Volatility

March 14, 2015

Pro-GMO Activists, the Various Climate Change Lies, and the Mainstream Media

<

*A few weeks back I mentioned US Right to Know’s Freedom of Information requests to several prominent pro-GMO activists ensconced in academia, in the course of citing these as typical examples of how the pro-GM activists consistently impersonate various kinds of scientists and other professionals even as they hypocritically insist that GM critics have no standing to opine unless they possess the right “credentials”. As I documented there, without exception all pro-GM activists stray far beyond the bounds of their own formal credentials, where they have any in the first place. (Many do not.)
.
Since then USRTK has been attacked in academia and the corporate media by these same mercenary hacks, who exceed themselves in fraud and hypocrisy. One propaganda disseminator is the Gates Foundation-funded pro-Monsanto media center at Cornell University, which in Orwellian manner proclaimed its goal to “depolarize the GMO debate”. By this they mean they’re trying to restore the status quo ante where corporate ideology completely dominated all politics, economics, and science. The Cornell propagandists want a unipolar world. That’s what they mean by “depolarize”. Depolarize is also a synonym for depoliticize, meaning that democracy and politics as such should cease to exist wherever these interfere with the corporate imperative. This is in line with the movement toward a Corporate Constitution and Bill of Rights, which the TTIP and TPP seek to enshrine.
.
Toward these goals Cornell, using Gates money, created a bogus position for corporate publicist Mark Lynas and other Monsanto and Gates-affiliated publicists. Similarly, the Guardian published an op-ed from three paid mercenaries while abetting them in suppressing their conflict of interest. The Guardian let them fraudulently depict themselves as being “neutral academics” while failing to list their paid positions with the GMO cartel. Most hilariously of all, they regurgitated the self-evident lie comparing GMO critics to climate change deniers even as at least one of the three, Philip Sharp, is himself a climate change denier employed by the Koch Brothers.
.
As I developed in an earlier post, the real demarcation is being a corporate mercenary vs. being a critic of corporate-decreed “science”. It’s GMO advocacy and climate change denial which logically line up, and sure enough the ranks of pro-GMO activists include many professional climate change deniers: Patrick Moore, Owen Paterson, Matt Ridley, Bjorn Lomborg, just to name a few. By contrast, there are no climate change deniers among GMO critics. There you see the measure of the mainstream media’s integrity, that it keeps repeating the lie but never takes even five minutes to investigate whether real-life climate change deniers actually support or oppose GMOs.
.
The fact that the likes of National Geographic, the Guardian, and many others intentionally refrain from this simple fact check is proof that they’re most interested in propagating this lie and want to suppress knowledge of the truth, which they know would be unfavorable to their agenda.
.
Meanwhile the canned lie that GMO cultivation can help sequester carbon through chemical no-till, also more euphemistically called “conservation tillage”, is being completely debunked as the spread of Roundup-resistant weeds increasingly requires the most aggressive tillage to give farmers any hope of keeping their fields partially clear.
.
The concept of chemical no-till as carbon sequestration tactic was bogus in principle, since the slathering of Roundup destroys the soil ecosystem which incorporates carbon as humus in the first place. The very term “sequestration” demonstrates the fundamental error of the approach: Nature doesn’t “sequester” anything, but actively incorporates it into a dynamic system. Poison-based agriculture, of which the Roundup Ready system is the ultimate example, automatically destroys the soil ecosystem and leaves sterile dirt which would be incapable of incorporating carbon. That’s why irrigation water has to be fortified with chemical additives to bind it to dirt molecules. That’s the only way to keep the water from running off the site immediately, eroding all the dirt with it. Sure enough, studies found that chemical no-till could at best “sequester” a small amount of carbon in the immediate topsoil where the biomass from the previous crop degrades, but does nothing to build organic matter deeper into the dirt, turning it into real soil. The whole concept of chemical no-till is incorrect. That’s to be expected, as it’s an extension of the absolutely erroneous NPK ideology, which is the source of all the agronomic and ecological pathologies in the first place.
.
In this clash of lies we see how one lie, chemical no-till and GMOs as “climate friendly”, runs up against the planned obsolescence strategy of the GMO cartel. Although Monsanto would prefer that the Roundup Ready system remain in power indefinitely, this is more of a subjective preference which is counter to the overall dynamic of ever-accelerating obsolescence and turnover. This dynamic is best exemplified in Monsanto’s own publicly admitted plan for obsolescence and escalated stacking of Bt toxins, collecting an extra tax for each proprietary toxin of course. That Roundup Ready is set to be superseded by Dow’s 2,4-D based “Enlist” system and Monsanto’s own dicamba-based system embodies the real logic of the GMO concept and deployment.
.
In the real world, industrial agriculture is the worst driver of climate change. It is the most profligate emitter of greenhouse gases and by far the worst destroyer of carbon sinks. GMOs comprise the escalation of all the pathologies of industrial agriculture including those affecting climate change.
.
In the real world, agroecology offers the only solution for climate change, in terms of both mitigation and adaptation.
.
More broadly – politically, economically, ecologically, and in the most stark terms of our being able to eat in the future – humanity’s great imperative is to abolish industrial agriculture and transform to agroecology on a food sovereignty basis. Nothing short of this will suffice physically, nor is anything short of this worthy of our great human endeavor.
.
What are the mean little lies of hacks and scribblers compared to that?

