to strict regulations on GMO crops, with partial or full bans on their cultivation.

Tyner and fellow researchers Farzad Taheripour, research associate professor of agricultural economics, and then-master’s student Harry Mahaffey used an extension of the Purdue-developed Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP-BIO) model to investigate two hypothetical scenarios: “What economic and environmental effects would a global ban on GMO corn, soybeans and cotton have?” and “What would be the additional impact if global GMO adoption caught up to the U.S. and then a ban were implemented?”

The model is set to 2011 crop prices, yields and growing conditions and encompasses the ripple effects of how a change in one sector impacts other sectors.

GTAP-BIO predicted a modest and region-specific rise in overall food costs under a global GMO ban, a result of the lower productivity of non-GMO crops. Tyner said people in poorer regions would be most burdened by the price increase, as they spend about 70 percent of their income on food, compared with about 10 percent in the U.S.

Countries that export crops would gain economically by the increase in food prices, while countries that import crops would suffer. As a result, the U.S., despite being the biggest planter of GMO crops, would profit under a GMO ban because of its strength as a crop producer and exporter. China, a major crop importer, would suffer a welfare loss – a measure of economic wellbeing – of $3.63 billion.

“The U.S. is the largest agricultural exporter, so if the price of agricultural products goes up, we benefit,” Tyner said.

Banning GMO crops would also lead to an increase in global cropland of 3.1 million hectares (about 7.7 million acres), as land would be cleared to compensate for the lower yields of conventional crops. Converting forests and pastures into farmland is an environmentally-costly process that releases carbon stored in plants and soil, and this expansion of cropland would add the equivalent of 0.92 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Tyner said the economic consequences of a GMO ban came as no surprise to him and his co-authors, but the toll such a ban would have on the environment was an eye-opener – and a component that is notably missing from global discussion of GMOs.

“It’s quite fine for people to be concerned about GMOs – there’s no scientific basis to those concerns, but that’s their right,” he said. “But the adverse impact on greenhouse gases without GMOs is something that is not widely known. It is important that this element enter into the public conversation.”



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
November 7, 2016 3:52 pm

Interesting post.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 7, 2016 9:42 pm

It is a bogus research to promote GMO to amass wealth through seed sales world over. The seed is nothing new from the traditional ones — patented and get royalty. They are grown under the same chemical inputs and irrigation technology. World over about 30% of the food produced is going as waste [according to FAO report] and the same for India from my estimate was 40 to 50%. With this, the natural resources used to produce that is also going as waste. Let me give the case of Bt-Cotton in India. In 13 years, the seed was upgraded in three times — Bt1 to Bt2 to Bt3 — due to ineffectiveness. The area under Bt-cotton increased over non-Bt-Cotton as the agents of Bt-Cotton seed played key role in seeing that non-Bt-seed is not sold in the market. However, the production of non-Bt-Cotton was higher than Bt-cotton. The Bt-cotton yield reached a plateau for the last five years but it introduced new pests-diseases and this affected neighbouring farmers who grow other than cotton. In the five states Bt-cotton is grown, farmers suicides increases as they put high investment but with poor yield they are in debt trap as they barrow from the private lenders.
Models will not serve the reality but visiting the fields you get real pulse.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 8, 2016 3:04 am

I agree with Jeevananda.
Anthony, when you say:
“GMOs have been a source of contention in the United States and abroad, as some believe genetically modified crops pose potential risks to human health and the environment. ”
I disagree. The main problem with GMOs is the ownership and patent law used to exploit poor farmers and nations, and as Jeevananda explains, GMOs are uneccessary in their present state as the problem with food is one of distribution rather than quantity.
And when you quote: “It’s quite fine for people to be concerned about GMOs – there’s no scientific basis to those concerns, but that’s their right,” Doesn’t that sound a bit like ‘the science is settled’?
However, there is evidence that the main scientists and companies involved have been hidiong evidence of harm. Take: Séralini, G.E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D. and de Vendômois, J.S., 2014. Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerantgenetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe, 26(1), p.1.
They say: This may explain why 75% of our first criticisms arising within a week, among publishing authors, come from plant biologists, some developing patents on GMOs, even if it was a toxicological paper on mammals, and from Monsanto Company who owns both the NK603 GM maize and Roundup herbicide (R). These people eventually forced a retraction, and the paper had to be re-published in another peer reviewed journal – any of this sounding familiar?
They also say: “GM NK603 and R cannot be regarded as safe to date.”
and…”Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, forall treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences.”
So no, with obvious massive financial investment in ‘science’ – the science is not settled here either.
You do your argument no favours by trying to conflate a dislike of GMOs and some environmentalists misunderstanding of the dangers of CO2. Environmentalists have made some great contributions to human life in many areas, and I welcome their support in trying to stop Monsanto profiting by making money off other people’s backs with no work or appreciable benefit with shoddy testing and with a proven desire to shut down debate and proper scientific enquiry.

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 8, 2016 3:21 am

Sure, just more ridiculous scientists “predicting” more bullshit by means of more naive computer “models” in a complex system. So funny.

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 8, 2016 7:06 am

Jay: Are you then recommending that diabetics be deprived of insulin because it’s produced by genetic modification? Millions take it—it must be dangerous, right?

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 8, 2016 7:07 am

Jay: It’s also outrageously expensive because it’s a biologic and there are no generics for biologics. So it’s best we just let diabetics die than have GMO’s out there and costing way too much money.

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 8, 2016 9:34 am

Translation: It doesn’t agree with my religious beliefs, so it’s bogus.

Bert Walker
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 8, 2016 10:03 am

Jay, your post isn’t congruent.
You state “The main problem with GMOs is the ownership and patent law” (agreeing with Dr. Jeevananda) as your main point, but then fail to develop that point in your response .
You also state that you disagree with Anthony’s statement “GMOs have been a source of contention in the United States and abroad, as some believe genetically modified crops pose potential risks to human health and the environment.” However the remainder of your post is largely devoted to your contention to the position GMO’s are harmless contending that it is harmful to humans and animals using GM NK603 and R as your example.
Personally I don’t care. I like the cheaper costs and higher quality that GMO products offer, but if one prefers nonGMO I have no problem with them paying more for what they eat.
Of course there have been missteps in GMO development, but I’m unaware of any technology that has not had problems during development.
Never-the-less GMO products are here to stay, and will only increase in both popularity and usage.
Is GMO science settled? Parish the thought.

