Very funny. Its always "scientists" who bring that up and who first brought that up. Do you even read those reports? Scientists and their studies (more like very flawed simulations) are always quoted. First they said (Mojib Latif and others) that there wont be any hard winters anymore due to AGW. After it became evident that those utterings were utter bullshit, they said that hard winters will be very often due to AGW (PIK and others) and after we got a normal winter again, they said that this is typical for AGW too (PIK and others again).
If it wasnt for them, this hype wouldnt be nearly where it is.

They just say what is convenient and what fits into their agenda. Its all about money and personal security. Nothing more nothing less, they just think its something different due to their indoctrination. AGW has become a huge self-sustaining (thanks to those corrupt "scientists") economic booster where insurances, scientists, politicians and many many companies (even oil companies - yes, check the global warming lobby) and their lobbies are benefiting from. Its simply not possible to talk about it objectively anymore. And if you try, people like you will come up and defend it like a religion, and prove this fact very quickly. Just look at "bio" fuels. Its a HUGE part of economy already, but it simply isnt eco-friendly at all. Instead people are starving because mono cultures are used instead of different plants for food, so much water is used for producing bio fuels that people have to suffer. The rain forest and others are cleared to be able to put more mono cultures up. Companies like Monsanto are becoming more and more powerful because of it and studies that bio fuels are bad for lots of engines are being censored or simply not funded since even car manufacturers profit from it when engines blow up sooner.

More extreme weather? Bullshit aswell. Thats simply not true, as quite a few (ignored by the "consensus") studies have shown. Its just the reports about even the tiniest things that have bloated up in the globalized and interconnected world of today and untold truths that are fooling you and of course the agendas that need to be kept upright with even the tiniest happenings that fit into it. Next time when you see a report, ask yourself if something like that would have been mentioned globally 20 or 30 years ago.

Take the flood in Pakistan for example. Oh, it was soooo bad and soooo AGW caused, oh the horror, we will all see the same thing and worse in our own countries if we continue to sin in the face of our go-- err scientists!
No, it wasnt. It was as normal as all the very common floods there before. It just wasnt mentioned that since the 70s Pakistans population has tripled and the vast majority of those people have settled down on the fertile lands around the (straightened!!!) rivers.

If that wasnt enough, people like you even completely ignore the fact, even if all their claims were true, that warm periods were ALWAYS much much better for this planet and its inhabitants than cold ones and colder ones than we have right now (we live in an ice age after all) were always bad, if not catastrophic.

And because of that fact I wont be that stupid and waste my time here with more replies, since you guys have made it very obvious already where you are coming from.

Just one little thing to think about for you guys (yeah I still have hope, though its prolly not very realistic), since the rest of my posts will get marginalized by your ignorance anyway:
Just because most scientists are pro-AGW doesnt prove crap. It was always only very few if not only a single scientist who tried to prove many other scientists wrong in their assumptions and most scientists were wrong and very arrogant, especially if they formed something like a society. But like before, there are thankfully still a few of them left who treat science as science and not as their religion or extension of their ego.

These guys can burn down homes but don't bite? Omnivores? Screw that.
One word....
Chlorodane.

EPA can't prove it causes a substantial risk of cancer in humans and it kills everything for 20+years. US still manufactures it for export, banned since 88', but they'll let Monsanto do what the fuck it wants to litigate humans out of what they can grow and what they can or can't use to kill weeds or bugs? Retarded to let it stand.

*promote the annihilation of Monsanto and all political lobbies encouraging the death of the human species. DO the world a favor today. Bulldoze a McDonalds.

Oh and, stop watching television propaganda. It's rotting your brains.

If it's GMO grain, I would evacuate. Monsanto would probably sue you if you drove by and saw the grain.

...according to Monsanto. I've never seen the CEO drink it or spray it on his kids though.


...except those grown 'organically' or with an effort towards minimal chemical use, and only until the round-up resistant 'weeds' and 'pests' outpace it's toxicity... again. It already takes more, higher concentrated round-up (if not a second formula already) to do the job, and that will only get worse every year. There must be a better solution than 'our poison is less dangerous than the old poisons' coupled with 'our proprietary freak crops are immune to our poisons'. (the best solution for me is simply fewer people, but that sentiment is in the minority it seems)

Round up is fucking poison and deleterious to all soil, all food crops, humans, puupy dogs, gophers, and kitty-cats. I and I commend Percy Schmeiser on some guerrilla ball-sack-action against the assholes that are, Babylon Monsanto.

Patent infringer MY ASS Monsanto, he's a fucking hero.

Slow down a moment. I wasn't asking for hours of background research to be presented to meet my approval or anything.

The claim has been repeatedly made that Monsanto has been, on a sweeping scale, been suing farmers with no desire to use it's seed when their crops are accidentally contaminated. All I requested was to be given one single example of that actually happening. Nobody has ever presented an example to me. This leads me to not only conclude, but to declare to all who will listen that this particular charge is a lie and a fabrication.

The closest I ever get to an example is Percy, and he sprayed his own seed crop with round up before harvesting the surviving few plants along the border of his neighbor's crop. I do not count carrying on to plant only those seeds as accidental, and Percy has readily admitted that is what he did.

