Scare Tactics vs. Science: Science often loses

[KC2UGV]

http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/8/7/gmos-don-t-hurt-anyone-but-opposing-them-does

And, in addition to science "Losing" this battle, about 18 million have died, and another 18 million are living sightless.

[n2ize]

http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/8/7/gmos-don-t-hurt-anyone-but-opposing-them-does

And, in addition to science "Losing" this battle, about 18 million have died, and another 18 million are living sightless.

This is why I dislike groups like Greenpeace. Not only are they a terrorist group but they are anti-science. Their opposition to GMO's flies in the face of real science and depends on scaring the public with FUD and photo ops. like the one shown where they donned HAZMAT suits and illegally ripped out crops and placed them in biohazard containers to convince the public that GMO plants are so deadly that HAZMAT gear is needed to even go near them. The average person responds by thinking "if it is so deadly that you have to wear a space suit to go near it imagine how deadly it would be to eat these foods". Unfortunately many people are inclined to reject scientific explanations and buy into photo ops. FUD, and dramatics.

[NA4BH]

Greenpeace

One of the first things we saw in London

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3735/9470562042_0779edc81d.jpg

The picture doesn't show the SWAT team right above them and on other rooftops.

[KG4CGC]

This goes here.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/08/right-wing-anti-woman-dark-ages-myths/#ixzz2bQSsoLah

[kb2vxa]

You don't eat bio engineered plants, bio engineered plants eat YOU.

[NQ6U]

Speaking as some one who considers himself an environmentalist, more or less, Greenpeace has done more damage to the environmental movement than Exxon Mobile propaganda ever has.

[n2ize]

Speaking as some one who considers himself an environmentalist, more or less, Greenpeace has done more damage to the environmental movement than Exxon Mobile propaganda ever has.

YES !!!!!!!!!!!!! That'd what I try to explain to my ultra NEW AGE "liberal" friends and they just don't get it. Even the original founder of Greenpeace has railed against them for their anti-science stance on issues.

[K9CCH]

Even the original founder of Greenpeace has railed against them for their anti-science stance on issues.


It must suck royally to start a group of that size, and then have it go in a direction it was never mean to. I wonder if he ever regrets it?

[n2ize]

Greenpeace

One of the first things we saw in London

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3735/9470562042_0779edc81d.jpg

The picture doesn't show the SWAT team right above them and on other rooftops.

Reminds me of the time Greenpeace pulled a stunt like that around here. To protest something of other they suspended themselves hanging in mid-air off the George Washington bridge. This causes major rush hour delays and people getting to work late as emergency workers had to risk their necks to go after them and get them down safely. But the real laugh came when a convoy of Huey copters flown by the National Guard were flying down the Hudson and flew UNDER the bridge. It scared the living crap out of the demonstrators. I think every Greenpeace member hanging off that bridge had shit in their pants at that moment. It was priceless !

[kb2vxa]

Flying under bridges is prohibited by FAA rules, the NYANG likely frowns on such aerobatics. That's not to say what the pilots had in mind when their superiors weren't looking. MUAHAHAHAHAAAaaa.

[KC2UGV]

Flying under bridges is prohibited by FAA rules, the NYANG likely frowns on such aerobatics. That's not to say what the pilots had in mind when their superiors weren't looking. MUAHAHAHAHAAAaaa.

Military flights are by and large free from FAA rules. They tend to follow them, in order to smooth airspace interactions, but they are by no means bound to them. Which is why US Army helicopters are allowed to fly NOE, whereas other aircraft are not.

[kb2vxa]

I know the military is not BOUND by civilian rules but as you said they tend to follow them. Same thought, different words, still funny scaring the shit out of Greenpus.

[KC2UGV]

I know the military is not BOUND by civilian rules but as you said they tend to follow them. Same thought, different words, still funny scaring the shit out of Greenpus.

Yeah, sorry about that. Just re-read what you wrote, and yeah, I basically repeated what you said, in different words :agree:

[n2ize]

Flying under bridges is prohibited by FAA rules, the NYANG likely frowns on such aerobatics. That's not to say what the pilots had in mind when their superiors weren't looking. MUAHAHAHAHAAAaaa.

