Hey, whatever keeps peoples' principles and barbs on a sliding scale.
HarveyCanal said:
Grow some good genetics without toxic herbicides and pesticides sprayed all over it, only to be packed down as bricks...and Texas would go back to buying from Mexico instead of from California.
Not sure the sliding scale here. I prefer organic food and organic weed.
So genetic engineering is fine as long as keeps you on your high (horse)? Sorry, that pun was just too easy to let go...
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Frank said:
HarveyCanal said:
Frank said:
Ahem...
HarveyCanal said:
Hey, whatever keeps peoples' principles and barbs on a sliding scale.
HarveyCanal said:
Grow some good genetics without toxic herbicides and pesticides sprayed all over it, only to be packed down as bricks...and Texas would go back to buying from Mexico instead of from California.
Not sure the sliding scale here. I prefer organic food and organic weed.
So genetic engineering is fine as long as keeps you on your high (horse)? Sorry, that pun was just too easy to let go...
Naturally cross-pollinating, yes. Splicing genes in a lab, no.
One problem with proving climate change is that the earths climate is a large chaotic system. And it is very difficult to quantify and predict what is happening in large chaotic systems. That is why weather prediction is so difficult. Climate even more so.
Yet in the last 60yrs we have gotten very good at predicting the weather. Thanks to the space program and hard work by meteorologists.
That rapid, human influenced, climate change is happening now is undeniable.
How good are predictions of future effects of CC? Who knows? The science is in it's infancy.
What we know about the climate on other planets is even less. A lot less.
Genetic engineering has gotten way ahead of the science. Despite what Clinton may have told you, we still do not understand the whole human genetic code, much less that of corn.
Hey, whatever keeps peoples' principles and barbs on a sliding scale.
HarveyCanal said:
Grow some good genetics without toxic herbicides and pesticides sprayed all over it, only to be packed down as bricks...and Texas would go back to buying from Mexico instead of from California.
Not sure the sliding scale here. I prefer organic food and organic weed.
So genetic engineering is fine as long as keeps you on your high (horse)? Sorry, that pun was just too easy to let go...
Naturally cross-pollinating, yes. Splicing genes in a lab, no.
So "genetic" weed is derived from cross-pollination? Honest question. I always thought this stuff comes out of labs...
And none of these sponsors are going to pay for science that contradicts their agenda.
None of them? Not one?
So, everyone is corrupt, huh? Every scientist that participates, too?
Wow. That's amazing.
Of course not...those who don't produce the desired result are ignored or their work is cherry picked to just include the facts that back the "consensus". But science is not about a "consensus". "The concept of consensus means little more than a majority of opinions on a given matter. In politics this works. In the scientific world consensus is meaningless, and often unscientific, and worse, often wrong. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof is not science".
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
While I do see the heating of the planets as something consistent throughout our solar system, I do wholeheartedly agree that we should be polluting the Earth as little as possible. In other words, I'm for restrictions but not all the way up to carbon taxes and treating individuals as if it's not big industry doing 90% of said pollution. I mean, I proudly recycle and conserve energy all I can, but I really don't think it's making much of a difference when there's shit like Fukushima out there.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
HarveyCanal said:
Frank said:
HarveyCanal said:
Frank said:
Ahem...
HarveyCanal said:
Hey, whatever keeps peoples' principles and barbs on a sliding scale.
HarveyCanal said:
Grow some good genetics without toxic herbicides and pesticides sprayed all over it, only to be packed down as bricks...and Texas would go back to buying from Mexico instead of from California.
Not sure the sliding scale here. I prefer organic food and organic weed.
So genetic engineering is fine as long as keeps you on your high (horse)? Sorry, that pun was just too easy to let go...
Naturally cross-pollinating, yes. Splicing genes in a lab, no.
So "genetic" weed is derived from cross-pollination? Honest question. I always thought this stuff comes out of labs...
I've manually cross-pollinated weed strains before. You normally only keep female plants so that you aren't producing seeds. But if you want seeds, you just take a mature male plant and rub it all over a mature female plant and that female plant will then produce seeds. And if it's 2 varieties that you've mixed, then you get a new combined strain out of it.
When I was doing this many years ago, there still wasn't much or any talk of gmo's. I would imagine that some of the strains on the market nowadays are done in a lab like that though.
That just means we need our weed sacks properly marked as gmo or not, just like our groceries.
Is the cost of gene slicing that low and that easy that indoor pot growers are doing it?
Is the value of hybrid pot so high that genetics labs in the world have gotten into it?
Or is this college students combing 2 loves, so to speak?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
LaserWolf said:
Is the cost of gene slicing that low and that easy that indoor pot growers are doing it?
Is the value of hybrid pot so high that genetics labs in the world have gotten into it?
Or is this college students combing 2 loves, so to speak?
I don't think anyone is doing gene splicing at home. But I'm not entirely sure how the strains coming out of Amsterdam and Vancouver are derived.