<

Advertisements

23 Comments

  1. The climate change “debate” has been a huge success, I can tell you that much. Right now an area of pristine rainforest the size of England is being cut down every YEAR. 97 percent or more of America’s old growth forests are now gone, and the guys up in tree stands trying to save the last of it don’t make “the news”.

    As the human population continues to explode out of control, mass EXTINCTION is going on, a tragedy that is almost beyond comprehension, but this too doesn’t make “the news”.

    The cheetah, the tiger, the largest bird in north America, the florida panther, the rhino, the whales, our closest relative the bonobos, the gorilla, the orangutan, and on and on and on are now EXTINCT or basically extinct in the wild. The main cause is loss of habitat, due to human expansion, corporate logging, etc., but there’s no time in “the news” for this, or if the subject of this insane human overpopulation comes up at all, they call for even more “growth”.

    I don’t watch “the news”, I seek out the truth first hand and thru independent sources, but all my relatives flood their minds with that filth daily, I have to wear earplugs literally, … and can’t help overhearing the horrible people in the media cartel spinning their deceptions. So my relatives walk around snickering about “global warming” whenever there is a snow storm in Chicago, as if they are privy to some inner secrets that many don’t have.

    While the biggest mass extinction in history goes on unnoticed.

    Comment by Tom M Culhane — March 15, 2015 @ 8:50 pm

    • You’re right that TV news is the most toxic medium which has ever existed, and like the rest of the mainstream media it’s dedicated to these Big Lie, fear-mongering, and misdirection goals.

      Just to be clear, there’s no such thing as human “overpopulation” in any absolute sense, but only relative to consumption patterns (in the case of the West and Westernization) or to artificial scarcity, in which case the problem is the artificial policy, not the population level. My latest post mentions that.

      Comment by Russ — March 16, 2015 @ 4:31 am

      • “…there’s no such thing as human “overpopulation” in any absolute sense…”

        I hate to break the news but the earth doesn’t grow new land as the human population increases. As there are more farms, grazing land, tree plantations, parking lots, roads, shopping malls, … there is less rainforest, grasslands, temperate forests, etc. Less whales, less lions, less buffalo, and on and on.

        The math is easy to do, even for those unwilling to look at satellite photos. Humans have grossly deformed the natural world by overpopulation. The other species have a right to exist, and I have a right to be healthy. Even people who have no regard for anything but themselves should consider what Native healers say, that when you harm the Earth, you harm yourself. Life is interrelated.

        Humans societies had stable populations in the past. This was not due to “high infant mortality”, actually they were much healthier and longer lived than people today. In spite of what we were taught in school, Nature actually does work very well if not disturbed. The insane overpopulation has to do with a global society totally out of synch with Nature’s laws, similar to having rats locked in a cage where they overpopulate. Overpopulation is the cornerstone of the program they having going to enslave us. It’s fueling most other major problems, and we become more and more dependent on the system to survive.

