Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (65446)	1/11/2003 2:40:25 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Couple links: Environment and Science: Danes Rebuke a 'Skeptic' nytimes.com The book — a dense review of data on forests, climate change, food supplies, population growth and other issues — has not been a runaway best seller but has been widely cited by conservative groups, commentators and elected officials who oppose strict environmental regulations. U.S. Threatens to Act Against Europeans Over Modified Foods nytimes.com The Bush administration's top trade official announced today that he was weighing whether to approach the World Trade Organization with a case against the European Union for its ban on genetically modified food, asserting that the "Luddite" and "immoral" European position was leading to starvation in the developing world. Well, whatever. I'd no doubt be classified as an "econut" under LindyBill's scheme, but I can't see genetically modified crops as much of an environmental threat compared to agriculture in general. Which, overall, does more environmental damage than anything. Maybe GM crops will improve things via better yields and less need for pesticides and fertilizers. Given that the main problem with agriculture in the developed world has long been overproduction, though, I got my doubts.

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (65446)	1/11/2003 2:53:20 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

try reading the report. Quote from the NYT on that Danish report. >>> A branch of the Danish Research Agency has concluded that Prof. Bjorn Lomborg, an author whose upbeat analysis of environmental trends has been embraced by conservatives, displayed "scientific dishonesty" in his popular book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist.......The report did not cite specific examples, but asserted that the book, although presented in the style of a scientific treatise, with copious footnotes and diagrams, was actually "a provocative debate-generating paper.<<<< nytimes.com Here is what "The Economist" thinks of it: >>>The panel's ruling, objectively speaking, is incompetent and shameful.<<<< economist.com If you go through yesterdays posts here, you will find we discussed it at length. The report is nonsense, Noel. A desperate attempt to discredit a book that exposes the dishonesty of the "Environmental" movement.