Comments Skeptico has made

Skeptico again

Meredith:

Thanks for your response.  I did wonder if you were still reading the comments.

Regarding what the FT wrote - they weren't saying it was GM rice.  What they said was:

The water problems [in India] are the result of subsidies on rice and electricity. The subsidies encourage the cultivation of rice which - GM or not - requires a paddy field filled with water.

Note - "GM or not".  They were responding to Charles claim that:

"I have been to the Punjab where you have seen the disasters that have taken place as result of the over demand on irrigation because of the hybrid seeds and grains that have been produced which demand huge amounts of water.

They were refuting Charles' false claim - that I called nonsense.  So they weren't being misleading.

Re the "must" comment - I know they must pay for the seeds if they decide to go GM.  My point was they don't have to go GM.  Also, they clearly won't stay GM if it doesn't work out, financially.  In fact, you write yourself "as the documentary "The World According to Monsanto" indicates through personal interviews, many farmers are no longer planting GM cotton because of the aforementioned issues.  So clearly it is not true that they must continue to buy GM - according to what you yourself wrote, many have decided to go back to non-GM - in which case they will not have to pay for the GM seeds.  Surely you can see that?

If Monsanto is buying up smaller seed companies to reduce competition this is not a problem with GM per se, but a monopolies issue, and should be dealt with that way.  
From your linked report - the reports of Monsanto's predatory actions against farmers sounds pretty bad, but I'm afraid they lose credibility by citing Percy Schmeiser (Page 38) as the innocent victim whose crops got contaminated by accident and yet Monsanto sued him.  I've written about Schmeiser before - in summary, he knew exactly what he was doing when he sprayed his crops with Roundup to isolate the GM crops and save the seeds.  That the authors of this report still find Schmeiser to be one of the best examples to support this case, when we have known the truth about Schmeiser for years, is disappointing to say the least.  If he's really their best case then I don't think they have one.  At least, it gives me doubts about the other things in the report that I haven't checked.  

Still, I can easily believe many of the stories about Monsanto, and the way they do business needs to be controlled.  But again, this is not a problem with GM, it's a problem with a monopolistic corporate bully who should and could be put in its place.  Chapter 5 of the report suggests several legal remedies to cut out this predatory behavior.  I'm not a lawyer but it sounded to me as though some of those ideas would solve much of the problem.  Although I don't see much chance of any of it being enacted until the US has a change of government.  

Actually just before posting I just noticed wiscidea ended a post saying something similar:

Is it possible that the GMOs, the technology, is not the problem? Rather than focus on banning a useful  technology, shouldn't we find ways to reduce corporate control over the natural commons, eliminate the notion that it is okay to patent organisms, and find ways of getting useful innovations to the people who need them?

Which is a great point. On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

Vacuous

wolverine wrote:

It's true that nature can't provide food for a grossly overpopulated human race, but that's OK because overpopulated species need to be reduced in number.

And are you volunteering to be one of the people who dies of starvation?  Because if not, you are just a poseur.

The real problem with comments like this is the attitude of the commenter toward nature and the natural world.  I'd say if you don't like it here, please leave and find another planet where you do.  You and your attitude are doing great harm just by being here.

The real problem with comments like this from Wolverine is the attitude of the commenter toward the human race.  I'd say if you don't like humans, please leave and find another planet where there are beings you do approve of.  You and your attitude are doing great harm just by being here.
On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

Nature incompetent, I'm afraid

Notice that no one here refuted the point about only nature being competent to create forms of life or mess with its basic building blocks.  That's because no refutation is possible.

Total crap.  It was completely refuted since, as I wrote above but you apparently ignored, virtually none of the food we eat is a result of "nature" unaided by man.  For example, wheat was artificially bred by humans from three wild species between 2,000 and 10,000 years ago.  The resulting plant we now know as wheat has extra-large seeds and is totally incapable of survival in the wild.  Nature is clearly completely incompetent to give us the food we need.  If it were, we wouldn't need farming, would we?
On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

None of our food is "natural"

JTime959 wrote:

Life on Earth has gotten to this point because all the creatures (save for us at this point) have allowed the natural progression of changes to go on unaided.

Absolute nonsense.  Virtually none of the food we eat is a result of "natural progression" unaided by man.  For example, wheat was artificially bred by humans from three wild species between 2,000 and 10,000 years ago.  The resulting plant we now know as wheat has extra-large seeds and is totally incapable of survival in the wild.  On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

So stop it all?

Despite what some people may think, not a single GMO is commercially available that is designed to enhance nutrition, increase yield potential, tolerate drought, or manifest other attractive traits touted by the biotech industry.

Because not all benefits have yet been realized, does that mean we should stop all GMO research and production?  Is that a reason for Charles to spout nonsense about problems in India and Australia, that later commenters point out are nothing to do with GMOs?  What do you have to say about the "protesters" who are so scared of learning anything about GMOs that they destroy any attempts to even do trials.  From the Telegraph article:

Only two weeks ago British GM researchers lobbied ministers for their crops to be kept in high-security facilities or in fields at secret locations across the country to prevent them from being attacked and destroyed.

They spoke out after protesters ripped up crops in one of only two GM trials to be approved in Britain this year.

Scientists claim the repeated attacks on their trials are stifling vital research to evaluate whether GM crops can reduce the cost and environmental impact of farming and whether they will grow better in harsh environments where droughts have devastated harvests.

Is that the answer?  Charles' ignorant rhetoric seems to encourage such actions.
On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

$260 Million

Gar Lipow:

$260,000,000 / 134 Million KWhr/year /20 years = 10c per kWHr.  But that is before any maintenance and before interest.  The entire $250 million is paid up front.  At only 5% that increases costs by a factor of 2.65, and that's before maintenance.

Come on - $260,000,000 for 15MW (not 60MW as you wrote).  That can't possibly make sense.On Nevada Solar one is a better and smaller neighbor than a coal mine posted 1 year, 6 months ago 80 Responses