I love, love,
LOVE me some
Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (SGU) podcast. Along with a regimen of other
science/skeptic/atheist podcasts, it makes it onto my MP3 player every week, and I look forward to it reducing the mind-numbing monotony of errands/chores/shopping/walking to the gym/etc. Yup, you got it, I'm a dork, and, obviously, a big fan of SGU (maybe that's redundant).
So, while doing some yard work a few days ago with ye ole earphones stuck in my head, I cringed
jeeeeyust a little bit while listening to this part of
last week's show:
Now, I, like Novella, wish to tread
very carefully here. He is
clearly not a climate change denier, and I am
not an anti-GMO crackpot. That being said, GMO food and the science behind its safety have only been around for
a few decades. Science which establishes the inarguable role of human emissions in our changing climate, on the other hand, has been around for
well over a century. I know Novella was only expressing
his opinion, not some precise quantitative measurement that he made in the lab, or something, and I know he probably likes to research/read about GMOs more than global warming, unlike me, but the idea that 30 years or so of findings behind something that hit the grocery shelves only 20 years ago can compare, and even outshine, the veracity of the century-old physics and science underpinning man-made global warming does not sit well with me.
Again, this is not to say that GMOs are in fact dangerous to us; it is only to establish the equally-solid footing, in my opinion, that
both areas of study share. And if one
could be said to possess a stronger and sturdier set of scientific "legs" under it, it would have to be anthropogenic global warming, because it has stood the test of time for much longer. If I were forced to list the three scientific fields mentioned in the episode excerpt above from greatest to least reliability of evidence, it would be evolution first, man-made climate change second, and GMO safety last, though, once again, I wish to stress they are
all pretty much inarguable at this point.
Here's where I extract some quotes from the excerpt and probably really come across as a nitpicking churl...
"I actually think our evidence for the safety of GMO is more robust than our, you know, models about climate change...There are degrees of robustness; I think, like, the notion that evolution happened is far and away the most robust scientific conclusion that's out there."
Honestly, I think Novella just misspoke in the first part of this quote here. I don't think, or at least I hope it's not the case, that he is falling for the classic denier false dichotomy which ignorantly compares the
predictive capacity of climate models to the core findings in other fields. This is comparing apples to oranges. If you want to compare robustness between fields, you have to compare the
science to the
science, not the
models to the
science, so a fairer comparison would be the contrasting of research which has all but eliminated natural causes being behind the observed modern warming against the evidence for GMO safety. Would Dr. Novella find it fair if I compared the accuracy of models in his own field that
attempt to simulate neural networks and the brain to the body of work in another research discipline, and then say the robustness of neuroscience is inferior to those other discoveries because the simulations are far from exact? Another way of stating this, while addressing the second part of the quote, would be to challenge someone to make computer models that predict what animals will look like hundreds, or thousands, or even millions of years from now. G'head. What? Your
evolutionary biology is not strong enough to manufacture precise model outcomes? Frogs
won't stand upright in 124,997 CE like your models indicate?
"Even the IPCC is saying 95%. Yeah, that's pretty good, but 95% is 95%, whereas evolution is like 99.9999... whatever percent that that's the explanation for the diversity of life."
This one's easy. Technically, the IPCC said 95%
or greater. Leaving that last part out fails to accept that its conclusion allows for, but does not guarantee, "99.9999... whatever percent." Also, I think if he researches climate change science as fastidiously as he does GMOs, he will soon come to the realization that
IPCC declarations of any kind regarding climate change are conservative to a fault.
From the Real Climate link (bold text to distinguish it from Novella's quotes):
"That the IPCC often needs to correct itself 'upward' is an illustration of the fact that it tends to produce very cautious and conservative statements, due to its consensus structure – the IPCC statements form a kind of lowest common denominator on which many researchers can agree."
When you get away from the IPCC and start looking around the climatology field itself, you find out quite quickly that it is more like
a "99.9999... whatever percent" consensus anymore.
However, as Novella rightly points out by specifically referencing
this GMO crop study and bringing up
the larger body of scientific work which all but absolves them of causing any serious or significant side effects in humans and livestock, we need not fear their consumption. My main issue with GMOs is that their proponents are as determined to
exaggerate their benefits for "saving humanity" and the potency of the "greenies-gone-wild" war against them, as opponents like Jeffrey Smith are to play up
imaginary health impacts. Sure, that's not the fault of the GMO industry, but I think it provides some necessary perspective.
Reinforcing the idea that GMOs receive
way too much credit, I would even go so far as to say that they owe the lion's share of their success to the impressive efficacy of the newest generation of
neonicotinoid insecticides that are commonly used in conjunction with them. At the risk of getting my atheist membership card revoked, these newer insecticides were a, well, godsend. We desperately needed something effective at killing pests without poisoning vertebrates, which was one of the unfortunate side effects of
organochlorides (DDT),
organophosphates, and
carbamates. Presto, right about the time GMOs were being perfected/patented, along came neonicotinoids which had little or no toxicity in higher vertebrates, but sure as heck did a number on pesky, parasitic invertebrates.
Oops. Turns out, maybe they do
too good a job, and maybe it's fair to make GMO crops
share some of the blame, because, again, they owe a great deal of thanks for their success to neonicotinoids, if you ask me, but that discussion, dear blog readers, does not change what was stated above (in a vacuum, and by themselves, it can rightfully be argued GMOs
are safe...that is, if neonicotinoids and their dangers are ultimately eliminated, you can bet your booty GMOs will still remain in use), and is maybe for another time...
And thanks, SGU, for all the awesome podcasts! Continue to make like a buh-zillion more, please! I would like to remind all five of my readers that
SGU is still being sued for no good reason. If you care at all about free speech and the ability to criticize charlatans without legal repercussions, you can help out
here.
/nitpick
