LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
And I’m just saying that despite all its flaws (and I don’t deny that they exist) this system is the best bet we have.
- Status
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Well, I would agree to one thing here. Monsanto is a very evil corp – but please don’t tell them I said so, bec they’ll sue me for $millions.
When I think Monsanto I think death to people & a baby graveyard of stillbirths in Mission, TX from that Agent Orange factory and $millions lawsuits to farmers whose land was next to a Monsanto GMO farm and some seeds happened to fall over onto that farmer’s land. Woe to him.
Dioxin contamination. Round-up miscarriages, still births, birth defects, cancers, etc.
Bad, bad, evil.
When I think Monsanto I think death to people & a baby graveyard of stillbirths in Mission, TX from that Agent Orange factory and $millions lawsuits to farmers whose land was next to a Monsanto GMO farm and some seeds happened to fall over onto that farmer’s land. Woe to him.
Dioxin contamination. Round-up miscarriages, still births, birth defects, cancers, etc.
Bad, bad, evil.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
One would then wonder why the ozone hole started appearing after our use of Freon, halocarbon hairspray, etc. Also why with some reductions in their use the ozone hole appears to be gradually healing. One might ask if the volcano was especially active earlier then is decreasing its emissions…
Or is this just a hypothesis similar to the cosmic rays cause GW – which has not be proved or disproven, but as it so happens cosmic rays have not been increasing, so they could not have been causing GW this time around.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
It’s not the best system. It’s the only one. But you pushed back on the flaws, they exist. And they can be a valid concern. Especially with politically charged issues. Saying the method is beyond question or reproach is a lot different than saying it has flaws.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s good enough for me to rely on it for scientific truth.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
And that is where you tip your hand.
1)I specifically stated that I changed the names. I was using Monsanto as an example.
2). You bend your view of facts to suit your bias. For years you’ve argued all that matters is science. Science is the theology of truth and scientists are the priests and the dogma from the magiserium comes from consensus and peer review. You’ve spilled virtual ink defending the process when it comes to climate change. BUT, when one word, “Monsanto” comes into play, you use words like evil etc. ignoring the science. Ignoring the facts and ascribing profit motives to the scientists and corporations. You take a preconceived media fed position and think it’s reality. When you know nothing of GMO science or the companies involved.
Kinda like you accuse others who don’t see climate change the way you do. Monsanto has saved lives. The industry has saved. Lives.
GMO science is settled.
Is there darkness there?
Sure.
Incidentally Pope Benedict XVI “served” in the nazi army. His brother was shot by American troops. BXVI was too young for combat, so they gave him a gaurd position where he guarded a factory where they made plane engines in Bavaria. The man guarding plane engines used to advance the nazi cause in the war would later grow up to be a priest, bishop and later, Pope. His brother would become a holy priest as well.
The company that made the plane engines? You might know them as Bavarian motor works… or BMW.
Bad bad evil.
Did It?
Just how far back in history did we pay attention to the ozone there?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I remember when the big dioxin scare caused the government to buy every last piece of property in Times Beach, Missouri. Moved the whole town out and closed the roads into it because some oil that had been contaminated with dioxin from an Agent Orange plant was put on the streets there. A few years later, they did some testing and oops! No loose dioxin beyond the normal dioxin levels. (It’s a naturally occurring thing) So they re-opened it as a public park and camping area.
Sometimes contamination concerns are well-founded, and sometimes they aren’t.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I was mainly referring to the unborn who died and fill up a graveyard in Mission, TX from very bad practices of the Monsanto Agent Orange factory – from which people are still dying today.And that is where you tip your hand.
1)I specifically stated that I changed the names. I was using Monsanto as an example.
2). You bend your view of facts to suit your bias. For years you’ve argued all that matters is science. Science is the theology of truth and scientists are the priests and the dogma from the magiserium comes from consensus and peer review. You’ve spilled virtual ink defending the process when it comes to climate change. BUT, when one word, “Monsanto” comes into play, you use words like evil etc. ignoring the science. Ignoring the facts and ascribing profit motives to the scientists and corporations. You take a preconceived media fed position and think it’s reality. When you know nothing of GMO science or the companies involved.
Kinda like you accuse others who don’t see climate change the way you do. Monsanto has saved lives. The industry has saved. Lives.
GMO science is settled.
Is there darkness there?
Sure.
Incidentally Pope Benedict XVI “served” in the nazi army. His brother was shot by American troops. BXVI was too young for combat, so they gave him a gaurd position where he guarded a factory where they made plane engines in Bavaria. The man guarding plane engines used to advance the nazi cause in the war would later grow up to be a priest, bishop and later, Pope. His brother would become a holy priest as well.
The company that made the plane engines? You might know them as Bavarian motor works… or BMW.
Bad bad evil.
That has nothing to do with GMOs (some of which may be good and helpful, some of which have questions re health issues, etc). I’m not anti-GMO unless a particular one is proven to be harmful (and I don’t need 95% certainly as scientists need, only some evidence of harm).
Also I don’t like the way Monsanto goes after farmers who happen to be next to GMO farms and had a few seeds fall onto their land. And I forgot to mention all the suicides in India that could be connected to Monsanto practices and false promises.
