Re:We’re Scientists, Moms, And We Avoid Non-GMO Products
by M_Grey on Monday November 07, 2016 @04:22PM
(#12895258)
This is the same problem we all run into when trying to express anything complicated. A vast majority of people hew to a polar position, make a lot of noise, and drown out the reasonable middle. Given that the reasonable middle is usually relatively small, and the type who is hard to sell shit to in the first place, they're ignored.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:We’re Scientists, Moms, And We Avoid Non-GMO Products
by sampo on Monday November 07, 2016 @05:51PM
(#12895983)
> Given that the reasonable middle is usually relatively small
In your opinion, who are the "reasonable middle" in the questions of (1) is evolution true, (2) are vaccines safe and (3) is climate change true? And are they small?
Re:We’re Scientists, Moms, And We Avoid Non-GMO Products
by M_Grey on Monday November 07, 2016 @06:14PM
(#12896143)
None of those are particularly controversial from a scientific perspective, only a political one. Meanwhile the long-term future and impact of GMO's and the companies who control them are genuinely uncertain, not merely political charged.
Re:We’re Scientists, Moms, And We Avoid Non-GMO Products
by sampo on Monday November 07, 2016 @06:25PM
(#12896212)
Actually, there is a slightly higher consensus (89% of scientists) in GMO safety than there is for human-influenced climate change (88% of scientists).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130...
Re:We’re Scientists, Moms, And We Avoid Non-GMO Products
by M_Grey on Monday November 07, 2016 @06:49PM
(#12896369)
>Meanwhile the long-term future and impact of GMO's and the companies who control them are genuinely uncertain...
That article in no way addresses my point, and I'm not in the camp who believes that GMO's are currently unsafe. If you've been reading the comment chain, you'd be aware that the discussion is about the largely unregulated nature of the beast, not to mention economic implications.
As for a consensus on AGW, IIRC wasn't that more like 97%? I mean, unless you pad out the numbers by looking at people outside of the relevant fields of course.