Of course not...those who don't produce the desired result are ignored or their work is cherry picked to just include the facts that back the "consensus". But science is not about a "consensus". "The concept of consensus means little more than a majority of opinions on a given matter. In politics this works. In the scientific world consensus is meaningless, and often unscientific, and worse, often wrong. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof is not science".
And your evidence of a discipline wide conspiracy is?
Let me also say I don't recall being taught, while getting my Bachelor of Science degree, that if the desired result wasn't found, then the work is ignored or cherry picked.
I was taught that the results are the results, so long as the scientific method was followed.
And again, as I've stated a few times, the results cannot be cherry picked, because, due to peer review, it will be called out, publicly.
Of course not...those who don't produce the desired result are ignored or their work is cherry picked to just include the facts that back the "consensus". But science is not about a "consensus". "The concept of consensus means little more than a majority of opinions on a given matter. In politics this works. In the scientific world consensus is meaningless, and often unscientific, and worse, often wrong. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof is not science".
And your evidence of a discipline wide conspiracy is?
Let me also say I don't recall being taught, while getting my Bachelor of Science degree, that if the desired result wasn't found, then the work is ignored or cherry picked.
I was taught that the results are the results, so long as the scientific method was followed.
And again, as I've stated a few times, the results cannot be cherry picked, because, due to peer review, it will be called out, publicly.
people kill other people all the time for paltry amounts of money, yet there are people that still believe that there will be honesty and integrity when (m)(b)(tr)illions are at stake?
As far as the mind control/micro chip thing goes, again people are easily manipulated if they truly believe in something, just look at religion.
Comments
Can you say that it is?
So genetic engineering is fine as long as keeps you on your high (horse)? Sorry, that pun was just too easy to let go...
Naturally cross-pollinating, yes. Splicing genes in a lab, no.
Yet in the last 60yrs we have gotten very good at predicting the weather. Thanks to the space program and hard work by meteorologists.
That rapid, human influenced, climate change is happening now is undeniable.
How good are predictions of future effects of CC? Who knows? The science is in it's infancy.
What we know about the climate on other planets is even less. A lot less.
Genetic engineering has gotten way ahead of the science. Despite what Clinton may have told you, we still do not understand the whole human genetic code, much less that of corn.
So "genetic" weed is derived from cross-pollination? Honest question. I always thought this stuff comes out of labs...
Of course not...those who don't produce the desired result are ignored or their work is cherry picked to just include the facts that back the "consensus". But science is not about a "consensus". "The concept of consensus means little more than a majority of opinions on a given matter. In politics this works. In the scientific world consensus is meaningless, and often unscientific, and worse, often wrong. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof is not science".
I've manually cross-pollinated weed strains before. You normally only keep female plants so that you aren't producing seeds. But if you want seeds, you just take a mature male plant and rub it all over a mature female plant and that female plant will then produce seeds. And if it's 2 varieties that you've mixed, then you get a new combined strain out of it.
When I was doing this many years ago, there still wasn't much or any talk of gmo's. I would imagine that some of the strains on the market nowadays are done in a lab like that though.
That just means we need our weed sacks properly marked as gmo or not, just like our groceries.
Is the value of hybrid pot so high that genetics labs in the world have gotten into it?
Or is this college students combing 2 loves, so to speak?
I don't think anyone is doing gene splicing at home. But I'm not entirely sure how the strains coming out of Amsterdam and Vancouver are derived.
If the mods that people are promoting are things like bushier plants, or more THC, or more colorful flowers.
That would all be cross pollination.
If your getting round up ready plants or frost resistant plants, I would proceed with caution.
And your evidence of a discipline wide conspiracy is?
Let me also say I don't recall being taught, while getting my Bachelor of Science degree, that if the desired result wasn't found, then the work is ignored or cherry picked.
I was taught that the results are the results, so long as the scientific method was followed.
And again, as I've stated a few times, the results cannot be cherry picked, because, due to peer review, it will be called out, publicly.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Lots of guys on the take here, according to you. I mean, an incredible amount.
They didn't teach you about political and corporate corruption in school....oh shit, then it can't be true.
Yes, 97% of scientists, and myself, believe in not only climate change, but that humans affect it in some way.
What many don't agree on is how consequential it has been/will be and what, if anything, man can do to "save the planet from itself"
And it is merely a coincidence that some have played this issue exploiting the same human emotions that religion does, guilt and being saved.
And got rich doing so.
And if you don't buy the entire Al Gore narrative hook, line and sinker you're labeled a "Global Warming Denier"
There has been a consorted effort to silence those who they label as "deniers" and whenever that happens in science something is askew.
The fact is that at one time the consensus amongst scientists was that the earth was flat.
But those scientists were no where near as smart then as we are now, nor are we as smart now as our ancestors will be in the future.
Genocide & Litter....a winning combination.
As far as the mind control/micro chip thing goes, again people are easily manipulated if they truly believe in something, just look at religion.