But it is mainly the direct deaths from very wrong, egregious, and willfully negligent practices at their pesticide factories and dioxin contamination that make them come across as quite bad. And everyone is afraid to even mention their name bec they know how Monsanto rushes to sue people.
I see science as a way of helping with moral issues, life & death issues. Scientific knowledge to me often has moral implications that I cannot ignore, tho I would insist science be done in an unbiased way and not corrupted by the CC denialist and industrial bottom line pseudo-science.
Here’s a good discussion of science within our Catholic faith: “Pope Francis: The purpose of science is to serve” at catholicecology.net/blog/pope-francis-purpose-science-serve
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Getting back to the topic. Here is a good article:
“Four things every Catholic should know about climate change” at catholicecology.net/blog/four-things-every-catholic-should-know-about-climate-change
Topics include:
“Four things every Catholic should know about climate change” at catholicecology.net/blog/four-things-every-catholic-should-know-about-climate-change
Topics include:
- We know a lot;
- We’re experiencing the change already;
- Businesses and governments are concerned; and
- For Catholics, climate change advocacy is not about politics
T
Theo520
Guest
I thought this article was poorly supported, glad it wasn’t anything official by the church.
We know more than we used to, but we still lack the skill to predict climate in a meaningful way.
We’ve been experiencing ‘climate change’ since man has been on the earth, it’s a gross error to blame every negative modern weather event on man made climate change.
We should all be concerned about our environment, but that doesn’t mean we must give up the technology we’ve developed or that we are in a severe crisis.
Yes, following the democratic party line is about politics. This is an extreme view and far different than practicing good stewardship of our environment.
P
PPeterson
Guest
The answer to your problem is probably staring right back at you throughout this thread. A Catholic environmental group that focused on immediate local issues; i.e. cleaning up parks, conservation, pollution, preservation, locally produced sustainable food, and beautification of spaces for prayer and contemplation, would be widely interesting to and popular with most people. Indirectly, it would likely contribute to a reduced carbon footprint and create the atmosphere needed for generous and nuanced discussion of more thorny issues.
Instead, you and the “CCM” are choosing to start by focusing on the political wedge issue and getting discouraged when you don’t change total strangers politics. I think that is a highly irrational approach, and I am what one would call a climate alarmist.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
When it cones to cost/benefit calculations, harming someone a little is treated the same as little chance of harming someone.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Actually I agree with you. When we started an environmental group in our parish in the early 90s we opened up with asking what people were concerned about and went about covering those issues, later having our monthly meetings about one topic – such as pesticide use, water conservation, where we get our electricity (we invited the ComEd guy to come). Our Earth Day celebrations we covered many issues and had activities for kids, etc, plus the various Church teachings on the env.
A few years later I said I thought we should have one on global warming (we were all pretty much in agreement that it was a problem), but a brand new member objected and we got into a (as she later called it) a “hissy fight,” until I suggested that many of the mitigation solutions for CC mitigated other environmental problems, including her concern of water conservation, so we agreed to focus on such common solution issues and next month as “April Showers” about water conservation. We became good friends, only disagreeing on CC, and worked well together.
However, I also think there should be Catholics on the internet refuting all the false information about CC that the denialist industry puts out and others unwittingly (or wittingly) spread. It is a duty, which I cannot not do.
But for local efforts and groups a multi-approach is best.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Food scientists, health care professionals, analytical chemists, biologists, microbiologists…the list goes on.
Handful is incorrect
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I was referencing peer review. A strawberry transformation GMO paper is reviewed by a handful of peers.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Regardless of the topic of the article, the journal the article has been submitted to, the target audience, be it the mating habits of pygmy ants in deforested hollow logs in Brazil, the means to determine colour recognition in sheep dogs, the standard of intelligence of forumites, the genetic determination of dna in purple strawberries…
Well first of all, a peer review panel on the board of the journal the article is submitted, peer reviews that article for publication. It is usually returned to the author for a few edits, then resubmitted, peer reviewed and either rejected or accepted. But you said
““If you are writing a paper about genetic modification of strawberry, there are only a handful of scientist worldwide reading that paper. And guess what… they are corporate employees!
And they all shook hands at some convention last year…””
Now it is inaccurate to say a handful of scientists worldwide will read that paper, either published as peer reviewed or unpublished as a research letter.
You are also accusing, and in accusal yourself, if you were truly referring to the peer review process, of a multitude of scientific journals of calumny in stating:
""In a field that is extremely specific. Students or departments submitting a paper know darn well someone from Monsanto or the “big 5” is reviewing thier paper. “”
Have you ever conducted scientific research and sought to have your research published? Is this in your wheelhouse?
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Whats with the calumny against scientists on CAF?
Its totally inane.
Its totally inane.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
That’s correct. Not sadly.Sadly, there are self-proclaimed Catholics who say that the doctrine of Climate Change takes precedence over the abortion bloodbath because more people will die from climate change than from abortion.
So goes their…reasoning.
Abortion is a sin. You can’t dance around it.
We take care of the environment as far as it is possible as we do to all God’s creations.
P
PPeterson
Guest
That sounds nice, your parish is lucky to have you
- Status