If you Google the term GMO nearly every search result you receive is negative.
I have always been against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), and I have always felt confident in my belief. Everything I read about GMOs indicated that they were anti-environment, increasing the need for stronger pesticides and exacerbating the strained agricultural system.
Can GMOs be lifesaving technology?
Bill Gates thinks so. For the past several years, he has supported GMOs as a means for sustainable crops in starving nations. Listen to his points about the benefits of GMO crops in the following video.
Some of the other pro-GMO arguments include:
- Keeping global food prices lower
- Farming with less chemicals, using fewer natural resources
- Creating drought or flood resistant crops
Are GMOs safe?
There are many conflicting arguments about the safety of GMOs. Recently, several scientific organizations have stated plainly that GMOs are safe for consumption. A 2013 essay in Scientific American makes a convincing argument that the GMO practices of an agricultural giant like Monsanto are not only safe but also environmentally beneficial.
I still struggle with where to stand on this issue. IF GMOs are safe, why is there such resistance to labeling them? Moreover, why are consumers still, for the most part, afraid of them?
Believe Your Eyes
Many would agree that the debate regarding global climate change isn’t really much of a debate. Advances in technology allow us to bear witness to the changing face of our globe. Dan McGrath has somehow managed to bury his head in the sand, despite the permafrost of the polar vortex that is holding steady in the United States. In a blog article for www.globalclimatescam.com, Dan points to one glacier (the Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica) as evidence against global climate change. His claim is that its melting rate has slowed in the past few years, and that it was not melting from human-induced climate shifts. He instead uses non-cited research from a British Antarctic survey to claim that the glacier was grinding on a marine shelf, allowing warm seawater inside the glacier, causing the prior melting that was recorded by the Brits.
Where Climate Change Deniers Go Wrong
The problem with the blog posts and rants of climate change deniers is that the majority of the evidence and broader scientific community doesn’t corroborate their position. Dan’s blog post is a perfect example in that it mentions research that it doesn’t cite. It does have a link to another website, but it isn’t a credible source and it does not mention the Pine Island Glacier at all.
||The Polar Ice Caps
|Claims Without Reference or Citation
||Countless Independent Scientific Studies
|No Photo Documentation
Global climate change is happening. Many will acknowledge this shift, but they deny the fact that increased levels of CO2 are the root cause. Scientists first suspected that certain gases could create a ‘greenhouse effect’ over 150 years ago, according to the Scientific American. Since then, countless studies and a number of scientists have given merit to the claim that humans are having an increasing impact on the climate. Nasa’s website mentions that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is a result of human activity. The site also lists a number of scientific societies and includes quotes from them regarding their perspective on human-induced climate change.
The American Meteorological Society has also released a statement that acknowledges the fact that the climate has always been changing, but attributes recent changes to human activity. It includes peer-reviewed research to back up its claims, and also proposes some predictions for the future of climate change. The weight of science and peer-reviewed research makes for a strong case, unlike the case presented by bloggers who rant without credible references. I believe in critical thinking and don’t take things at face value. That said, I do give creedence to peer-reviewed research and data. I also believe what I see in satellite imagery.