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 8, 2016 10:26 am

I have asthma and was regularly laid low when the Santa Ana winds blow in off the desert/ Then along came a genetically-engineered drug Xolair, which is terribly expensive, and I can get through Santa Anas with virtually no problems. Do you intend to deny me access to this drug because it is genetically engineered? Note that the drug probably went through a lot more testing than GM foods – maybe we should implement a testing regimen, rather then trying to stop the development of GM foods. Also, note that Europe has been heavily against GM foods. Is that because an American firm owns the patents?

george e. smith
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 8, 2016 10:46 am

Why don’t we just go back to climbing fig trees for our food. If it’s good enough for ordinary monkeys it should be good enough for us too.
Patents are granted to inventors who teach their invention to everybody, so it can benefit everybody. In exchange for that they get to own the rights to it for a very limited amount of time, around 17 to 20 years.
Compare that to Copy rights granted to “authors and artists” for what they churn out; good or bad. They get to own it for the rest of their life plus 50 years or something like that.
I would assume that India doesn’t have any food shortage problems, given their population growth.
But I don’t see the problem here. If you don’t want GMO crops or foods, then stay with the old stuff. How simple is that. If you don’t like it don’t use it.

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 8, 2016 12:29 pm

Thanks everybody for getting back to me on my comment. First let me apologise for the incongruance of it. I started with one thought and ended with another.
1. Firstly the real problem with GM crops is the ownership. This is where I disagree with Anthony limiting the argument to only worries about health. So, If GMO crops were developed with a limited use time, to avoid the possibility of future indefinite rent collections, law suits against innocent land owners where the seeds happen to have landed, and so on. As Jeevananda explained – it works really badly for small farmers and frankly they don’t need any more disadvantages than they have already with the normal restrictive trade agreements – so much for free trade – have a look at the Common Agricultural Policy of Europe. Anyhow, some way of preventing exploitation over indefinite, or very long periods, would be OK. As for the argument that it costs so much to develop them, etc. etc., well that doesn’t work for Big Pharma at the moment who spend a great deal more on marketing than they do on R&D. The government could pay for the development and we could all own the patent (if that wasn’t too radical for you folks – like penicilin for instance).
2. Anyhow, just before I left the above comment about the real problems with GMO crops… I thought I’d just check that there were no health issues – and what a surprise. It turns out there are issues and they have been suppressed and all the usual tricks of arm twisting and peer reviewing biases are being played out here as well – just like AGW. So that somewhat diverted my comment toward that.
So that’s that. As for GMOs in general, well I love the idea and I am happy to see plenty of work in that area, and with CRISPR it’s all getting so much more convenient so I’m sure we’ll all be doing it soon. Which is kind of interesting with respect to the actual longevity of patents on genes…anyhow thanks again.
Just to answer some of the direct comments:
Reality Check: “we just let diabetics die ” No, that’s just a silly comment and insulin isn’t a crop.
MarkW: “Translation: It doesn’t agree with my religious beliefs, so it’s bogus.” I assume that is a trolling type of comment. I don’t hold any religious beliefs so your translator’s obviously up the creek.
Bert: Yes I tend to agree with you. Up to the point: “Personally I don’t care.” I care, about poor farmers commiting suicide because some foreign multinational is screwing them over. I also care about large companies corrupting science, and suppressing the truth – this forum should be a place to find a good deal of care about that I should have thought – anyhow if they do that we can’t be sure about safety – just look at what I dug up in 5 minutes of looking – suppression of the truth, corruption of science, the full treatment which we see all the time with AGW.
Jim: “Note that the drug probably went through a lot more testing than GM foods – maybe we should implement a testing regimen, rather then trying to stop the development of GM foods.” That’s a mandatory I would have thought – GMO Crops might be self replicators – which could lead to a whole lot more damage than drugs (which have caused quite a bit of damage environmentally by the way. ” Also, note that Europe has been heavily against GM foods. Is that because an American firm owns the patents?” No, there are plenty of Euopean companies on the bandwagon (Bayer for instance). But EU tend to be more slowed down by their voting public, it seems to me.
George: Yes I agree. “But I don’t see the problem here. If you don’t want GMO crops or foods, then stay with the old stuff. How simple is that. If you don’t like it don’t use it.” Good point. But these companies use their influence to suppress labelling of food. They lobby the EU constantly to relax labelling. They spend millions on it.

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 8, 2016 8:03 pm

Jay: So it’s okay to genetically modify bacteria, hold the rights to the production thereof and sell it for a huge sum?
“They also say: “GM NK603 and R cannot be regarded as safe to date.”” Your argument is that GMO food will kill us but not medicines? How does that work? It’s not the modification itself, but the product being sold? How can that be? Medical science is immune from corruption? You make little sense with any of this. You switch back and forth between safety and economics, apparently choosing whatever points you like and ignoring the rest. You say the drugs were tested, probably, but then how much testing is necessary? What’s your criteria for “enough to be considered safe”?

