From Marcia Ishii-Eiteman on Civil Eats:
“As reported in this week’s UK Guardian, Nina Federoff spoke about threats to science at a meeting of 8,000 professional scientists. The former Bush Administration official (and former adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) and GMO proponent described her “profound depression” at how difficult it is to “get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms.” I too have agonized over our inability to talk seriously about climate change.
However—and this is no small matter—by conflating fringe climate-deniers with established scientists raising valid concerns about the effects of GMOs, Federoff undermines the scientific integrity that she purports to uphold. The hypocrisy is astonishing.
The reason we cannot get a reality-based conversation started on GMOs is because we have precious little independent science on their effectiveness or safety. We know so little about GMOs’ safety or efficacy because global ag biotech firms like Monsanto, Dow and DuPont actively suppress science under the heading of protecting “confidential business information.” Companies routinely deny scientists’ research requests and suppress publication of research by threatening legal action, a practice one scientist describes as “chilling.”
In February 2009, 26 corn-pest scientists anonymously submitted a statement to U.S. EPA decrying industry’s prohibitive restrictions on independent research, especially as concerns ag biotech. They submitted the following statement anonymously for fear of being blacklisted:
“Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.”
The same year, the editors of Scientific American warned of the debilitating effects of the ag biotech industry’s attacks on science:…”
The Bovine 
” …the hypocrisy is astonishing,” alright
linking the epithet “climate deniers’ to repudiation of the insanity of tampering with the DNA of foodstuffs, and the Campaign for REAL MILK, is nothing but poisoning the well of public discourse. A classic tactic of the commies
sorry to hear the Bovine has been taken-in by one of the biggest hoaxes of modern times = the notion that human activity is changing the climate of the planet. If the Bovine is going down that avenue, let’s see you post the review of the book = CO2 LIes. Let’s see you post the volume of CO2 gas spewed by one of the dozens of volcanoes which erupt in any given year, versus the entire CO2 net volume excess of CO2 supposedly produced by the industrialized world. Make sure you include the internal email discussion of the scientists who were concerned that their figures predicting so-called “global warming” didn’t gyve with what’s actually happening
Its about alot more than just CO2, Gordon. The hole in the ozone over the Antarctic wasn’t caused by CO2.
Gordon, It seems you’d make good company with the petro-checmical billionaire Koch brothers, who are ardent climate change deniers, and whose father was a founder of the racist (and ultra-right-wing) John Birch Society. The Koch brothers are also the financiers of the current ultra-capitalist Scott Walker regime in Wisconsin that is responsible for prosecuting Vernon Hershberger.
another red herring by Mister Anderson … well-schooled by his socialist mentors in their infamous technique “bad communications corrupt good morals”.
If connecting the dots behind the scenes is your thing, head on over to Dr Henry Makow’s website.
there’s an awful lot of hard evidence for some of the ‘conspiracy theories’. Best example lately, being the fraud pulled off so as to impose ‘carbon taxes’ on America, while giving the Third World polluters a pass. Just a modern form of the ancient Roman Catholic racket known as “indulgences”
“a lie is halfway ’round the world before the Truth gets its boots on” … But it’s OK … real scientists are exposing the anthropogenic global warming swindle, and they do, the credibility of the race traitors in high places, goes to less than zero
For the record, I am against any kind of carbon trading, carbon tax, etc… What we need is real green renewable energy.
The below website is useful towards debunking the various denial propoganda on anthropogenic climate change put out by the Koch Brothers and their ilk:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
There is no anthropogenic global warming, which is why we are being encouraged to adopt the term “climate change” instead of the original. Jo Nova was originally a proponent. So was I until I realized the only viable energy alternative, given the demonization of coal, was/is nuclear which, IMHO, is disastorous. Certainly there is a hole in the ozone layer but the bottom line is nobody knows what this means: is it good; bad; neutral; normal; abnormal.
As far as I can see, any scientist who ‘believes’ that on a carbon-based planet with carbon-based life, carbon could be a pollutant, should renounce his/her scientific credentials.
Map: The Climate Change Scare Machine — the perpetual self-feeding cycle of alarm
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/
The Science Fiction of the Greenhouse Effect
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2826-the-science-fiction-of-the-greenhouse-effect
Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”
Svensmark’s theory of cosmoclimatology confirmed –CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/svensmarks-theory-of-cosmoclimatology.html
Pingback: Identifying Sources of GMO's in your Food