[PREV - WE_DETAIL] [TOP]
WE_BIFURCATE
June 2, 2014
November 9, 2018
WE_SMART
This is a subject that has bifurcating
trails running off in all directions
(which means adding this material to
the doomfiles was long overdue)...
Krugman revisited the issue with "On the Liberal Bias of Facts",
April 18, 2014:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/on-the-liberal-bias-of-facts/
"Yes, you can find examples where *some* liberals
got off on a hobbyhorse of one kind or another, or
where the liberal conventional wisdom turned out
wrong. But you don’t see the kind of lockstep
rejection of evidence that we see over and over
again on the right. Where is the liberal
equivalent of the near-uniform conservative (He doesn't seem to
rejection of climate science, or the refusal to get how bad things
admit that Obamacare is in fact reaching a lot of are with the left on
previously uninsured Americans?" nuclear power...)
From the comments:
This immediate response from an anit-nuke guy is typical--
Is he or is he not expressing opinions that contradict the experts?
The dig against "profit-seeking corporations" is typical, too...
David Johnson
Greensboro, NC 18 April 2014
"As a liberal who is skeptical of the safety of nuclear
power and wholesale use of GMO crops I take issue with
being lumped in the same group as climate change deniers
and 'Obama birthers'. The issue with nuclear power has
more to do with the magnitude of the consequences of an
accident rather than the magnitude of the probability of
such an occurrence. Add to that the associated waste Fixed spelling
disposal problems (Yucca Mountain, Savannah River, coal on "occurrence".
ash spills in NC...) and the availability of life cycle (I'm no "sic"er.)
cost effective alternatives one can reasonably oppose
building more nuclear plants. A similar concern can be
raised about the dangers of releasing genetically
modified organisms into the environment. Discovery of a
problem with them 20 or 30 years into the future after
they have established a foothold in the flora and fauna
of the planet will be much too late. Such an event could
be much more serious a problem than boas in the FL
everglades or mussels in the Great Lakes. We do indeed
need to find a way to feed a growing planet population
but we need to proceed cautiously and not allow profit
seeking corporations to set the agenda and lead the way."
Another one that might be fodder to work with:
KJMClark
MI 18 April 2014
"On why the experiments show tribal bias both ways - the
studies are flawed. They assume that both sides have
un-nuanced views of the topics, and don't allow for
sophisticated answers. My favorite example is GMOs. The
study will point out that this or that scientific
organization has concluded that there is no evidence
that approved GMO food poses a risk to people's
health. Then it will ask if you're opposed to GMO
crops. If you say yes, you're a liberal with a tribal
bias, ignoring the evidence just like people on the
right do. But wait. What about potential damage to the
environment and herbicide and pest resistance due to the
GMO crops? Liberals might accept that those foods are
safe enough to eat, but that doesn't mean they're
benign. No scientific academy has concluded that there
are no potential dangers from GMO crops, or that those
crops are safer than, or as safe as, the
alternatives. Nope, too nuanced to fit in their study."
Joseph Brenner
San Francisco, CA 18 April 2014
If you cared about the issue of GM crops and pesticide
use you'd already have an answer to this question (GM
crops use less pesticide, if roundup resistance rears
it's head they're stuck resorting to moderate use of
conventional pesticides which include wonderful things
like arsenic). This is an excellent example of seizing
on a made-up issue to avoid confronting a need to
change your opinions...
--------
[NEXT - INFOSTRUT]