Robert Clark
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 8, 2016 9:21 pm

“They are grown under the same chemical inputs and irrigation technology.” This is the tell that you know nothing about GMO crops, nothing could be further from the truth. Trade 4 or 5 expensive trips over the field to achive so-so weed and pest control for 1 or 2 applications of chemical for near perfect control. You need to spend a little time in a corn or bean field in Illinois or Indiana.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 8, 2016 10:52 pm

Robert Clark — The fact is that really have no knowledge on agriculture. I along with farmers filed first case against Bt-Cotton in the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2003 [first case in India]. We filed all the relevant scientific information on all aspects of GMOs. The court accepted our PIL and asked the central government to file the counter. The government submitted its counter. We prepared the counter on this but our advocate was purchased by the seed company. This itself shows the truth of GMOs.
The Bt-Cotton is primarily grown under irrigation [government subsidised as well bore-wells with government subside on free power to left the water] and using government subsidised chemical fertilisers. These subsidies rarely go in to the cost of production. All the high yielding varieties of all crops including GMOs are grown under irrigation and chemical inputs. Without that the yields be dismally very low. Cotton is traditionally grown using farmyard manure under rainfed condition — some use well and bore-well water supplementing rainfall.
In 2003 I presented a chapter to a book wherein I presented the details on paddy yields. The traditional paddy yields [average from the farmers fields] were 1300 kg/ha. When the traditional seed was replaced by high yielding seed, the yields raised to 500 kg/ha — total 1800 kg/ha. With the chemical fertilisers application the yield raised by 2000 kg/ha — total 3800 kg/ha. When you calculate the cost of inputs and the additional production, economically it is not a viable system without government subsidy.
With reference to pests-diseases issue, now the GMOs are creating more problem over the non-GMOs as new pests-diseases are created by GMOs. Classical case is Bt-Cotton — this was agreed by the company itself. But unfortunately people without knowing the basics on ground issues talk on defending GMOs as they are not affected in way.
Without irrigation and chemical inputs, nobody venture in to high yielding seed or GM seed.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

November 7, 2016 4:03 pm

Obviously we need xome genetically modified Carbon to solve the global Warming problem!

Reply to  Jon
November 7, 2016 4:04 pm

oops! “some” not xome (that must be a Xena reference – how would she solve the problem?)

Phil R
Reply to  Jon
November 7, 2016 6:28 pm

No, I think you have been subliminally influenced by the SJW/cis-, tans-gender progressive victim-hood ideology and meant to type “zome,” but missed with your pinky finger (and if you or anyone else finds that reference offensive, the baby finger; oops, ageist). Gads, progressive, post-modern victim-hood theory is hard to keep track of.

Reply to  Jon
November 8, 2016 9:35 am

She would use her sword to free the O2 molecule from that evil carbon.

george e. smith
Reply to  Jon
November 8, 2016 1:27 pm

So it seems that Jay simply does not want anyone to profit from their enterprise. Companies should develop products out of the goodness of their heart. Without a profit motivation why would anybody want to develop anything that is of benefit.
Now let me assure you I am not against any and all research to find out the safety of new technologies whether it be foods or medicines or what. As an asthmatic myself I fully understand R-E Jim’s predicament, and I don’t condone punitive pricing for things that are life saving for the inflicted.
But companies have to deal with regulations and threats of lawsuits, so they do their research to determine efficacy and risk as best as they know how.
Take plastic sugar substitutes for example. If I go into a squeaky green clean Starbuck’s coffee shop, where nobody got whipped while picking their coffee beans, they have every brightly colored plastic sugar known to man, virtually all of which have been shown to have some undesirable side effects FOR SOME USERS. If you aren’t diabetically sensitive to real sugar, that’s a problem, but if you just can’t stop engorging yourself with food you don’t need, then that is an entirely different problem that is entirely under YOUR control. Quit eating so much.
Now there is one plastic sugar that tastes awful; but it does have a sweet taste, with an aftertaste that isn’t so good. Well it’s the first of that kind of non-nutritive sweetener, and it’s over 100 years old, but it is the ONLY NNS that has never been linked to ANY medical problems caused by it; other than that slightly bitter aftertaste.
That’s why it is still popular even after a century of newer products. It actually was the very first product of the company that makes it, and the subject of one of their very first patents. It literally launched that quite successful company. The company name is Monsanto Chemical Corp, and they first started making Sacharin over in East St Louis across the Mississippi river in Illinois.
The patenting and sterility of GMO crops is also for the purpose of biologically containing (to the extent that is possible) any accidental crossing with other species of plants. So GMO developing companies are acutely aware of the potential for problems and do their best to mitigate them.
So if you don’t like the idea of having your $100,000 electric automobile drive you at high speed into the side of and underneath a crossing 18 wheeler, and lopping you head off, because its self driving wizardry might have a problem; then don’t buy a Tesla; they have been known to do that. But even Tesla doesn’t deliberately design a car so that it can kill you.
Neither do GMO companies.

Philip Schaeffer
November 7, 2016 4:06 pm

Green heads to explode? None of the greenies I know have a problem with GMOs.

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
November 8, 2016 3:16 am

None of the greens I know have a head.

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
November 8, 2016 7:08 am

Maybe you need to expand the number of greenies you know?

Bert Walker
Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
November 8, 2016 10:07 am

Philip, apparently you haven’t been strolling down the “Organic” isle in your grocery store lately.

george e. smith
Reply to  Bert Walker
November 8, 2016 10:51 am

It’s organic only in the sense that they tell you what chemicals you can put on your food crops. And in my local organic supermarket, you can also buy any chemical poison known to man to add to your own food. Well so long as that chemical starts with a letter from A to Z.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Bert Walker
November 8, 2016 4:31 pm

Hey, I sometimes buy stuff from the organic isle because it tastes better than the rubbish they are selling in the main fruit and veg section. I have no problem with organic farming practices, and everyone is free to spend their money as they wish. I have seen the damage that traditional intensive farming practices can lead to.
But I can say that I don’t actually know anyone who buys organic because of GMOs. Sure, some people care, but I’m associated with many “green” organizations, and I can’t think of anyone.

November 7, 2016 4:16 pm

Maybe if we could genetically modify “Green Heads” to be able to think a bit more rationally, and a whole lot less emotionally, we could solve all these problems that they keep imagining…IMHO…

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Marcus
November 8, 2016 5:22 am

emotionally driven “Green Heads” = females and girly-men

November 7, 2016 4:24 pm

The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
Philip Tetlock showed us that experts can’t predict the outcome of complex systems. That applies to scientists. The list of failed predictions goes back forever and continues. Faced with this consistent record, one would think the experts would learn therefrom and become more humble … but no. Here’s an amusing link, a little googling finds lots of such lists.
The fact than any greenie heads would explode just indicates how out of touch with reality they are.

