Skip to main content

View Diary: EcoAdvocates: A Declaration of Interdependence (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ah, the undermining of peer review (0+ / 0-)

    that's an unfortunate strategy. I hate to see people try that, especially if they are hoping to use science to support their perspective. As Orac has said in It's that time again: "Broken" peer review

    peer review is the worst way to weed out bad science and promote good science, except for all the others that have been tried.

    And I don't see this as a digression at all. Efficient and appropriate use of resources for food is foundational for both climate change and peak oil realities. I'm sorry you don't see the linkage.

    There is caution about GMOs. Are all plants and animal breeds undergoing this review? No. And there have been toxic heirloom potatoes and celery. But there is a type of activist that uses fear instead of facts to undermine the process--we see this in vaccines most clearly. The strategy is the same. Although there are legitimate issues and regulatory review, to pretend that they haven't aren't evaluated and raised is false.

    "It's not like she's marrying out of her species or anything," Ms. Lynch said.

    by mem from somerville on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 08:36:07 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I didn't undermine peer review. (4+ / 0-)

      Peer review is absolutely necessary -- but it doesn't mean that every academic paper is absolutely correct. You've followed arguments in the literature when two groups have different results or different interpretations of results, yes? It is a necessary and real part of science.

      I strenuously object to your accusing me of "trying" a trick. Peer reviewed literature is just that -- literature that is reviewed according to a standard for a particular journal. Every journal (and discipline) has its biases because of the field of reviewers available.

      You know this.

      Please consider donating to HEAL Africa.

      by rb137 on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 10:24:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  About the digression... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JanF, Otteray Scribe, JayinPortland

      I forgot to address that. The reason I interpret it as a digression is that you went straight to, "Which technologies do you consider off-the-table for responding to that?" It is a digression in the following ways:

      It first embeds the assumption that GMOs are a tool for responding to world hunger. Nobody has demonstrated that using GMOs addresses the root causes of world hunger -- which are largely political and a matter of distribution. In fact, using proprietary methods to produce food might well exacerbate the problem. But that discussion isn't scientific.

      Second, you're implying that I'm arbitrarily taking technologies off the table for solving large problems -- you're putting words into my mouth, and you're creating a distraction by changing the subject of conversation.

      And now you're telling me that I can't make connectioins between climate change, global energy, and food. Is there anything else you'd like to tell me about me? (Actually, that is a rhetorical question.)

      Please consider donating to HEAL Africa.

      by rb137 on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 10:38:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site