In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:


You project too much with that. YOU only consider the source when it fails
to support Monsanto.


No, I consider the science. I don't criticize the sister chromatid
exchange study because the author is a "wild eyed environmental
fascist" or somesuch. I criticize it on the basis of the science.
*You* on the other hand, dismiss scientific articles published in
peer-reviewed journals by attacking the authors.


YOU dismiss horrifying testimony even by
whistleblowing Monsanto employees under oath as courtroom shinanigans
unrelated to the science the whistleblowers admit they fabricated.


No, I make the distinction between courtroom testimony and peer-reviewed
science. The courtroom is theater. Conflating the two is a mistake.


YOU
dismiss all credible peer-reviewed science from ecologists as biased but
profit-motivated Monsanto science you believe, even when it is proven to
have been intentionally fabricated.


On the contrary. Of the two articles you showed that "proved" the
danger of RoundUp, in one the authors themselves stated that
the association disappeared under multivariate analysis and in
the other the authors admitted that their findings were inconclusive
because of the high dosage and cytotoxic effect. If the *authors*
of the article agree with me, who am I to complain?


YOU even said that fabricating data &
lying about it doesn't effect the value of the science just so long as it
is supportive of Monsanto.


No. I said that I was not relying on Monsanto claims, but instead on
scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Because I am not relying
on Monsanto's claims, whatever they say is irrelevant to my conclusion.



YOU lied saying you had cited non-Monsanto
science when in fact you cited one of the biggest Monsanto hired guns of
all time, so the point is you misrepresented a Monsanto flack as
independent research, & that the guy got hired by Monsanto because of his
previous great work promoting smoking as completely safe doesn't phase you
a bit, because you're not running on reason, & how curious that is.

And here it is. You are such a big fan of scientific research in
peer-reviewed journals -- unless, of course, that scientific research
in peer-reviewed journals disagrees with your presumption. In that case,
you can't argue the science, so you attack the authors. Classic.

billo