Organic trailblazer accept GE!

[Roger Baldwin]

http://worldtruth.tv/usda-forces-whole-foods-to-accept-monsanto/

I applaud Whole Foods willingness to "coexist" in exchange for regulation reform, because GE is an important technology we should embrace for the future. It is a shame that it is being misused and has such a bad rap, because our consumptive nature as humans can't "coexist" with out GMOs.

[George]

True, if you mean thermometers.  There are many other records, some hundreds of years old, others hundreds of thousands, others hundreds of millions.  You're a young man so possibly you still have time to research the subject further, and, more fascinating to me, barring a premature death, you'll be here to observe.  Try to keep an open mind, especially about science.  

You hit the nail on the head when you speak of action being taken, or not taken.  We're so afraid to think about doing anything different, even if it's better.  I believe man will likely take action, at some point.  Climate change, a significant amount of it, is already in the pipeline, regardless of action or inaction or what you may believe about it.  The first man-made global climate change is rapid, compared to the past geologic changes but it is still somewhat slow, compared to one lifetime.  Stay tuned.  Over and out.

Alex Veidel said:

It's been a while since I've taken a good look at this stuff, but if I recall correctly, we've only been accurately keeping track of global temperatures since 1860. 

[Alex Veidel]

Thanks, I do try to keep an open mind about science :) I mutually encourage you to keep an open mind too.

It's not that I think science is purposefully trying to mislead anybody, but I think we put a undeserved, god-like mentality on scientists sometimes. Scientific truth is infallible (hence, the definition of truth), but scientists are not. Scientists have been wrong before and it's bound to happen again, there's simply too much to the universe to get it right. We have yet to explain how yawning works :)

Funny thing about truth: it has a complete disregard for how many people believe it, so the number of people who agree or disagree doesn't really count as evidence for anything (although, it definitely gives you more reason to consider what they are saying). There are intelligent people who have done their research on both sides of the global warming argument, and they have come to separate conclusions. It's not so simple as "these people are scientists and say this, while those quacks over there who completely disregard science are choosing ignore facts". Not saying anyone here is doing that, but it is a common position people on both sides of the argument take.

I don't want to give more weight to one side or the other, but I would like to level the playing field a little by explaining something about science that a lot of people seem to have forgotten. Science can't prove the future and it can't prove the past. The scientific method relies on observation and since we weren't there in the past and we're not currently in the future, the most science can do for us is help us theorize about what may have happened or what may happen. Take intelligent design theory vs. the theory of evolution; it doesn't matter how many people claim either one is fact. There's a reason why neither one has moved past the label of "theory": it's not possible. We will never be able to amount enough evidence that will 100%, no-room-for-debate, prove that either one or the other is true any more than I can prove to you for fact that at 2:15pm, on October 13th, I ate a hard boiled egg for lunch. I can show you leftover eggshells, water that has evidence of being boiled, and witnesses that say they saw my car at home, but those are just evidences that what I am saying is true, not actual proof. That said, any scientific mentality regarding the past or future that sets itself up as indisputable fact is bad science and is something we need to be careful with.

Personally, most of what I do ends up on the path of fixing global warming, I'm just doing it for different reasons. Of all the issues I'm keeping an eye out for, global warming isn't one that concerns me right now.

George said:

True, if you mean thermometers.  There are many other records, some hundreds of years old, others hundreds of thousands, others hundreds of millions.  You're a young man so possibly you still have time to research the subject further, and, more fascinating to me, barring a premature death, you'll be here to observe.  Try to keep an open mind, especially about science.  

You hit the nail on the head when you speak of action being taken, or not taken.  We're so afraid to think about doing anything different, even if it's better.  I believe man will likely take action, at some point.  Climate change, a significant amount of it, is already in the pipeline, regardless of action or inaction or what you may believe about it.  The first man-made global climate change is rapid, compared to the past geologic changes but it is still somewhat slow, compared to one lifetime.  Stay tuned.  Over and out.

Alex Veidel said:

It's been a while since I've taken a good look at this stuff, but if I recall correctly, we've only been accurately keeping track of global temperatures since 1860.