Friday, February 15, 2013

State of the climate, revisited

From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes: A reader comments regarding my blog entry, “State of the Climate”, which refers to scientists that apologize for the corporations. Her comment reads: Wow, Margot - what scientists are you reading/listening to? Apparently just a very small sliver, and none of the better thinkers. What sort of scientist would "believe that it doesn't matter if species die, or even entire oceans"? Certainly not the conservation scientists/biologists I've read or worked with! Or that "meat from obese, corn-fed cows and hogs can make healthy food for people"? Is it possible you're confusing the statements of people obsessed with corporate profits and year-end bonuses for those of the true researchers and innovators on which the future of our overburdened planet may well depend? Of course the scientists I refer to are “people obsessed with corporate profits and year-end bonuses” as she puts it. And they work in our universities today. At this very moment, they’re working on ways to make crops immune to 2,4D so that farmers can use more of it. 2,4D, you remember, is part of Agent Orange used to defoliate jungles so that soldiers could find them. It’s a poison that poisons people as well as plants. To greenwash the 2,4D story, they’ve pulled The Nature Conservancy in. TNC will evaluate the benefits of plantings around a Texas 2,4D manufacturing factory. Never mind that 2,4D will be carefully controlled in this factory, but then released to be sprayed in fields all over the planet. TNC, who we would hope are the “true researchers and innovators on which the future of our overburdened planet may well depend” opines: “Nature provides benefits, often called ecosystem services, which we all depend on.” Other ag scientists are convincing the media and politicians, at this very minute, that meat raised in Confined Animal Feeding Operations, fed on corn and other grains, is the only way to feed a growing population. Here’s their carefully worked statement about Bowman v. Monsanto: “The Supreme Court will decide a case this term that has the potential to jeopardize some of the most innovative biotechnology research in the country and alter U.S. patent law in a way that would have profound consequences for a range of industries — from agriculture to medicine to environmental science — that rely on the patent system to make their R&D investments economically viable.” That’s how corporations confuse science. Check out

No comments:

Post a Comment