I do see some rather interesting, and unfortunately similarities here, TBH: Like with the GMO controversy, in the AGW argument, too, there is a significant problem with some on our side combatting denialist bullshit with bad science(i.e. "Venus Syndrome", Permian-style "clathrate gun" stuff, "Canfield Oceans", "runaway" warming), and even outright junk(such as New Agey mumbo-jumbo crap like sudden dramatic climate temperature shifts without corresponding increases in greenhouse gases, etc., or David Wasdell's "Earth System" junk, in which he claims a climate sensitivity of 7.8*C per doubling.).
And, like yourself, I too, have been called all sorts of things for doing what I do; a "minimizer", a "lukewarmist", and even accusations of secret denial were thrown around occasionally, just as you were (wrongly, I believe) accused of shilling for Monsanto by a few extremists. So I understand where you're coming from.
As with climate change denial, it is a very good thing that Monsanto's dishonesty is being challenged, and combatted; GMOs still have MANY issues that need to be sorted out, and too often, safety and quality are sacrificed for profit. But we need to do it with REAL science, and not unverifiable junk, as what you might see on InfoWars or some other kooky fringe site.
What I shill for, if anything is science literacy and good research design. Science without external agendas.
Amen to that!
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
