4 ms·

I dunno. You paint it as a hypocrisy to take the scientific consensus view on one topic but not the other. They would paint it as a hypocrisy to take the "let's

by tgb 10y ago

I dunno. You paint it as a hypocrisy to take the scientific consensus view on one topic but not the other. They would paint it as a hypocrisy to take the "let's minimize human toying with the environment in ways we can't fully understand" side for one but not both topics. The power of the climate change consensus is much stronger than that of GMOs in the following sense. If someone doesn't believe climate change is happening (or doesn't believe it's bad), then they had better have a damn good reason for thinking that pumping huge quantities of CO2 into the air is OK. Their argument can't be "the environment is complex, so the climate modelers might be wrong" since that only argues for even greater caution in disturbing the chaotic system of the environment. Therefore their argument must be "there is scientific evidence that it doesn't matter". So you counter that with "but then why don't any scientists think that?" even if you think we don't truly understand the environmental impact. Contrast to the GMO argument where the views of "the scientific community understands the ramifications of our actions" and "the system is too complex to analyze" come to opposite conclusions.

sampo 10y ago
The scientific consensus on GMO safety is actually slightly stronger than on global warming: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/29/pewaaas-study-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety-stronger-than-for-global-warming/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/29/pewaaas-st...
- tgb 10y ago
  My comment was tangential to that matter, it was that the consensus and the can't-trust-the-consensus views lead to different conclusions in GMOs but not in climate change, which can explain the hypocrisy observed.
whack 10y ago
That's a good point. If someone is opposed to both climate change and GMO food on the basis of "this is too complex to understand, so let's not touch it", that would be an intellectually consistent position. But more often than not, that's not the argument I hear from climate-change-alarmists. Most of the time, the argument they are making falls more into the camp of "we understand the science well enough to know that climate change is definitely happening and will have negative repercussions on humanity. The scientific consensus on this is solid, and we should trust in that scientific consensus." The second argument sounds a lot stronger than the first, which is why most environmentalists go with that argument. But it's intellectually inconsistent with their opposition to GMO.

by tgb 10y ago

sampo 10y ago

The scientific consensus on GMO safety is actually slightly stronger than on global warming: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/29/pewaaas-study-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety-stronger-than-for-global-warming/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/29/pewaaas-st...

tgb 10y ago
My comment was tangential to that matter, it was that the consensus and the can't-trust-the-consensus views lead to different conclusions in GMOs but not in climate change, which can explain the hypocrisy observed.

whack 10y ago

That's a good point. If someone is opposed to both climate change and GMO food on the basis of "this is too complex to understand, so let's not touch it", that would be an intellectually consistent position. But more often than not, that's not the argument I hear from climate-change-alarmists. Most of the time, the argument they are making falls more into the camp of "we understand the science well enough to know that climate change is definitely happening and will have negative repercussions on humanity. The scientific consensus on this is solid, and we should trust in that scientific consensus." The second argument sounds a lot stronger than the first, which is why most environmentalists go with that argument. But it's intellectually inconsistent with their opposition to GMO.