Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
[Fwd: Herbicide `Roundup' may boost toxic fungi] | sci.agriculture | |||
Goats Are West's Latest Weed Whackers | sci.agriculture | |||
OT Latest bulletin | Gardening | |||
when's the latest for (re-)planting 'snowdrops in the green'? | United Kingdom | |||
latest issue of Distant Thunder, by the Forest Steward's Guild | alt.forestry |