Bruce Cobb
November 7, 2016 4:35 pm

When greenie heads explode, you don’t want to be nearby. You’ll get slimed with greenie slime.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 7, 2016 4:54 pm

It’ll wash off. Besides, I wanna watch (while wearing a Tyvex suit).

Phil R
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 7, 2016 6:29 pm

I hope to see and hear a lot of greenie and liberal/progressive heads exploding tomorrow.

Reply to  Phil R
November 7, 2016 6:47 pm

You and me both.

Bloke down the pub
November 7, 2016 4:43 pm

They face the same problem with nuclear power being the best way to produce low CO2 energy.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
November 7, 2016 5:01 pm

This should be no problem, George Orwell foresaw this way of thinking back in 1948 and called it Doublethink. Per Wikipedia: Doublethink: The act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Ricdre
November 7, 2016 5:31 pm

Psychologists call it “cognitive dissonance” and it’s very common. An example would be Leo diCaprio saying that jet planes and motor yachts are destroying the planet, while jetting off to Bali or lounging on his upper deck.. Most of us do it at one time or another, but if you’re self-aware enough you can recognise it. Intelligence and scientific education help a bit.

Reply to  Ricdre
November 7, 2016 6:23 pm

It was 1984 (not 1948)

Tom Halla
Reply to  Janus100
November 7, 2016 7:00 pm

1948 is when Eric Blair, writing as George Orwell, published “1984”. I seem to remember the original title of the book was in fact 1948.

Reply to  Ricdre
November 8, 2016 7:18 am

Smart rock: From Wiki: theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.[1]
Doublethink, again from Wiki: Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.
They are not the same thing. Doublethink involves believing two contradictory or mutually exclusive ideas with no thought or realization that the ideas are contradictory or mutually exclusive. It causes no psychological discomfort. Leo DeCapprio is probably a good example of this—he wants to save the world and he wants to fly around in his private plane. He seems to see no contradiction. Cognitive dissonance occurs when you are not a believer in global warming, but in order to get ahead in Hollywood, you go along with Leo and his lies. You know he’s wrong, you know you are pretending, but you want to get ahead. It also occurs when people only read one side of a story, lest they find a fact or two that would draw into question their beliefs. Cognitive dissonance may be one reason why skeptics tend to run together and global warming believers do the same. Exposure to contradictory information can cause doubt and discomfort, as can hiding your actual beliefs.

November 7, 2016 4:45 pm

This all makes perfect sense. NWO globalist supporters push GMO and global warming hoax. These inbred satanists are easy to spot. Time to wake up steakslaves. They are trying to murder us slaves on multiple fronts. And yeah CIA and FBI guys. They are taking down your kids too with the forced vaccinations. Already here in CA. Coming to a state near you. More paralyzed kids with gee no possible explanation!!! Uhuh some mystery.

Reply to  BigM
November 7, 2016 5:07 pm

This seems appropriate here …

Smart Rock
Reply to  BigM
November 7, 2016 5:20 pm

So what on earth is a “steakslave” ?

Reply to  Smart Rock
November 7, 2016 6:40 pm

Soylent Green?

Reply to  BigM
November 7, 2016 6:41 pm

BigM, I think you forgot to take your meds.

Big M
Reply to  SMC
November 7, 2016 8:48 pm

For the record I do not consume any “medicines” of any sort which I am likely so much aware to our reality than your clouded self:
Steakslaves – second paragraph:
According to the document, the “international elite” decided in 1954 to wage a “quiet war” against the American people with the goal of shifting wealth from “the irresponsible many” into the hands of the “responsible and worthy few.”
“In view of the law of natural selection it was agreed that a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table [sic] by choice and consent.”
The goal was to establish an economy, which is “totally predictable and manipulable.” The masses will have to be “trained and assigned a yoke…from a very early age…”
To achieve such conformity, the “family unit must be disintegrated by a process of increasing preoccupation of the parents and the establishment of government operated daycare centers for the occupationally orphaned children.”
This is accomplished through “silent weapons” (propaganda and social engineering) applied in the media and schools.
“When the silent weapon is applied gradually, the public adjusts…until the pressure becomes too great and they crack up…Therefore the silent weapon is a type of biological warfare…. It attacks …their sources of natural and social energy and their physical, mental and emotional strengths…”
Although not mentioned by name, the silent weapon here is Feminism, which promotes lesbianism while posing as the defender of women.
The document says the father must be “house broken.” The advertising media see to it that he is “pussy whipped” and “taught that he either conforms…or his sex life will…be zero.” The female is “ruled by emotion first and logic second…too starry eyed to see [her child will be] a wealthy man’s cannon fodder or a cheap source of slave labor.”
The writer concludes, “This mindless school of jelly fish, father, mother, son and daughter, becomes useful beasts of burden…”

Reply to  SMC
November 7, 2016 9:27 pm

Big M, can you provide a link to your “document”?
As for the meds, I think you should see somebody and maybe get a prescription for some.

Big M
Reply to  SMC
November 7, 2016 9:40 pm

Let us all know if you have any real content to add, slave. I doubt you do. In the interim, the glyphosate (in my opinion – not so much the GMO engineered food itself) and vaccines are soft killing and brain damaging the public including little kids. Only a satanic, inbred, child sacrificing so called elite would go after the little kids.
U.S. organic sales post new record of $43.3 billion in 2015

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  SMC
November 8, 2016 5:56 am

Big M
November 7, 2016 at 8:48 pm

The female is “ruled by emotion first and logic second

Right you are, …… Big M, …… “emotional decision making” is an Inherited Survival Trait that all females, …… except in the lower animal species, …. are subconsciously driven to “protect their offspring(s)”, …. aka: to insure the Survival of the Species.
And the “girly-men” in our society of humans have been nurtured (brainwashed) by their mothers and/or female guardians to be “emotional decision makers”,

Reply to  BigM
November 7, 2016 11:25 pm

You are too funny, BigM.