@bcglorf
ok.
i guess i could go through all my bookmarks.
correlate all the pertinent information in regards to abuse of sovereign legal systems in order to intimidate local farmers set upon by monsanto.
link watch groups web sites that follow monsanto (and others) in order to illuminate some of their more...egregious abuses.

but that would be based on the presumption i wish to change your mind or convince you of anything.which i am really not interested in at all.

though i was unaware that percy was found guilty of intentionally cross-pollinating.first time i heard that.thats pretty interesting.

The description sounds like it's the story of Percy Schrieber, one man's fight with Monsanto. Forgive me, but if that is in fact accurate I'm not sitting through a 1 hour accounting. Percy Schrieber's story is nothing like those described by Shatterdose and others. He wasn't sued for his crop getting cross contaminated. He wasn't sued for continuing to replant seed from his previous crop as he had been doing for years and years.

Percy Schrieber deliberately and intentionally set out to plant Monsanto's GMO canola on his own fields, and went to MORE work to accomplish this than most any other farmer that'd been growing that variety. What is more, he has freely admitted this. I can NOT understand how he still remains a rallying point for folks claiming Monsanto is suing farmers just because their seed crop was cross contaminated by their neighbor. I have yet to be pointed to an example of Monsanto doing that to anyone in North America. Until I am pointed to one, I'm getting pretty tired of the completely baseless accusation being declared and accepted as proven fact and matter of course. Monsanto IS a massive corporation, and no doubts has all manner of dirty deeds to it's name, but this particular charge seems to be entirely fabricated to me and that drives me nuts. It renders all manner of valid complaints and concerns less valid all to quickly.

@SveNitoR
i was not asking a question nor did i post any research nor arguments,but..thanks? i guess?

@bcglorf
here is a video of just a few of monsantos legal practices with canola farmers in canada:
http://videosift.com/video/north-american-farmers-VS-Monsanto-david-vs-goliath

wut? Organic food refers to the process it goes through to receive organic certification - i.e. you were looking at the wrong wikipedia entry.

Try this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

Essentially it's growing food without most of the harmful chemicals, it's therefore a sustainable farming practice. Less spray residue in the food, less toxins in the environment, better for pretty much everyone unless you are a worker at Monsanto or get paid by a political think tank.

Organic certification is not perfect however, some countries (like China) have poor certification protocols, and many countries labelling laws allow some non-organic food in an organic product and it can still be called organic.

@shatterdose,
Would you have examples of the farmers Monsanto has sued or driven out of business over cross contamination? I'm not familiar with any myself despite hearing the claim repeatedly and would hate to be blind to such a serious injustice.

I also have trouble understanding your overall position. You seem to spend most of your time arguing how terrible GMO is for farmers and seem to be arguing it is bad because it is harmfull to them. You end your post arguing in favor of farmers again and calling for a return to showing them greater respect than they are being shown today. I hope I followed that much correctly? As a guy who grew up as a farm kid, and have a very big portion of my family and social circle running family farms I would second the importance of those businesses. What I wonder is if you understand that virtually all family farms whose primary income is that farm have been choosing by their own free will to plant GMO crops because it helps their bottom line.

It's not a corporate conspiracy driving the GMO domination of seeds planted here in North America. In fact, all the family farmers I grew up around are well agreed that GMO crops have been one of the biggest factors that has helped them keep their family operations profitable so they didn't have to close up shop and sell things off. The picture you paint of Monsanto systematically driving family farms out of business is simply put, fictional from what I see in the Family farm dominated economy of the region I live in. I haven't looked outside of North America nearly as closely, but for this region your account just does not bear out to the reality I see around me everyday.

Cross-hybridization is one thing. Patenting a cow you found in Africa and then suing the life out of the original tribe is the Monsanto way. Or, changing one gene and then claiming ownership of all corn in the US and then suing small farmers when their crops get contaminated (and of course, denying it) is GMO. The fight against GMO isn't always a "health" concern about wanting to stay truer to our millions of years of evolution and cohabitation with certain foods. It's also about fighting against mega-corperations that unfairly target small farmers with regulations such as requiring white painted walls . . . yearly, or requiring an office and bathroom for a health inspector to use once a year that no one else can use ever, or so many laws and regulations that a small farmer can inadvertently break the law, steal someone's intellectual property and be sued out of existence all while doing the same thing their family has been doing for over 100 years.

When we plant crops of only one variety over large swathes of land we invite disaster. It's already happen numerous times. Hell, no one remember deadly spinach killing around 50 people with no way to trace the origin? Mad Cow? Or the destruction of economies in their world countries because Monsanto requires only their crop to be grown and subsistence farmers into the ghetto's of India so that more High Fructose Corn Syrup can be made.

Or worse . . . the US Farm Bill . . . *shivers*

So no, it's not always about health. It's about staying true to the roots of a society that worships our farmers as life-givers, essential to our health and economy and free of unknown risk that could catastrophically damage the world as we know it all while ending a giant untouchable monopoly that refuses to let even the tiniest bit of oversight oversee it's operations so it can continue to "own life."

I hate the business of GMO, mainly because of Evil Monopolistic Monsanto®, but are there any scientific studies that even claim these products are less safe for human consumption?

Of course, modifying an organism can have side effects such as decreasing nutritional value, but so can not rotating crops correctly or failure to maintain soil properly.

and btw. GMO PROTEINS ARE NOT THE SAME

ALSO

Monsanto developed AGENT ORANGE and PCB's (cancer causing pollutants even though they fought and denied it)