        Anthropologists have always been puzzled why sexually free societies not using any contraception have stable populations. They still haven’t figured out that there is a design to the Universe. When the connection to the Source within gets damaged by false teachings, people become vulnerable to intruders getting into their bodies, whether unwanted pregnancies or spirits.

        7 000 000 000 humans to 5 000 bonobos currently. Yet people can’t see it. The ultimate no brainer. Again the main cause of extinction is loss of habitat. Why can’t people see such an obvious thing and make the change? Again, it has to do with the fact that the human mind can be tampered with, as I’ve written about in several other comments.

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — March 16, 2015 @ 11:03 am

      • Tom, this site doesn’t regurgitate Malthusian (and implicitly racist) lies, including the sham “environmentalist” version. This is a humanist site, not a misanthropic one, and we’re not participating in the toxic circle of elitists vs. self-flagellants. Human population will stabilize at the whichever level it chooses: The level afforded by the transformation to food sovereignty and agroecology, if we choose that, which can exist prosperously in ecological accord; or perhaps a much lower quantitative and qualitative level if humanity insists on doing things the hard way by sticking with industrial ag until it collapses.

        But make no mistake. It’s industrial agriculture and similar depraved systems which drive all environmental destruction, not the population level as such. One high-maintenance Western parasite has a vastly greater impact than a dozen community farmers who live sustainably and contribute to the Earth.

        Comment by Russ — March 16, 2015 @ 11:26 am

      • “Tom, this site doesn’t regurgitate Malthusian (and implicitly racist) lies, including the sham “environmentalist” version. This is a humanist site, not a misanthropic one, and we’re not participating in the toxic circle of elitists vs. self-flagellants.”

        Does anyone know what Russ means by this bizarre statement?

        I have posted in Russ’ blog more than once that the establishment has effective ways to tamper with our minds. This bizarre response by Russ, to anyone who wishes to see, should demonstrate this. Nothing in my comment was a lie, and Russ has shown no evidence anything I said was a lie.

        Human overpopulation is a catastrophe and the most pressing problem we all face. And unlike Russ’ proposed solutions which involve creating all kinds of organizations which will presumable all work together … the population disaster can be addressed at the individual level. You don’t need the permission of any politician or group to simply do the right thing and refrain from adding to this disaster. When I was born in 1960, there were about 11 acres per person, excluding Antarctica. Today there are 5. Take out tundra and desert and that reduces it quite a bit more. When you realize that MILLIONS of other species need to live in this greenspace, you see that the human impact is unbelievable.

        I have chosen not to add to this problem. If enough others had followed suit, we could be at 20 acres per person right now, while still having had a steady stream of young people coming in, in those special cases when they should. 20 acres vs 5 acres. The Earth could be healing, the ancient forests returning, the whales returning, the pollution diminishing.

        This offends people to actual SOLVE problems. Why???

        Again, it’s because the establishment has effective ways to mess with your mind. Russ talks very intelligently about many issues, and then totally drops the ball on the most basic issue of all. As do so many others.

        And as far as his claim that human impact on the Earth is a “western” phenomenon, go look at maps of the gigantic ancient forests that used to cover this planet. India used to be 100 percent rainforest. Today it is ZERO percent rainforest. Human overpopulation wiped out that forest entirely.

        This is called insanity. For those of you that can grasp these simple facts, do not feel alone. Hold onto your sanity. Again, the explanation for why so many can’t think straight has to do with the techniques being used on humanity to disturb the functioning of our minds.

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — March 16, 2015 @ 2:06 pm

      • “Does anyone know what Russ means by this bizarre statement?”

        I do. He has discussed the issue previously, and he addresses it again in the next post, saying:

        “Today agriculture itself wants to shed the great majority of its Southern workers, while the corporate sweatshops are already at saturation. There’s nowhere on Earth where a primary corporate goal isn’t to drive the people somewhere, anywhere, just OUT. Let me stress that this has nothing to do with any alleged absolute “overpopulation”. On the contrary, there’s no chance of humanity reaching any absolute overpopulation level relative to the Earth’s resources. Overpopulation can exist only relative to per capita ecological and resource consumption and destruction, as is the case with Western lifestyles, or relative to politically chosen policy, as is the case with supply-driven corporate globalization. 100% of the social pathology, economic waste, and human misery involved in people being driven off their land is purely artificial and voluntarily chosen by Western governments and corporations (and compliant Southern governments) and forced upon the people.”