Reply to  BigM
November 8, 2016 7:21 am

BigM: There were more paralyzed kids before vaccinations. Gee, no mystery there. Vaccinations decreased paralysis. See.

Reply to  Reality check
November 8, 2016 8:10 am

All vaccinated diseases were on a zero trajectory long before the vaccines were invented. Clean water and sanitary practices were all that was needed. more people are dying from the vaccines today than the diseases. the BIG problem with vaccines is that they are contaminated. The list starts with the first vaccine ever invented and flows through nearly every vaccine used today.
On GMO’s, the main problem is that it is being shoved down our throats in the name of company profits….no matter what side you are on. the cases where GMO’s are a clear choice, like medical uses, then this presents something that is CHOSEN and scales the high bar of “right to know”.
The problem for GMO is that there are ALWAYS unintended consequences of any genetic process. Minimum 5-20% complete genetic change of the targeted genome, constant genetic changes due to environment means that the ‘science” will NEVER be right and cannot predict what will happen a few or hundreds of generations later. There are tons of dangers in GMO, the worst of which are dead people in the case of L-Tryptophan genetic manipulation and of the entire planet in the case of Klebsiella Planticola. Look it up for yourselves, they have no idea of what they are doing and the environmental and genetic changes are infinite, so this stupidity should be stopped.
Finally basic economics: Addition of a seed company in between a farmer and their seeds will COST MORE! does anyone think that we will be spraying chemicals on our crops in 50 years and turning our land into chemical dumps? The future is already here and if you look up Elaine Ingham, using biology to produce more yield without fertilizers or pesticides, you will learn how to produce all food organically now.
Game over

Reply to  pissedman
November 8, 2016 8:18 am

Couldn’t possibly agree more! Of course you can’t convince the shills of these obvious facts. They go to their stand by tin foil hat claims immediately. Hilarious and weak.
The bottom line is we just need to finish waking up the majority of the public they are under attack by an inbred satanic elite. Which we are doing because the opt out vaccine rate is off the charts as well as organic food sales. The military and police are waking up too. That is why the elite are pushing the DARK act, illegal immigration and forced vaccination programs.
This is the END of the elite stepping on the throats of free humanity. We’ve got your number. We aren’t giving up and we are coming for you and your paid army of flunky “scientists” and social justice warriors too.

Reply to  Reality check
November 8, 2016 9:36 am

pissedman: I was not aware that clean water and sanitary practices could prevent airborne spread of diseases. I would also note that you apparently have little knowledge of the “sanitary practices” of children today. While sanitation is certainly one factor that reduces the spread, there is no evidence that it can eliminate disease all by itself. Unless you insert -magic hapens here- into the argument.
Of course more children die from vaccines (assuming there is a causal link in there) than the diseases because the vaccines stamped out the diseases.
I ask again—do you want to deprive diabetics of insulin? Do you want to effectively kill millions in the name of possible bad outcomes versus known death??? I want an answer to this.
Game over? No, game is not over. We cannot produce enough food organically, no matter what Elaine says. It’s not realistic. Speaking of economics, why would farmers not use cheap and easy organic methods if they are so wonderful? Why do farmers pay money out for chemicals—oh, wait, I remember. Because the caring, save the planet crowd, is just as mercenary when it comes to money making as anyone else. Try buying organic seeds or food—WAY more expensive. Same for organic fertilizer (also known as manure). Seems there’s no real caring here, just profits. Organic farmers have been known to slip up and admit their prices are higher because they cannot produce as much as non-organic farmers. Organic only works small scale. Large scale, people starve.
(Our lands are already chemical dumps—all of life is made of chemicals. There is no evidence that nature only makes “nice” chemicals and humans only “evil” chemicals. Arsenic in wells, naturally occurring, is still deadly. Matters not who/what put it there. People can dump all natural sewer water all over the place and it’s deadly. Deer dying in a stream will contaminate the water. There is no difference in the results.)

george e. smith
Reply to  Reality check
November 8, 2016 8:25 pm

Well pissedman, absolutely nobody is stopping any farmer from gathering his own seeds from his own plants that he has cultivated from some wild natural species, and doing his own truly organic farming with no chemicals at all.
And I don’t think stirring chicken shit into the ground where I plan to grow my food is such a great idea. I’ve lived near turkey ranches and you wouldn’t believe how fowl smelling those places are.

November 7, 2016 4:47 pm

Hilarious – more GM to reduce CO2 🙂

November 7, 2016 4:51 pm

there won’t be any green heads exploding, of course
the hallmark of a religion is the ability to unhinge the mind to swallow contradictions larger than their heads.
and they love them because they confuse the rational folks so badly they become paralyzed with frustration.
except it doesn’t work on the experienced rational folks because they know this is the nature of the game.
a wall of stupid is done to humiliate and offend. if it made sense it wouldn’t work.

November 7, 2016 4:52 pm

if you assume that your enemy is like you- then your enemy is you.

Phil R
Reply to  gnomish
November 7, 2016 6:38 pm

like…er…agree…er… whatever. I think one of the biggest problems is people that have grown up in our society/culture (disclosure, not sure if which side of the pond you are on, but we have a common history only divided by the same language) thinks everyone else wants to be like us and tries to treat them according to our values, and experience major cognitive dissonance when they don’t give a sh!t and try to kill us. (Sorry for what might sound like OT rants, but the future of American society rests in the balance tomorrow).

Reply to  Phil R
November 7, 2016 7:17 pm

cognitive dissonance? ask dan pearl about it…lol
observe what is required for a liberal apostasy.

November 7, 2016 5:01 pm

“It’s quite fine for people to be concerned about GMOs – there’s no scientific basis to those concerns, but that’s their right,”
Just like them thinking CO2 is driving global warming – there’s no scientific basis to those concerns, but that’s their right !

