All Wars Are Bankers' Wars (documentary)
Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 6 months ago to Business
The truth about debt slavery by private central banking.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
In the case of Monsanto's glyphosate GMOs there was apparently no long term testing done of the effects of the products on human physiology. They made assumptions that may have seemed rational at the time, but the physiology of the environment in which the products exist is more complex. A biologist should have insisted on long term studies before wide spread release of the specific product, but if those studies were done, then they have not been published. Recent long term studies have arguably shown reasons to doubt the safety of those GMO's to human physiology.
In contrast, in the case of global warming, the focus of the "promoters" is all about long term effects. Unfortunately, there has been no way devised to do long term testing, so the 'scientists' have created complex computer models to forecast the long term effects. However, the accuracy of these models were not subjected to testing prior to the pronouncements of a bleak future based on recent short term data. It appears that data was given far too much weight in the models without considering the complexity of the environment.
That brings us back to the thing these to issues have in common: hubris.
In both cases the promoters have given the public the assurance that they have a complete knowledge of all the components involved in the environment that their "products" would reside, and that there would be no unintended consequences.
In both cases the promoters have arguably erred and the consequences are as yet unknown.
The author of the video does appear to slant the message toward his conclusion and does not give bibliography for his data. However, the basic premise and conclusions compell me to futher study. I perceive truth behind the exaggeration
but unlike the promoters of global warming and roundup ready GMOs I would not base my argument on it without further study.
Science is open to new evidence. I won't be shocked in my lifetime to see the discovery of unknown risks to GMO or unknown aspects to climate change. Right now the evidence is GMOs are safe and climate change is a costly problem driven partly by human activities today. Science is always open to new evidence.
(funding= special word for money earned by the public and spent by government).
CG may be surprised to know how it is that climate change may indeed be a costly problem. The evidence is that the earth is cooling, this is far more severe than warming which would be beneficial. Furthermore, these changes are not driven by human activity.
The "science" has been exposed as promoters fraud, so the promoters think "lets change the company name, the sheep will never know."
Climate change is not a costly problem driven by human activities until there is evidence to prove that human activities can actually change the outcome. The promoters can't even give a reasonable scientific estimate of the outcome, much less prove humans can change it. It's a looters solution looking for a fear driven fictional problem, not science.
As for the second issue, you are certain based on the evidence that ALL GMO's are not harmful to human physiology long term? The video doesn't state that all GMOs are bad, only that Monsanto is trying to suppress the dangers of GMOs. Based on the Séralini paper and the fact that Monsanto has ample "pull" in Washington to write and have passed a bill that allows them to continue to sell any GMO product that the FDA finds to be unsafe (after previous FDA approval based solely on Monsanto's self-serving data) I think the video's statement while lacking in specific detail is a valid warning. (Monsanto had this law prepared and passed shortly after the Séralini paper was originally published in Oct 2012.) Monsanto has actually shown by actions that they value their profit over the health of the consumers of their products. When car makers discover a safety problem with their cars they don't write a law for congress to protect themselves, they fix the cars. Instead of trying to fix the product or to study the effects based on new data, Monsanto acts in the worst tradition of too big to fail banks and gets pet congressmen to bail Monsanto out with a law written by Monsanto to do exactly that.
Science may be open to new evidence, but Monsanto and the global warming scam promoters appear to lack that openness.
All this is actually a bit off topic, CG. It's not the central issue of the video's message. If you watch more, I bet you will find some things to agree with and others that are oversimplified. I know I did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assu...