        The fact is that poverty is a feature of capitalism. According to our system, there must be thousands of poor people for every rich person, and scarcity is enforced to ensure that there are plenty of poor people. The threat of starvation has been the primary means of motivating “free labor” to work at whatever price the owners set. Malthus concocted his theory of overpopulation as a means to recast this policy as a natural consequence or inevitability.

        While the lie was not yours, your comment implicitly endorsed Malthus’ lie.

        You may want to check out Michael Perelman’s The Invention of Capitalism.

        Comment by Tao Jonesing — March 18, 2015 @ 4:02 pm

      • “…While the lie was not yours, your comment implicitly endorsed Malthus’ lie…” Tao

        Did you read a word I wrote? Read it, then go get a map of India, showing current forests, and ancient forests, and you will see 100 percent of the forest that used to cover all of India is gone.

        The contempt you and Russ have for the rest of the web of life is grotesque, and is keeping people like you (which sadly is most of humanity at the moment) cut off from the rest of the Universe. You are another perfect example of what I have written about here.

        Good luck, I really can’t read this blog further.

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — March 18, 2015 @ 6:40 pm

      • Here’s one of many maps showing the same thing, what’s happened to the forests of the Earth:

        http://www.prof2000.pt/users/mfr/test.html

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — March 18, 2015 @ 7:17 pm

      • That’s an extreme and absurd characterization, Tom. Obviously this site is dedicated to the entire diversity of life. That’s why I reject any kind of Manichean depiction of “man vs. nature”, whether it be the arrogant corporate/scientistic version or the hair-shirted (and also arrogant) primitivist version. Of course the former is infinitely more destructive, and perhaps the latter starts with its heart in the right place, but the fact is the latter gives aid and comfort to the former, both conceptually (since it agrees that humanity and nature are somehow necessarily in conflict) and politically (since it helps enemy lies about wanting people to live in caves and such).

        Comment by Russ — March 19, 2015 @ 1:17 am

      • Throw tantrums much, Tom? Your “argument” is a complete non sequitur that only proves you are motivated by the same misanthropy that motivates our capitalist system and destroys that “web of life” you pretend to care about. Nobody here said “drill, baby drill” or “clear cut all the trees and damn the owls!” All we said was that the alleged inevitability of mankind’s destruction due to overpopulation was an argument perpetrated to justify a capitalist system that exploits (reads “destroys”) the environment and vast swaths of the human population. Change the system, avoid “the inevitable.”

        It’s pretty obvious you hate people and believe you are better than everybody else. Good luck with that.

        Comment by Tao Jonesing — March 20, 2015 @ 11:39 am

      • I don’t know whose comment is more bizarre here, Tao’s or Russ’. But they are both perfect examples, to anyone paying attention, of what I have tried to show people in this blog in past comments: that the human mind can be and is being tampered with. You can’t understand “Plantation Earth” if you don’t understand this. Through mental tampering, people can be caused to talk as if they are mentally retarded.

        I post a map showing that virtually all the earth’s ancient forests have now been destroyed, and yes not just in “the west” but in places like India, due to insane human overpopulation, and look at the nutcase response Russ and Tao come up with.

        As many times as I have seen hypnosis and related mental tampering demonstrated, it still boggles my mind that people can succumb to this. Yet here we see it clear as day with these two.

        People, let me just close with this: Humans do not have the right to destroy Mother Earth and wipe out whole species due to overpopulation. As much fun as it might be to be irresponsible, as much fun as it might be to live spaced out, taking no responsibility for anything you do, believing in the most imbecilic things, like that there’s no such thing as overpopulation… the thing is, this Universe does have rules, even if not always apparent. When you violate others, you violate yourself. Good luck with your discussions here. Adios.

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — March 20, 2015 @ 12:36 pm

      • Tom,

        Your problem is you are having an entirely different conversation. Frankly, you are talking to yourself and not conversing with us at all.