Reply to  1saveenergy
November 7, 2016 5:40 pm

Thankyou 1saveenergy, you just saved me the energy of having to write exactly what you wrote. i’m anti-gmo and my argument is simple: we can’t trust the boneheaded scientific consensus that gave us AGW, nor should we trust the scientific consensus that gave us GMOs…

Reply to  afonzarelli
November 7, 2016 6:15 pm

There is no scientific consensus that gave us GMOs, contrary to your statement that the scientific consensus gave us GMOs
Why would you want a consensus that GMOs exist? . GMOs are a fact, one by one, made in the lab, reproducible, not by models, actual seeds. No need for a consensus! GMOs are there for you to touch and eat.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  afonzarelli
November 8, 2016 6:29 am

Now why in the world would anyone be worried about any potentially “unknown” harmful or bad effects from the ingesting of GMO food products,
those same people are constantly and willingly ingesting various types of prescription drugs/medications ……. when very, very, very few, if any, of said prescription drugs/medications do not come with a side-effects “WARNING list” of five (5) to twenty-five (25) potentially “KNOWN” harmful or bad effects from the ingesting of said prescription drug products,
The unlikely chance that a GMO food might cause one problems scares the “BEGEEEZUS” out of some people ……. whereas the likely chance that a prescription drug will, doesn’t worry them a bit.
AAAHHH, the “power” of fearmongering never ceases to amaze me.

Reply to  afonzarelli
November 8, 2016 7:28 am

Samuel C Cogar: You assume that prescription medications do no good. A genetically modified insulin keeps millions of diabetics alive. Living outranks any extremely remote possibility of a problem with the med. Death without a drug seems to be a greater evil than the side effects. There are many medications that save lives daily. Yes, there are some that are more “vanity” drugs, but that doesn’t mean you can kill off all those who need the drugs to get rid of the vanity drugs. Add to that the greedy, self-serving personal injury lawyers who suck up money from the ignorance of jurors and you have a bad image for medications. But killing off people just to get rid of the useless drugs and the greedy lawyers seem somehow immoral.

Reply to  afonzarelli
November 8, 2016 9:40 am

Let me see if I have this straight.
The nutcases behind AGW claim to be scientists. Therefore all scientists are nutcases, therefore we can’t trust science. Period.
I can point to the science that proves AGW wrong.
Can you point to the science that proves that GMO is dangerous?
What other scientific advances from the last 50 years are you going to give up because “scientists” can’t be trusted?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  afonzarelli
November 8, 2016 12:41 pm

Reality check – November 8, 2016 at 7:28 am

Samuel C Cogar: You assume that prescription medications do no good.

Reality check, what I am now actually assuming is, …… to make such an asinine accusation as above, the person has just gotta be a young misnurtured liberal, completely miseducated, stupid arsed female who actually believes she is a “long distance” mind reader.
Samuel C Cogar, ….. AB Degrees in Physical and Biological Science, GSC 1963
Computer Logical Designer, Systems Designer, Systems/Application Programmer

November 7, 2016 5:02 pm

“Using a model …”
I stopped reading right there.

Reply to  alexwade
November 7, 2016 5:12 pm

Why….. was she ugly ??

November 7, 2016 5:07 pm

GMO? How did we come to have so many breeds of cattle? Doesn’t natural selection genetically modify plants and animals?

November 7, 2016 5:11 pm

Ah… but non GMO crops will have more weeds – which means less CO2… but they will also have more bugs, which means more CO2…. but more bugs and birds means more natural soil nutrion which makes for bigger plants and even less CO2… (especially if you do not have to add it by mechanical means)…
So just what is the net effect?

Reply to  les
November 7, 2016 5:13 pm

more tax, duh

Reply to  les
November 7, 2016 5:17 pm

les….Having read that, my head exploded & lots of green stuff came out…YOU owe me a new keyboard.

Reply to  1saveenergy
November 7, 2016 5:41 pm

How very true… the net effect is that once again… i have to pay!

tony mcleod
November 7, 2016 5:43 pm

From the “model…would cause a 0.27 to 2.2 percent increase in food costs which means more CO2 which means greenies will be tearing their hair out click-bait” department you mean?
Hilarious. Starting to smell a bit desperate around here.

November 7, 2016 5:52 pm

“Three U.S. regulatory agencies – the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency – have deemed GMO foods safe to eat, and the United States is the global leader in planting GMO crops and developing agricultural biotechnology.”
Which demonstrates beyond a doubt, to me, that those agencies are corrupt. It is not possible to know that novel genetic coding (that doesn’t even exist yet, no less ) is harmless. . . Impossible, and obviously so, I say.

Reply to  JohnKnight
November 7, 2016 6:31 pm

Mother nature created GMOs without these agencies reviews, much before these agencies even existed. You and me deemed such fit to eat. We learned, some mushrooms created by Mother should be avoided.

Reply to  rd50
November 7, 2016 6:59 pm

So, you are agreeing it’s impossible to know they are all/always harmless?

Tom Halla
Reply to  JohnKnight
November 7, 2016 7:07 pm

John–please explain to me (and the world) how deliberate changes done with Genetic Engineering are more dangerous than the groupings of changes made essentially at random with selective breeding and induced mutation, which are allowed in the definition of “organic”.

Reply to  rd50
November 7, 2016 7:15 pm

Many organisms are harmful, even fatal for us to consume, and it therefor is like playing Russian roulette to just assume whatever grows is safe. No elaborate explanation is required.
We have the scientific means of testing new things, but many seem to think employing such scientific testing that could determine a given “new” one is safe, is uneccessary . . That’s blind faith, not scientific anything, I say. Just blind faith . .

Reply to  rd50
November 7, 2016 7:43 pm

Tom! Why do you hate babies so much?

Reply to  rd50
November 7, 2016 8:02 pm

You guys can play PC games all you like, but it won’t make novel genetic constructs safe by default. It’s blind faith, and scary as hell to see casually accepted by many who profess to be skeptical scientific thinkers. No sign of skepticism at all . . from some anyway.

Reply to  rd50
November 7, 2016 8:20 pm

It’s blind faith, and scary as hell
casual fear by default
precautionary paranoia – it’s not just for breakfast any more.

