tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post4023918950190461788..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Willis Eschenbach wonders about ScienceSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34921157295640000142015-02-01T08:22:04.685+11:002015-02-01T08:22:04.685+11:00Nah, DNA is fine. Its the RNA you've got to wo...Nah, DNA is fine. Its the RNA you've got to worry about especially that tRNA. You know, the terrorist RNA. That's really dangerous stuff.Mike Pollardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79675189452829165582015-02-01T02:48:24.791+11:002015-02-01T02:48:24.791+11:00DNA only in the leaves ... oh my. Make it stop! ...DNA only in the leaves ... oh my. Make it stop! [wipes tears of laughter from eyes] How does that even work? Are they chimeras? We're grafting tomato plants like fruit trees now? Egads, even prokaryotic organisms contain DNA. Having paid the bills in college cutting out photographs of chromosomes I have to remember that I've got slightly more than general background knowledge of how genetics work ... but for crying out loud.<br /><br />A more rhetorical question: what agriculture ISN'T directed genetic modification!?!?Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60108113582502141152015-01-31T23:30:27.228+11:002015-01-31T23:30:27.228+11:00The article itself isn't wrong, Victor. I was ...The article itself isn't wrong, Victor. I was just pointing to the wording - if "DNA is present". In most foods there should be some DNA present. (Yeah, I know he probably meant "if genetically modified DNA is present", but that's not what he said.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52764219899360515472015-01-31T23:21:31.711+11:002015-01-31T23:21:31.711+11:00The ABC article may not be wrong. There is a discu...The ABC article may not be wrong. There is a discussion whether also animal products should be labeled as GMO when they were fed GMOs. In which case no GMO DNA would be in the food you eat.<br /><br />By buying such animal products you support the use of GMOs and the possible ecological and food-safety consequences of its monocultures. Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28740558022743871662015-01-31T18:44:31.318+11:002015-01-31T18:44:31.318+11:00I wish I could find the article I once read where ...I wish I could find the article I once read where GM tomatoes are okay because the DNA is only in the leaves :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10776554676481640502015-01-31T18:39:05.774+11:002015-01-31T18:39:05.774+11:00I've seen that too often. A Google search brou...I've seen that too often. A Google search brought up this gem from Australia's ABC (from 2000):<br /><br />DEAN BROWN: <i>It's been agreed that where you have genetically modified food material then basically that food should be appropriately labelled. So we've gone for a mandatory labelling regime which requires <b>if there are highly refined products with DNA present, or whether there are additives where DNA is present, then it needs to be appropriately labelled as genetically modified.</b></i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s156874.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s156874.htm</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50479667503015558092015-01-31T18:29:19.879+11:002015-01-31T18:29:19.879+11:00Don't be silly. Junk DNA is why we tolerate j...Don't be silly. Junk DNA is why we tolerate junk food so well.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36925217754285072652015-01-31T17:32:16.743+11:002015-01-31T17:32:16.743+11:00" It gets worse. 25% of the adults surveyed f..." It gets worse. 25% of the adults surveyed from the general public don't even think there is any solid evidence that the world is heating up. Hard to believe I know - but the evidence is there. " <br /><br />I've often had a feeling that one of the worst things about getting something done on climate change is geography. <br /><br />If the USA had the same configuration of location in relation to the equator and Hadley cells without mountain ranges on the western edge or the Great Lakes to the north ... in other words if the contiguous states had geography and climate similar to Australia's, there'd be a lot less looking-out-the-window sneering at the idea of warming or changes generally. (They'd also benefit from the lack of a tornado season.) <br /><br />A lot of the extreme changes they've been getting - in snow fall and storms and floods and cold snaps - are as much related to the consequences of being where they are in relation to the Arctic as they are to warming globally. You just have to look at some of those temperature change maps to see that there are substantial pockets of American population whose experience of the last couple of decades has been of more floods and increasing <i>minimum</i> temperatures rather than of detectable increasing warmth in maximum temperatures. (At least compared to much of the rest of the world.) The lack of record-making cold events rather than the creation of frequent record-making heat events might be a clear signal of warming to someone of a scientific bent, but it's not much to hang a conclusion on for an average non-scientist citizen.adeladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02019930864931919369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38921192068857510842015-01-31T11:52:51.922+11:002015-01-31T11:52:51.922+11:00New survey shows extent of scientists’ divide with...New survey shows extent of scientists’ divide with the public<br />Other data points to science's problems with "post-secularists."