        You want to talk about mankind’s propensity to destroy the environment. We don’t even disagree with you. But the notion that mankind inevitably must destroy the environment and itself through overpopulation? That we disagree with, and we rightly identify it as a misanthropic elitist position that actually supports the very policies that are actually destroying the world you pretend to care about. Your response to that observation? “But, but, but, overpopulation is destroying the environment!” Yes, Tommy, but the fact that something is true today does not mean that it always must be so, or that it has always been so. In any event, the population of mankind continues to expand and to destroy the environment, and yet we are all still here.

        Am I saying that continued expansion of the population can’t possibly destroy mankind? Not at all. I’m just saying that such an outcome is not inevitable, that policy matters.

        You see, if one believes that policy cannot change the outcome, that the outcome is inevitable, then one will choose to do nothing about changing the policy or the outcome. Congratulations, chump. You don’t even realize it, but you are a bought and paid-for house slave for “Plantation Earth.” You profess your love of Earth to mask your hatred of mankind and yourself. You really don’t care about the environment at all.

        Again, good luck with everything. I have no doubt that you will interpret everything I’ve written as lunacy, and I’m okay with that. Stay safe, and try not to hurt anyone else. Thanks.

        Comment by Tao Jonesing — March 21, 2015 @ 12:21 am

      • “You want to talk about mankind’s propensity to destroy the environment. We don’t even disagree with you. But the notion that mankind inevitably must destroy the environment and itself through overpopulation? That we disagree with, and we rightly identify it as a misanthropic elitist position that actually supports the very policies that are actually destroying the world you pretend to care about. Your response to that observation? “But, but, but,…”

        What in God’s name are you talking about???

        I never said it was inevitable that people overpopulate. I said it is irresponsible for people to overpopulate. Please read my words. Russ is counseling people to continue overpopulating. Read his words above.

        “… overpopulation is destroying the environment’ Yes, Tommy, but the fact that something is true today does not mean that it always must be so, or that it has always been so. In any event, the population of mankind continues to expand and to destroy the environment, and yet we are all still here. ”

        This shows how truly sick your mind is. No we are not all still here. You psychos have wiped out whole species. It’s mind boggling the harm people like you have done to the web of life, but in the spaced out dreamland you live in, that’s ok as long as humans survive.

        “Am I saying that continued expansion of the population can’t possibly destroy mankind? Not at all. I’m just saying that such an outcome is not inevitable, that policy matters.
        You see, if one believes that policy cannot change the outcome, that the outcome is inevitable, then one will choose to do nothing about changing the policy or the outcome. Congratulations, chump. You don’t even realize it, but you are a bought and paid-for house slave for “Plantation Earth.””

        Please check yourself into the nearest nut house. I advocate people taking responsibility, depopulating, while you and Russ are in denial and are telling people to continue on the overpopulation path, do nothing, and then you write this paragraph here???

        You are truly one of the sickest people I have encountered in this life.

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — March 21, 2015 @ 4:36 am

      • Just to correct a falsehood of Tom’s, nowhere did I counsel anything about people’s reproduction one way or another, as anyone who takes his invitation to read my words above will see. I stated the fact that any given level of population can be destructive or not depending on its ecological footprint, and that any level of population can face food scarcity or not depending on the 100% artificial policies of political and economic elites. Based upon that, I counseled Tom that the notion that “people” (implicitly, Southern brown people, never Western white people, oh no) are absolutely “overpopulated” and are therefore destroying the earth and starving themselves is a longstanding Big Lie. Today this Big Lie is being put to continued use by corporate agriculture with the “Feed the World” version of the Lie, while corporate environmentalists and other liberals at least implicitly endorse it when they pair their own high-carbon lifestyles and those of their friends, along with their pro-corporate advocacy in general, with earnest warnings about climate change and other environmental catastrophes. If their kind aren’t the ones most to blame, then who could be? We all know who – “those people”. The ones who have been “overpopulating” like crazy ever since Malthus first noticed the phenomenon.