Reply to  rd50
November 7, 2016 11:42 pm

John – There are no novel genetic constructs. All genes that are inserted into GMO’S come from some other plant or organism. For instance, the latest form of Golden Rice was created by transforming rice with two beta-carotene biosynthesis genes:
psy (phytoene synthase) from daffodil
crtI (carotene desaturase) from the soil bacterium Erwinia uredovora
Then test cultivars were grow to check that the rice grew as expected.
The silly frankenfood fantasy that anti-GMOers promote, that scientists whip up whole new genes that do who knows what, splice them into seeds, then ship them straight out to customers is laughably insane. It just goes to show that most of the people fighting against GMO’s don’t know the first thing about them, they just repeat the horror stories they’ve been feed by Greenpeace and the like.

Reply to  rd50
November 8, 2016 9:44 am

John, is your position that we never should do anything until after we have proven it to be at least 100% safe?

Reply to  rd50
November 8, 2016 12:51 pm

“John – There are no novel genetic constructs.”
Yeah, I get it; anything can be combined with anything(s), in any way, and you true believers have unquestioning faith in it being safe and nutritious . .
Testeen? Testeen?, We don need no steenkeen testeen!!

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  JohnKnight
November 8, 2016 3:58 am

In USA, when Bt-cotton was released for commercial cultivation, the government put a condition that this is not permitted in southern parts where native cotton land races existing. This is warmer zone where pollination effect the native land races. Generally when the pollen is not regenerated under colder condition this system will not affect the native land races. That means in warmer regions where the seed regenerate after the harvest are not good for the native land races. Because of this developing countries, most are in warmer regions, oppose GMOs. However, colder regions like China has no problem on this count. Also, they have equal important to non-GMOs based on the location. In developing countries there is no mechanism to control the MNCs and their PR groups acting against the interests of the regions. In India even without official clearance, several food crops are tested illegally in some pockets and they sell Bt-cotton seed oil illegally without clearance from the government. Control mechanism is weak in developing countries. Greed of MNCs out weigh the natural justice in developing countries. UN supports such MNCs interests.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  JohnKnight
November 8, 2016 9:43 am

If that’s the case, you had better stop eating, because each plant is a “novel” genetic code.
BTW, scientists have been creating new varieties of all of our food crops by forcing mutations, and then sifting through the mutations to see if any of them are useful for something like 100 years.
The only difference between now and then is that we now what the mutations are going to be in advance.

November 7, 2016 5:53 pm

..If you want to watch Trump live, without the media bias, go to RSB, they, unlike all the other media, including Fox News unfortunately, will show the awesome size of Trumps crowds every now and then…

November 7, 2016 6:34 pm

There isn’t a crop out there that hasn’t been genetically modified.

Reply to  Rob
November 8, 2016 9:45 am

I once debated a anti-GMO’er who was convinced that if you ate GMO foods, that it would cause mutations in your children.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  MarkW
November 8, 2016 5:30 pm

Why MNCs impose on farmers to grow GMOs when the local varieties out yielding GMOs and with good dietery properties? To execute this why MNCs are operating through PR groups bribing local politicians? Why MNCs come through back doors, why not front door with proper approvals? Without understanding these people make statements just because it wont effect them.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

November 7, 2016 6:38 pm

I find it humorous that some of the supposed scientists were using the same confusion between atoms and molecules “10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” as the current equivalence of carbon and carbon dioxide. Back than nitrogen oxides were a particularly bad component of smog, especially in southern California but also in any large city. Smog was definitely unhealthy. My wife and I visited Los Angeles in June of 1976 and we both got seriously sick with sinus infections and coughs within three days. I don’t expect to see any health problems from CO2 even if it hits 1000ppm. By that time I’ll either be dead or so old I’ll be on life support anyway.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  philohippous
November 8, 2016 7:48 am

philohippous: “I don’t expect to see any health problems from CO2 even if it hits 1000ppm.”
‘US nuclear submarines operate for nine months at continuous 8,000 PPM’

Reply to  philohippous
November 8, 2016 9:46 am

Go back a few million years, and CO2 levels were routinely above 7000ppm.

November 7, 2016 6:55 pm

The Greenies will just laugh this off as this study was done by researchers in the pocket of “Big GMO”, start a #PurdueKnew hashtag and proceed to roll out a bucket load of peer-reviews studies that say exactly the opposite.
It’s all “settled” science don’t you know. But only when the facts supported by that “settled” science match their view of the world.
I wonder what derogatory label they will use for this group of scientists?

Reply to  AussieBear
November 7, 2016 7:34 pm


November 7, 2016 7:38 pm

As the goal of the UN’s Agenda 21 is too return us to the original native crop species, which are clearly low yield by far, the ban on GMO’s would soon be extended to the interpretation that simply selection for desired properties, which got us very far in improving our crops and yields, was GMO. Thus, they can then deny all artificial selection and demand we go back to the crappy basics and the world will starve. But, that’s their goal, so, no problem.

November 7, 2016 7:43 pm

As the goals of the UN’s Agenda 21 is to return the world to the original low-yield crop species/variteties, it is the next step for them to claim that artificial selection, that got us so very far before genetics, will be labeled as GMO, which means they can force the world back to the primitive basics. They want most people to be subsistence farmers in their little human settlements, limited by their barely adequate food. We are talking no machines, no livestock, no guns. Thus, we are farming by hand, have no meat, and have no means of taking meat or defending ourselves. Their goal is the life style depicted so well in Hunger Games.

Reply to  higley7
November 8, 2016 12:59 pm

Except for them, of course.

November 7, 2016 7:44 pm

MAS (Marker Assisted Selection) has been just kicking butt over other methods and is very safe. Results speak and MAS works on all fronts.

November 7, 2016 8:14 pm

The enzyme abreviated as SBPase has long been identified as a C3 plant bottleneck in crop yield. When photosynthesis is going forward the carbon from a CO2 molecule needs someplace to be used. SBPase is what gets the 5 carbon molecules which the carbon from CO2 can get pegged to
(creating a 6 carbon molecule the C3 plant can make into 3 carbon intermediate molecule it gets it’s name C3 from).
GM tactics have been successful in creating a wheat variety (based on strain of Cardenza wheat) whose genes now give it up to 6 extra copies of SBPase. The team of Hawkesford, Raines & Carmo-Silva report 15% better wheat yields & in 2017 have field tests planned. Should this work out & C3 crops prove amenable to SBPase levels being modifiable by their technique this will be significant.

