Climate Change Is Not Real Bcoz Liberals Hate GMOs

Before I started this blog, I used to comment a lot over at Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site. Phil's articles are great, and I still read them, but I mostly save my posting energy for here anymore. Phil is a climate realist, so, as I'm sure you can imagine, he gets more pseudoscience-loving denier trolls in his comment section than you can shake a hockey stick at.

If you lurk or contribute there, you very quickly see the same denier canards raised again and again. This steadfast dedication to ignoring the scientific rebuttals to these absurd talking-points can only be a sign of the troubling pervasiveness of serious mental disorders, or the fact that Phil's site has been targeted by shameless paid shills because of his modest fame and climate science advocacy.

One of the more popular shiny object distractions I noticed bandied about by climate deniers is GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, and more specifically GM crops. For some odd reason, deniers quite strongly believe that unless everyone hearts GMOs then climate science is automatically wrong, human-induced warming is not worth addressing, and all conversations involving it and its remedies must come to an immediate halt.

Not too long ago, Phil used the debate between Nye and Ham as an excuse to investigate what the Answers in Genesis (AIG) Web site had to say about global warming, and it elicited this strange retort in the comment section:

bcs89 Mar 24, 2014

bill nye is anti-science when it's convenient for his world view:

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/03/24/bill-nye-anti-gmo-guy/#.UzBKhoVWhEM

so is he for or against gmos?

If it turns out Nye is truly anti-GMO (which I doubt), it's so important it had to be brought up in a climate change discussion, because, you know, views expressed on an unrelated subject affect the scientific veracity of the topic at hand somehow magically.

Phil's post on the IPCC AR5, prompted this comment:

Roger M. Wilcox Apr 1, 2014

Here's what bugs me. If the impending climate change is going to have such a negative impact on crop production (due to droughts and whatnot), then why is the public at large so averse to the use of genetically-modified food? If we can bioengineer wheat or corn that's more drought-resistant, won't that be to our benefit?

Right, because the impact of climate change on crop production is all we need to worry about. If GMOs save our food supply from more severe droughts (which they probably won't), then (***smacks dust off hands***) problem solved. We can continue to burn fossil fuels without a care.

An analysis of Fox News' opinion on global warming brought about this contribution to the discussion:

Mark S. Apr 8, 2014

How do other networks do on scientific topics not related to climate. Like, say, GMO...

Who cares if Dr. Oz is wrong when he says acupuncture has real medical benefits, because over on channel 237 an infomercial is selling magnetic therapy wristbands, right?

Wot?

And an article on the acceleration of Antarctic ice melt produced this gem:

HAL-9000 May 20, 2014

Huh? Then what's the deal with lefties and the whole 'organic food' movement and their rabid-stupid anti-GMO antics?

Its quite pick-and-choose from the science (organic!) salad bar in lefty-land.

You might also notice my farewell comment somewhere in that discussion. :)

Even if silly GMO-trashing is mostly a "lefty" thing, the fact of the matter is liberals can line up around the block at every Whole Foods and Trader Joe's on the planet, buy all the organic produce they want till the free-range, grass-fed cows come home, and IT WON'T RAISE SEA LEVELS ONE SINGLE MILLIMETER MORE, INTENSIFY HURRICANES, OR CAUSE ADDITIONAL GLACIER MELT, FLOODS, DROUGHTS, WILDFIRES, ETC., ABOVE AND BEYOND THE PURCHASE OF EQUIVALENT AMOUNTS OF GM CROPS.

In other words, carrying on incessantly about liberals' nonsensical objections to GMOs is as pointless as their personal choice to avoid them.