I can’t agree more. As a professional Engineer, i see scientists as a necessary evil, but engineers as the wealth producers.

Wrong -- government at work.

Nicely put. I am perfectly willing to "let them pursue their passion for research" but I do resent being forced to pay for it.

The problem with much of the scientific testimony is that with the UN, they perpetuated a fraud. Now many of the scientists are hard to trust. Kinda like CBS news and Dan Rather.

The problem is that a bunch of people are trying to make Monsanto into a monster that it is not. The lawsuit by the environmental groups was BS, they did not have standing, they wanted to sue on over what they thought might happen.

The farmers, who are a bunch of free loaders, have no respect for property rights. The PR campaign is outrageous - and typical socialist propaganda.

As I grew up, it was always a matter of science vs the great unwashed. Beliefs of the general public seemed to hinge on superstition, bad information, and religious zealotry. Over the course of the next 50 years or so, everything reversed itself and we have science often embracing downright lies, which in many cases, throws a web of suspicion on scientific breakthroughs.

interesting article. the operative word is opinion, and everyone has one just like _______. fill in the blank.
my opinion is some of the people who are considered as part of the public and some of the people who are in the scientific work place know something of what ever. most of the people in both areas know very little and that is because they don't care.

Many times the people reporting non-technical, so they don't understand the science. Then someone else is responsible for the title. They'll take something happening on subatomic level and make a macroscopic sci-fi analogy: "Researchers Working on Star Trek Transporter"

Yes. I am an engineer. I have few strong opinions and I welcome being proven wrong. Frankly, I am very disappointed at what passes for science in America today. The general public relies on the news media and alternative media for their science knowledge and it's wrong probably half the time. I almost wonder if it's on purpose...

I don't know about the actual number law suits, there were some . But at the local level the farmers believe they will be sued.

From Monsanto.com
"This is a relatively rare circumstance, with 145 lawsuits filed since 1997 in the United States. This averages about 11 per year for the past 13 years. To date, only 9 cases have gone through full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor."

Canadian Supreme court: “In 2012-2013, two separate courts acknowledged that Monsanto has not taken any action – or even suggested taking any action – against organic growers because of cross-pollination.”
Problem is, Monsanto owns the courts.

Bill, HR 933 - “Monsanto Protection Act" which effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified or engineered seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future didn’t spontaneously materialize, Monsanto was behind it. What does that say about benign Monsanto motives?

I'm not convinced that women voting was a good idea. They've brought us a whole century of nanny-statism, beginning with alcohol prohibition, that we'd never have had without women voting.

Reason did a good piece some years ago about a weather scientist who got blackballed by EPA and his career destroyed for suggesting that acidity in lakes might be a result of acid soil rather than acid rain. Now Mann and his friends wield the same power and use it against anyone who tries to expose his fraud.

Come back down to Melbourne, FL. The high today is 71.

That is part of my problem in working with government contractors in the defense business, although that is certainly more ethical than working directly with the government.

Feeling more like the 70s weather every day. (Today I'd be happy with 70s.)

50% of doctors would resemble that remark.

and profitable ;^)

lol

Agreed.

Nuclear power pound for pound is the most dense source of energy presently viable. They have a massive research station not far from where I live working on better technology for reactors that far outstrips anything in production today as far as waste production (see the INL). I have no doubt that some day we will even harness fusion. In the meantime, there is also the very real possibility of a solar satellite that beams energy collected from orbiting, geosynchronous satellites to terrestrial receiving stations. The University of Hawaii was the last ones I knew of doing viability testing and they had successfully transmitted and received energy through 23 miles of atmosphere (though their research was all terrestrially-based).

+1. Well said.

Hearkening back to the 70's, are you?

+1. In today's day, I can't trust in the objectivity of most scientists. The biggest clue I have is whether or not they are government-funded. If they are, my BS-meter automatically starts going crazy.

But the inclusion of global warming in the survey reminds us that scientific fact is often just opinion itself. Pre-Clovis settlement of the New World is the most recent overturn of accepted (and hotly defended) scientific fact, but the folks on this forum can cite examples going back a century or more.

Jan