November 7, 2016 10:44 pm

“They are taking down your kids too with the forced vaccinations. Already here in CA.”
This moron does not seem to understand how kids are taken down by polio or whopping cough.
While at Purdue, one of the kids had an adverse reaction and was therefore at risk to getting whopping cough. Later we lived in California as the anti-vaccine crowd was growing more shrill. Fortunately at the time, there was not enough children not being vaccinated to cause an epidemic.
Having lived in both Indiana and California, there is a certain population of anti-science nut cases. In California, they want to give your children pot because getting high is not a side affect.

Big M
Reply to  Retired Kit P
November 7, 2016 10:57 pm

My goodness I can barely follow what you are saying your text is so meandering and confused. I can tell you were sadly brain damaged by the poison vaccine hoax. My favorite part had to be “Fortunately at the time, there was not enough children not being vaccinated to cause an epidemic.” Classic.
Watch as your fake world starts tumbling down around you soon as the rest of the public awakens to this giant fraud.
To try to keep this on topic, glyphosate causes cancer – I don’t know where you live but where I am the system is installing new chemo centers everywhere.
One such study, published in 2008 by Swedish researchers, found that exposure to glyphosate tripled the risk of a subtype of non-Hodgkin called small lymphocytic lymphoma.

Reply to  Big M
November 8, 2016 4:37 am

Big M,
You should probably put your tin foil hat on and retreat to your bunker’s command center.

Reply to  Big M
November 8, 2016 7:44 am

Big M really has no idea what diseases vaccines prevent and how said disease kill and damage children. The only cure is a trip to a third world country where vaccines are nonexistent. It should be a 10 year stay so he gets the full impact, assuming one of the disease there don’t kill him.
“Tripled the risk” is statistical talk for “get my study published”. Risk factors are just that—risk factors. People get cancer with NO risk factors. Organic vegans die of breast cancer. Triple the risk only means that in that particular study, there were three times the number of cases of small lymphocytic lymphoma in those exposed to glyphosate as those not (where did they get people not exposed? I thought this stuff was everywhere and killing us all). Results do not extrapolate beyond that population. Other factors are obviously involved but none identified. That’s the failing of these studies. Why did some who were exposed NOT get the lymphoma? Where there other factors common in those who did that could also account for this? If the study were repeated, would the results be close? Are there many other studies?
Living is a risk factor for cancer. Think about it.

Reply to  Big M
November 8, 2016 8:49 am

Small lymphatic lymphoma data from 1987-2004 reveals a common age & gender related mutagenic pattern. It seems hard to blame glyphosate or it’s metabolite aminophosphonic acid for this sexist pattern
USA cases diagnosed in that period were 5,046 for adults over 55 years old & 798 cases diagnosed for those under 55. Men were 1.67 times greater represented in the statistic than women & whites were more likely to be diagnosed with small lymphatic lymphoma than blacks, with asian/ pacific islanders even less likely than blacks to be diagnosed with it.
Data of cases by agd as per Fig .3 from (2007) “Chronic lymphocyte leukemis & small lymphocytic lymphoma: overview of the descriptive epidemiology”, originally published in British Journal of Haemotology, Vol. 139(5); free full text is available on-line.

November 8, 2016 8:36 am

Then there’s the GMO rice that slashes the amount of methane chugged out by the zillions of tiny chiminies. It won’t get any traction until, and if, they can breed out any vestige of its barley parentage.
They’re perfectly happy to throw out the babies with the bathwater.

Reasonable Skeptic
November 8, 2016 10:45 am

This is but one of the ways that these folks have boxed themselves in. Eventually they will eat themselves because they can’t possibly agree on everything.
GMO vs non GMO
Nuclear, Yes vs No
Fracking, Yes vs No
Renewables, Intermittent: Yes vs No
Data Manipulation: Yes vs No
Divergence: Yes vs no
Observations: Yes vs No
Economic Policy Impact: Good vs Bad
Each of these topics, and likely more, cut at the core issue of AGW and each one will cause a small number of people to split from the herd. These folks do not like people that split from the herd and as soon as you do, people pounce. They are a bit like fanatics. If you are not a strong enough believer, you are in big trouble. Eventually they will eat themselves. The question is will that happen before or after too many damaging policies have been implemented.

Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
November 8, 2016 1:07 pm

I heard someone’s podcast, he said that there will never be a day in all of humanity when the nannies of the nanny state will stop, look around and say, “There, we’re done. We fixed everything.”
No matter what.

Joel Snider
November 8, 2016 1:27 pm

When Progressive issues collide. Ironically, neither one is worth spending even another second on. We’ve got competing Emperor’s walking a$$ naked down the street.
You wonder why ANY crowd would follow either one of them.

November 8, 2016 2:14 pm

I wonder how many of the critics of GE crops have read the European Academies Science Advisory Council 2013 report “Planting the Future”
“There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding. There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.”

Long Greg
November 8, 2016 5:50 pm

Why would they have to convert forest land to crop land. We grow too much corn today. Stop growing corn and whatever other useless crops out there and use that land for ” less productive crops” As a person who has experienced cancer in my family I welcome GMO bans

November 8, 2016 11:19 pm

Green heads to explode, Trump is going to win the presidency!!!

Reply to  goldminor
November 8, 2016 11:28 pm

America has spoken. Suck it global warming, common core, pro GMO dirtbags. We are coming for you in a big way. Jail time fraudsters. This includes you NWO shills populating all these forums. Jail time.

November 9, 2016 2:36 pm

They seem to assume that we would not plant non gmo crops instead. Heck I could plant a tree and do more than most greens will do their entire lives for the removal of co2 from our atmosphere:P Meanwhile they are paving the world for their bird slaughtering feel good power. I wonder will they rehabilitate the areas they destroy?

Verified by MonsterInsights