No, honestly, I don't take it personally. Thank you.
Just too time consuming talking about Saskatchewan seed patterns when honestly I don't give a flying fata about nor is it relevant. It reeks of deflection and nothing more than a time wasting exercise. I've asked for responses backed by hard evidence, all I've got so far is random statements and supposed pers comms with farmers.
I've finished for the moment. I'm more than happy to consider the opinions of Nature and peer reviewed science over bloggers. I just don't get, like in the CC debate why these bloggers don't submit for publication and refute through the proper medium. Actually, I do. I refuse to be drawn into a discusion on that effort of a blog. It's really really not worth my time.
I await your peer reviewed science from your FB group. But I am curious why you of all people are reluctant to accept the opinions of Nature and Benbrook over that of blogs and self proclaimed experts on FB? Isn't this junk science?
I'm waiting to see if these opinions/findings are challenged through the scientific process. Unlike CC, the argument cannot be made that science represses pro GM science.
As I said, there has been a load of merde spread about the risks of GMO crops but that doesn't necessarily equate to everything being merde.
It doesn't have to be black and white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
but as I have said before, I have to go with the broad view scientific consensus,
|
Present to me the scientific concensus that GM crops don't create superweeds and that this has not led to an increased chemical use. No blogs. Regarding the first matter. So far, nature says yes. The Fonz says no.