Actually I can't say for certain it was specifically the NYANG flying them that day. Could have been a different agency. However I frequently saw those convoys of UHI's flying down the Hudson and I was told they were from the NYANG so I figure it seems logical it was them in this incident. But it is not really important who was conducting the flight operation, the fact that they went under the bridge and scared the bejeeebers out of the Greenpeas dudes was a priceless moment.

[kb2vxa]

Well it wasn't the NJANG, they fly F-16s out of Atlantic City. They're often joined by the PAANG out of Warminster flying A-10 Warthogs for target practice at the Warren Grove (NJ) range. BTW, I used to live in the area and watched from time to time, when they dove firing that 20mm Vulcan cannon they left a smoke trail and it sounded like a deep sounding long loud fart.

[N2NH]

You don't think that Medical Science plays the scare game too?

How many foods have they had banned only to come back a decade or so later and find out that it was over-reaction?

How many foods and pesticides have they not banned only to come back later and find carcinogens in them?

The best is that most of our diseases are being blamed... on us. Despite the fact that our grandparents ate worse than we did, smoked and drank yet had fairly healthy lives, if a bit shorter than ours is.

[KC2UGV]

You don't think that Medical Science plays the scare game too?

How many foods have they had banned only to come back a decade or so later and find out that it was over-reaction?

How many foods and pesticides have they not banned only to come back later and find carcinogens in them?

The best is that most of our diseases are being blamed... on us. Despite the fact that our grandparents ate worse than we did, smoked and drank yet had fairly healthy lives, if a bit shorter than ours is.

What do you measure "health" by?

The best measure we've come up with thus far is life expectancy, and until the past decade, it's been rising (Here in the US).

I mean, sure. People were healthier "back in the day". It's not like anyone was ever crippled by polio, cancer wasn't a death sentence providing a 2 year expectancy after diagnosis, and lung cancer was a norm.

Methinks you are looking through rose colored glasses here.

You'll note, "medicine" doesn't play the "scare game". The media does that. Medicine is merely science, which provides the soundest conclusion given the available data set.

On the "carcinogens"... You do realize that 85% of Americans will get cancer. And, that number increases annually. And, it's not for the reason you think.

[HUGH]

That's it. These groups consist of people with poor scientific and technological education, incapable of lateral thinking or understanding alternative viewpoints. The unemployable, unwashed tend to be attracted to them, swelling their numbers a nd increasing the tendency to become terrorists. The "greenies" never do their homework properly, they don't get my vote.

[n2ize]

The best is that most of our diseases are being blamed... on us.

Many diseases do have a lot to do with how we live and how well we take care of ourselves. Many people become overweight, remain inactive, eat junk foods, etc. and end up with diabetes and other related illness, i,.e. heart disease, circulatory problems, etc.



Despite the fact that our grandparents ate worse than we did, smoked and drank yet had fairly healthy lives, if a bit shorter than ours is.

Actually they didn't live healthy lives. It depended a great deal how they lived and the things they did. Many smoked and ended up with cancer and refused to believe that the smoking had anything to do with the cancer. related to smoking and poor diet choices were heart disease, emphysema, and other disorders. They also fell ill and died from many diseases that are easily treated these days.

[n2ize]

That's it. These groups consist of people with poor scientific and technological education, incapable of lateral thinking or understanding alternative viewpoints. The unemployable, unwashed tend to be attracted to them, swelling their numbers a nd increasing the tendency to become terrorists. The "greenies" never do their homework properly, they don't get my vote.

Very true. And the problem is that when they cannot think scientifically, either because they lack the knowledge or are too lazy to use the knowledge they may have and bother to think for themselves, they fall victim to emotion rather than reason. That's why groups like Greenpeace do environmentalism a disservice. rather than engage real science they resort to scare tactics and drama. This is why the original founder of Greenpeace has basically dissociated himself from the very organization he founded.

[NQ6U]

Very true. And the problem is that when they cannot think scientifically, either because they lack the knowledge or are too lazy to use the knowledge they may have and bother to think for themselves, they fall victim to emotion rather than reason.

Some people also feel the need for something beyond science and want a little mysticism in their life. That's fine, whatever makes them happy; the problems arise when they expect the rest of us to accept their magical beliefs as a valid reason for making public policy.

[kb2vxa]

Something like this?