<br /><br />http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/new-survey-shows-extent-of-scientists-divide-with-the-public/<br /><br />Traditional, Modern, and Post-Secular Perspectives on Science and Religion in the United States<br /><br />http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb15ASRFeature2.pdf<br /><br />The USA has a fundamental problem.<br />Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30886251416534696582015-01-31T10:05:47.952+11:002015-01-31T10:05:47.952+11:00Especially that there junk DNA. I hear that's ...Especially that there junk DNA. I hear that's *really* bad for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82751767600506641632015-01-31T09:19:18.401+11:002015-01-31T09:19:18.401+11:00Damn! Killer point there Brandon.Damn! Killer point there Brandon.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5117804710593816292015-01-31T09:18:04.721+11:002015-01-31T09:18:04.721+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67164944955072902022015-01-31T09:15:13.238+11:002015-01-31T09:15:13.238+11:00DNA should be banned altogether. It causes psorias...DNA should be banned altogether. It causes psoriasis and stuff. PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4315959913561044112015-01-31T09:04:36.120+11:002015-01-31T09:04:36.120+11:00Too easy. The NYT is a liberal rag not even fit f...Too easy. The NYT is a liberal rag not even fit for bird cage liner.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73267249158264449752015-01-31T09:02:55.194+11:002015-01-31T09:02:55.194+11:00One might think such circular reasoning would play...One might think such circular reasoning would play well with the WUTTers. Alas, the only fallacious logic they accept is their own. :-)Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44053565881801514422015-01-31T08:59:39.516+11:002015-01-31T08:59:39.516+11:00Sou, on a semi-related note, my housemate found th...Sou, on a semi-related note, my housemate found this gem the other day:<br /><br />http://www.biotech-now.org/food-and-agriculture/2015/01/survey-shows-americans-support-labeling-foods-containing-dna<br /><br />'A recent survey by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics finds that over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA,” about the same number as support mandatory labeling of GMO foods “produced with genetic engineering.”'<br /><br />Or about 116% of WUWT readers. Bad maths intentional.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53114800203476778222015-01-31T04:42:43.739+11:002015-01-31T04:42:43.739+11:00I've got a question for Willis at this point. ...<i>I've got a question for Willis at this point. Can he tell us which scientific society would have a majority of members who don't accept that humans are causing global warming. </i><br /><br />This is a lot like the question I want to directly ask any of the Republican presidential candidates (heck -- I'll settle for any elected Republican). I just want them to come up with the name of a single professional scientific organization whose scientific statement on climate change they endorse. -- DennisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82483992723173127292015-01-31T04:20:22.277+11:002015-01-31T04:20:22.277+11:00The conspiracy ideation is indeed quite strong in ...The conspiracy ideation is indeed quite strong in this case. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i3UJDd_spU" rel="nofollow">Seems that Lewandowsky was right when he said that science denial almost always has a component of conspiracy thinking</a>. ;)<br /><br />I have to say I find the question is not an accurate enough response really odd. It crops up every single time no matter how well defined the attribution question is. Funny thing is that the studies where it was well defined, <a href="" rel="nofollow">like in the study Verheggen did</a>, you'll see that it strengthens the consensus. Especially among the experts in the field.Collin Maessenhttp://www.realsceptic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25059263696190717832015-01-31T04:19:13.746+11:002015-01-31T04:19:13.746+11:00for years Science magazine has been a strong suppo...<i>for years Science magazine has been a strong supporter of the hypothesis that “climate change is mostly caused by human activity”, whatever that might mean.</i><br /><br />:-) Well, what can they do. Science magazine is a scientific journal. Scientific journals publish scientific articles.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52642086698271454332015-01-31T03:37:13.652+11:002015-01-31T03:37:13.652+11:00OK Willis, now try to poke holes in this:
http://w...OK Willis, now try to poke holes in this:<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html?PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33202121764654888652015-01-31T03:00:15.392+11:002015-01-31T03:00:15.392+11:00I do wonder how many AAAS members have modified th...I do wonder how many AAAS members have modified their lifestyles in a manner appropriate to their declared belief in climate change. It doesn't involve going back to the stone age (as deniers seem to insist), but it does involve a slightly more intelligent approach to lifestyle design than the typical westerner can manage.Millicentnoreply@blogger.com