Greenpeace Founder to Senate: "Man-Made Global Warming Unproven"

Not every scientific body agrees on this. There have been studies, in fact, that have found the opinions differ quite a bit more than people think based on definitions, classifications, and so on. Come to think of it, has anyone actually seen this consensus people keep talking about? What are the numbers? We only hear people say there is a consensus, but there is never any confirmation that one actually exists.

Yes, there is a consensus about both GMOs and climate change.

Maybe you don't understand what consensus means. Just because DonnaY's cranks think GMO vaccines are going to turn us all into lizard people with short life spans does not mean there is not a scientific consensus about vaccines.

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked, there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.


The person that can prove them all wrong will likely be the person who gets remembered in history.
 
Yes, there is a consensus about both GMOs and climate change.

Maybe you don't understand what consensus means. Just because DonnaY's cranks think GMO vaccines are going to turn us all into lizard people with short life spans does not mean there is not a scientific consensus about vaccines.

I understand perfectly. Do not insult my intelligence. I am asking what the evidence is of this consensus. Saying there is a consensus doesn't make it so.


The person that can prove them all wrong will likely be the person who gets remembered in history.

A cute line, but it doesn't really mean anything. It assumes all motives are pure and that no structure exists to bias the operation. Because, I mean, who would want to control scientific consensus, right? Pffft. Who needs it?
 
What makes you think he is eating bad quality food?

You make a good point, actually. I was going to say that he supports GMO, but I recall reading that many of those who support GMOs do not eat them themselves, including the likes of Mitt R-money.
 
Way to avoid the question. Is "different evidence" a better way to phrase it? Perhaps I should just say "dissent." Getting warmer?

Or does the scientific method make dissent irrelevant, too?

You can't honestly dissent without facts. You can say "I don't believe that adding baking soda to vinegar actually makes a big fizzy mess!" but I can assure you that it will happen regardless of what you claim to believe.

You can form a hypothesis, test it and maybe even get the result you wanted to see. But if nobody else in your field can duplicate the results, then it isn't relevant. See cold fusion, for example.
 
You can't honestly dissent without facts. You can say "I don't believe that adding baking soda to vinegar actually makes a big fizzy mess!" but I can assure you that it will happen regardless of what you claim to believe.

You can form a hypothesis, test it and maybe even get the result you wanted to see. But if nobody else in your field can duplicate the results, then it isn't relevant. See cold fusion, for example.

Have you actually tested any of these things you claim to believe?
 
You make a good point, actually. I was going to say that he supports GMO, but I recall reading that many of those who support GMOs do not eat them themselves, including the likes of Mitt R-money.

If he did eat GMO, what makes you say it is low quality food that would affect his intelligence?

Patrick Moore has expressed support for GMOs such as golden rice, which helps prevent vitamin A deficiency in under developed countries, saving hundreds of thousands of people from blindness every year.
 
If he did eat GMO, what makes you say it is low quality food that would affect his intelligence?

Patrick Moore has expressed support for GMOs such as golden rice, which helps prevent vitamin A deficiency in under developed countries, saving hundreds of thousands of people from blindness every year.

You can believe that if you want. I'm just saying, independent thinkers know when they're being bullshitted.
 
If he did eat GMO, what makes you say it is low quality food that would affect his intelligence?

Patrick Moore has expressed support for GMOs such as golden rice, which helps prevent vitamin A deficiency in under developed countries, saving hundreds of thousands of people from blindness every year.

Unpolished rice (non GMO) did that a long time ago.
 
Gee, I don't know. Any evidence? Is there any evidence of it at all besides hearsay?

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience nor can it be adequately substantiated.

It is not simply something you didn't witness with your own two eyes.

So what evidence would you accept?
 
Unpolished rice (non GMO) did that a long time ago.

No, Golden Rice is fortified with vitamin A. Unpolished rice is pretty much the same as white rice, it's just milled differently.
 
Last edited:
No, Golden Rice is fortified wit vitamin A. Unpolished rice is pretty much the same as white rice, it's just milled differently.

I don't have the western researchers name off hand.

But this was something done a long time ago. It solved a lot of heath problems in Japan and Asia by not eating the refined white rice.
 
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience nor can it be adequately substantiated.

It is not simply something you didn't witness with your own two eyes.

So what evidence would you accept?

Yeah, thanks for defining hearsay. I would have been totally lost without that.

Why don't you try me?

On second thought, why don't you answer the other questions I have posed to you? This one I don't care so much about, but the others are the ones I am intrigued by. Go ahead and answer the questions you just deliberately tried to sidestep.
 
I don't have the western researchers name off hand.

But this was something done a long time ago. It solved a lot of heath problems in Japan and Asia by not eating the refined white rice.

Golden Rice doesn't solve "a lot of health problems." It solves one very specific health problem, which is a vitamin A deficiency.
 
Back
Top