        Comment by Russ — March 21, 2015 @ 6:19 am

      • Russ claims, “Just to correct a falsehood of Tom’s, nowhere did I counsel anything about people’s reproduction one way or another…”

        But his own words above are:

        “Human population will stabilize at the whichever level it chooses”

        and he continues to insist that there is no overpopulation with brown skinned people like in India, even after maps show the overpopulation is extreme, most of the ecosystem there has been wiped out. He even calls it a big lie?

        So what is his message to people? His message is clearly to keep going with the overpopulation, hey not a problem. That’s how most people will interpret his words. I’d call that counseling, and grossly irresponsible at that.

        Here’s more of his words;

        “On the contrary, there’s no chance of humanity reaching any absolute overpopulation level relative to the Earth’s resources.”

        Gee, great advice. To people like Russ and Tao, the Universe divides neatly into two categories, humans and resources. Hey a 2000 year old Redwood is a resource. A bottlenose dolphin, with a brain larger than yours, is a resource. Hey we can fit even more humans on the planet, golly let’s keep going.

        You know there are 50,000 species of plants in just one square mile of rainforest.

        Contrary to Russ, I acknowledge the reality of overpopulation, both in “the West” and in places like India and China, that have destroyed their natural systems with it. I’m not going to lie to people and tell them it’s a big lie, in effect encouraging this insanity to continue, anymore than I would say to people, “hey gmo use will stabilize at whatever level it chooses”.

        Comment by Tom M Culhane — March 21, 2015 @ 10:56 am

  2. I found myself laughing out loud at a report that Bill Nye has suddenly changed his mind about GMOs after visiting a Monsanto plant. How can anyone take guys like this seriously as “scientists”? He suddenly forgot about his previous concerns about the threatened extinction of Monarch butterflies, courtesy of Monsanto.

    Comment by DualPersonality — March 16, 2015 @ 2:13 am

    • Clearly they got to him. The scientism mafia is especially aggressive in trying to police group discipline and becomes especially hysterical when someone from the fraternity breaks discipline regarding cosa nostra, “Our Thing”. Of course Nye knows he was right in the first place and has now rejoined a group lie. The very fact that such thuggish pressure was put on him proves that.

      Comment by Russ — March 16, 2015 @ 4:35 am

  3. […] they lied for in the past, who today lie in support of GMOs. . The various lines of propaganda interweaving GMOs and the climate change struggle are among the typical canned lies of the GMO cartel. In the real world, industrial agriculture is […]

    Pingback by Pro-GMO Activism and Climate Change Denial | Volatility — April 19, 2015 @ 2:17 pm

  4. […] and mission of our time. . In the case of climate change we can emphasize immediately that the main driver is corporate industrial agriculture, as by far the number one emitter of greenhouse gases and destroyer of carbon sinks. Therefore an […]

    Pingback by Climate Change Requires Change of Consciousness | Volatility — July 27, 2015 @ 2:03 pm

  5. […] industrial agriculture. . At the most vile extremes of disaster capitalism, we have campaigns like chemical no-till agriculture, “clean coal”, fracked gas as a “bridge fuel”, and geoengineering. These […]

    Pingback by Anybody Want to Do Something About Climate Change? | Volatility — October 1, 2015 @ 12:22 pm

  6. […] and geoengineering should be deployed, even though neither could possibly do anything but make climate change worse while wreaking every other kind of environmental carnage. . To correct the corporate publicist who […]

    Pingback by Liberal Climate Change Denial (“the Anthropocene”) | Volatility — October 8, 2015 @ 6:39 am

  7. Meanwhile, the deliberate manipulation of the climate that has been on going in plain sight for years and years gets a free pass while you guys debate over the effects of climate change due to agriculture. Yes, there is such a thing as climate change. What most people fail to see is that it is not something that is happening. It is something that has been made to happen. Control control control. When, where and how you will grow food (and if) is dictated by the one’s that Own The Weather. Do some research and enlighten yourselves.

    Comment by dogitydog — January 31, 2016 @ 10:57 pm

    • This whole site is dedicated to the only solution to climate change and the rest of the crises. This post is dedicated specifically to the one and only way to deal with climate change. I think your reading comprehension needs a bit of improvement.

      Comment by Russ — February 1, 2016 @ 1:40 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: