General Discussion

womanofthehills

(9,326 posts)

135. HuckleB's "scientific process" links always written by MONSANTO SHILLS

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:50 PM

Jun 2016

You posted 2 articles written by Keith Kloor on another GMO thread today. Keith openly says he is in bed with Monsanto. You also posted a link from a Monsanto lobbyist on the same thread. You are on a Democratic site and all you post are links from Monsanto shills.

MONSANTO CHEERLEADER Keith Kloor

MONSANTO CHEERLEADER Heather Hanson

Than You posted a HUGE link from "Washington Friends of Farms and Forrests" -who only has 200 members - Monsanto being a member. run by another Monsanto shill - Heather Hanson -
She’s a contract lobbyist from the William Ruckelshaus Center at WSU10. And, William Ruckelshaus11 was a board member for — you guessed it — Monsanto...

From Heather Hansons Linkedin's page "Well known and respected in Washington State. The “go to” lobbyist on agricultural issues. Also experienced in media relations and grassroots development.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

246 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural [View all] Vote2016 Jun 2016 OP

Here we go..... Coventina Jun 2016 #1

This article has about 100 links to different peer-reviewed research papers at the end. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #2

Your article is about whether GMOs are safe. I'm not saying they are safe or unsafe. I'm saying that Vote2016 Jun 2016 #8

GMOs don't promote any of that. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #18

Soy beans and wheat are raised from last years crop hankthecrank Jun 2016 #20

No farmer I know (and I know dozens) uses last year's soy or wheat for seed NickB79 Jun 2016 #71

It is not that easy to save soybean and wheat for field size production. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #92

Farmers who farmed for living did plant from last year crop hankthecrank Jun 2016 #120

The Need to Save Seeds is a Bad Sign HuckleB Jun 2016 #122

Also in your words (self fertile ) hankthecrank Jun 2016 #126

You just responded to your own post. HuckleB Jun 2016 #127

Well soybeans wheat and oats are self fertile. That is a fact. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #129

So how was Monsanto able to win court hankthecrank Jun 2016 #132

You are mixing up a couple of issues. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #148

bribes larkrake Jun 2016 #178

Now you're (mistakenly) talking about Terminator seed technology NickB79 Jun 2016 #180

Key word being "did." Not so much anymore. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #130

I still talk to the guys I worked for hankthecrank Jun 2016 #133

If all a farmer cares about in his seedstock is germination, he's a piss-poor farmer NickB79 Jun 2016 #177

the skeptical raptor - you have to be KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! womanofthehills Jun 2016 #186

I notice you left off the link to where you pulled this bullshit from. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #202

RED ALERT: Calling all corporate apologists Scientific Jun 2016 #3

RED ALERT: Calling all conspiracy theorists GaYellowDawg Jun 2016 #5

Would you be more comfortable with the label "Monsanto apologist"? It's a little more precise. Vote2016 Jun 2016 #9

Would you be comfortable with the term "circumstantial ad hominem"? GaYellowDawg Jun 2016 #11

Would you be more comfortable with "charlatan". It's a little more precise. Major Nikon Jun 2016 #21

GMO haters Corporate666 Jun 2016 #236

A switch to ecological farming will benefit health and environment – report JohnyCanuck Jun 2016 #4

Bingo. If we can't do this, all our bitching about GM/non-GM are for nothing NickB79 Jun 2016 #74

Agreed. The GMO problem is about Monsanto and others monopolizing agribusiness at the expense of Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #6

It seems suspicious that there is so much "pro-GMO" astroturf Vote2016 Jun 2016 #17

Even more suspicious is the missing element of reality in the anti-GMO astroturf Major Nikon Jun 2016 #22

What does that even mean? Monsanto has a financial interest in creating an agribusiness monopoly and Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #28

Good question Major Nikon Jun 2016 #36

The strawman argument. basselope Jun 2016 #83

Strawman doesn't mean what you think it means Major Nikon Jun 2016 #150

Actually, it does. basselope Jun 2016 #159

You stole my line! Major Nikon Jun 2016 #163

Thank you for proving my point. basselope Jun 2016 #165

"Because some people who believe in A, also believe in B, A has no validity." Major Nikon Jun 2016 #167

LOL. basselope Jun 2016 #169

I see where you fucked up Major Nikon Jun 2016 #172

Are you dizzy with the spin? basselope Jun 2016 #173

How is anything so full of shit able to withstand without bursting? GMO is a legal calamity visited Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #86

You might understand the law, but you don't understand the first thing about the scientific process. HuckleB Jun 2016 #128

HuckleB's "scientific process" links always written by MONSANTO SHILLS womanofthehills Jun 2016 #135

And more fictions from the fantasy gallery. HuckleB Jun 2016 #139

He's your guy - Keith Kloor - He DEFINITELY IS NOT KOOL womanofthehills Jun 2016 #187

I'm not even convinced of that much Major Nikon Jun 2016 #153

Indeed. HuckleB Jun 2016 #155

Wannabe Monsanto shill sounds like a possible career choice womanofthehills Jun 2016 #191

Which organic industry front pays you? HuckleB Jun 2016 #203

You realize Monsanto won that case, yes? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #151

One name - Clarence Thomas womanofthehills Jun 2016 #192

Five names - Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Stevens Major Nikon Jun 2016 #197

The anti-GMO community winning the public relations war womanofthehills Jun 2016 #190

Scientists promoting science. Who woulda thunkit? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #198

Monsanto and Dow are funding all the bullshit misinformation womanofthehills Jun 2016 #231

Great job of reading the question that was actually asked Major Nikon Jun 2016 #239

You mean from "skeptics" who have never seen a corporate press release worth "questioning?" villager Jun 2016 #226

What exactly has Monsanto monopolized? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #39

farming, chemical weapons- I assume what has it monopolized historically larkrake Jun 2016 #179

Monsanto doesn't farm anything, so zero market share hardly makes a monopoly Major Nikon Jun 2016 #182

They made and patented dioxin, actually and their GMO product has harmed many many farmers larkrake Jun 2016 #183

Try harder to post something relevant Major Nikon Jun 2016 #184

Easy to say from a comfy western nation... TipTok Jun 2016 #7

"The whole starvation thing" gets a whole lot worse truebluegreen Jun 2016 #10

Who suggested they were doing it for humanity? TipTok Jun 2016 #12

We have the capacity now. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #13

this ^ Vote2016 Jun 2016 #16

So much for growing it locally, according to you. HuckleB Jun 2016 #45

Did you miss my comments about the downside truebluegreen Jun 2016 #50

No, I'm not. HuckleB Jun 2016 #51

speaking of Africa - $900 to eat a GMO Bill Gates banana womanofthehills Jun 2016 #188

Woo Major Nikon Jun 2016 #23

Bt-COTTON. Tasty! Woo yourself. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #25

Not much need with all the woo freely available here Major Nikon Jun 2016 #26

Has Monsanto patented the term "woo"? lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #54

As have a lot of grandmas cultivating new rose variatles Major Nikon Jun 2016 #68

Grandma can't patent a DNA sequence unless she has a PCR machine in the basement. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #70

Plant patent laws existed before anyone knew what DNA was Major Nikon Jun 2016 #72

Plant patent is not a DNA patent per se, for the reason you yourself admit. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #73

Sure, we should just go back to using methods far less precice and more ambiguous Major Nikon Jun 2016 #77

If Monsanto didn't think DNA is powerful, they wouldn't spend billions on shuffling it. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #78

You stole my line! Major Nikon Jun 2016 #80

OMG you don't think I'm that gullible right? lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #81

No, I'm sure of it Major Nikon Jun 2016 #82

Off to the ignore-bin. It's cruel to fight with an unarmed opponent and I won't do it any more. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #87

You lost, again. HuckleB Jun 2016 #91

Oh that really hurts! Major Nikon Jun 2016 #152

I do, and you just proved it. HuckleB Jun 2016 #85

You are pushing a fiction and you know it. HuckleB Jun 2016 #46

You could make the same argument about any private monopoly. Often people need the product which a Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #14

GMOs and monopolies are separate issues... TipTok Jun 2016 #15

GMO crop systems do not increase output GreatGazoo Jun 2016 #19

Yeah, "rapidly" over 40 years Major Nikon Jun 2016 #24

Less than that. Monsanto introduced Round-up Ready seeds in '97. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #27

What's with all the pro-GMO stuff? You'd think this was CorporateMonopolist Underground. Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #29

Or WooUnderground Major Nikon Jun 2016 #32

It's a mystery to me. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #33

It's unbelievable - it's the troll DU Monsanto lovers - womanofthehills Jun 2016 #43

I'm sorry, why do you think science is bad? HuckleB Jun 2016 #47

Science is good but the tobacco companies misled with a false veneer of science just as you mislead Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #88

Newsflash: It's the anti-GMOers who are practicing tobacco science. HuckleB Jun 2016 #89

You are wrong and you know you are wrong. My anti-GMO views are based on the ill effect it has on Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #93

LOL! Not even close. HuckleB Jun 2016 #94

You keep posting arguments that GMOs are "safe." I'm not saying GMOs are unsafe. GMOs illegally Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #97

You keep ignoring the reality that GMOs do no such thing. HuckleB Jun 2016 #98

Compare the markets that ban GMOs with the markets that ban non-GMO patented seeds. Oh, wait, there Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #99

You're digging your hole deeper and deeper. HuckleB Jun 2016 #106

So you compare tobacco to GMO, then freely admit the issues are completely different Major Nikon Jun 2016 #156

HuckleB above link by Marc Brazeau - pro GMO shill womanofthehills Jun 2016 #232

Marc Brazeau is a life-long progressive and labor activist who cares about science. HuckleB Jun 2016 #241

All the "science" you quote is from shills womanofthehills Jun 2016 #136

Your fantasies are rather sad. HuckleB Jun 2016 #140

This is who you always quote - your beloved Keith Kloor womanofthehills Jun 2016 #143

Aww. That's cute. HuckleB Jun 2016 #147

Keith Kloor admits he is a shill - what can I say - you love the guy! womanofthehills Jun 2016 #228

Monsanto shill science womanofthehills Jun 2016 #138

One fantasy troll post wasn't enough? HuckleB Jun 2016 #141

Sometimes, there’s a fine line between the rats and the scientists. womanofthehills Jun 2016 #142

Your fictions are many. HuckleB Jun 2016 #146

Yea - I smell a lot of rats in your "science" womanofthehills Jun 2016 #189

Sure, you just promote crank magnets like Michel Chossudovsky and Mae-Wan Ho Major Nikon Jun 2016 #199

More than that Major Nikon Jun 2016 #31

I was talking about Round-up Ready crops, truebluegreen Jun 2016 #34

The post I replied to was talking about Roundup Major Nikon Jun 2016 #37

My post you replied to was talking about Round-up Ready and '97 truebluegreen Jun 2016 #40

You are correct, that post was a non sequitur Major Nikon Jun 2016 #41

bockbocbockbockBock truebluegreen Jun 2016 #42

Most of your arguments can be applied to non-GMO, hybrid seeds as well NickB79 Jun 2016 #30

^^This^^ truebluegreen Jun 2016 #35

The talking point goes something like this Major Nikon Jun 2016 #38

Ignore the evidence base, because people who go with scientific consensus are "curious." HuckleB Jun 2016 #44

The Precautionary Principle and GM crops JohnyCanuck Jun 2016 #48

Seralini Rule Major Nikon Jun 2016 #49

Actually the courts have overthrown the BS attacks on Seralini. He was right. Scientific Jun 2016 #101

Are you referring to an Italian court? HuckleB Jun 2016 #107

Bullshit Major Nikon Jun 2016 #108

Skeptico blogs - give me a break - no one even signs the articles womanofthehills Jun 2016 #229

I get that someone who believes in homeoquackery doesn't have much use for things like facts Major Nikon Jun 2016 #238

Umm. Sheesh. HuckleB Jun 2016 #52

Good luck here! lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #53

What's up with that? Vote2016 Jun 2016 #55

No one cares about Monsanto. HuckleB Jun 2016 #56

I'm not debating the science. It is an intellectual property scam, and the labelling issue is a Vote2016 Jun 2016 #64

All types of seeds are patented, not just GMOs. HuckleB Jun 2016 #65

HuckleB posting Skeptical Raptor - Internet shill - links again womanofthehills Jun 2016 #227

You love Monsanto - all your posts are from Monsanto shills womanofthehills Jun 2016 #230

All I can tell you is my experience has been stunningly negative. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #57

The passive-aggressive shill gambit! HuckleB Jun 2016 #58

It almost seems that way, but why would anyone not being paid respond so swiftly defending Monsanto Vote2016 Jun 2016 #59

Yes, surely that must be it - a bright, shiny future. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #60

No one is defending Monsanto. HuckleB Jun 2016 #61

Not ok with who? Your boss? Vote2016 Jun 2016 #62

Not ok with anyone who cares about honesty and ethics. HuckleB Jun 2016 #63

Cool website. It's on the internet. It does not excuse the genetic piracy from pollen drift or Vote2016 Jun 2016 #66

You don't appear to know much about pollen drift. HuckleB Jun 2016 #67

Author of your above link on organic farming - Pamela Ronald - "SCIENTIFIC" research questioned womanofthehills Jun 2016 #194

Kinda funny how they question Ronald's reputation Major Nikon Jun 2016 #200

Pamela Ronald is an honorable scientist. HuckleB Jun 2016 #242

it's the same shiny vision from Wired or the nuclear industry MisterP Jun 2016 #245

Bzzt. Wrong answer. HuckleB Jun 2016 #246

queue the anti-science pro-gmo people. basselope Jun 2016 #69

Sure, because they are the ones channeling Mike Adams, Mercola, Food Babe, ... Major Nikon Jun 2016 #75

Thanks for proving the point so well. basselope Jun 2016 #76

Sure, because pointing out other's use of pseudoscience is so anti-science Major Nikon Jun 2016 #79

Its called a false equivalence. basselope Jun 2016 #84

False equivalence doesn't mean what you think it means Major Nikon Jun 2016 #154

Don't really care what you do. basselope Jun 2016 #160

Your refusal to provide any relevant examples of your assertion is telling all on it's own Major Nikon Jun 2016 #162

I did several times. basselope Jun 2016 #164

Where? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #166

In this very thread. basselope Jun 2016 #168

Where? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #170

In this very thread. basselope Jun 2016 #171

Do I really need to be that specific, or are you just being obtuse? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #174

Thought you were "done". basselope Jun 2016 #175

I was with that leg of the thread Major Nikon Jun 2016 #176

Use your eyes. basselope Jun 2016 #181

The problem is that the focus of the anti-gmo people is very broad... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #90

Not really. basselope Jun 2016 #96

What studies? n/t Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #102

Oh, I don't know.. pick any one of the thousands. basselope Jun 2016 #109

Can you link to any one of those studies? In addition, the WHO may end up reversing its decision... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #111

Yes basselope Jun 2016 #113

The first link didn't attempt to separate out whether it was glyphosate... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #114

As I suspected. basselope Jun 2016 #115

What are you babbling on about? Now you are just making shit up. Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #117

LOL. Read your post. basselope Jun 2016 #121

I said none of those things, you are just making things up, for what reason I don't know... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #123

LOL. Wow. That's some crazy spin you got going on. basselope Jun 2016 #144

What spin? I literally pointed out a shortcoming of the first paper that was pointed out... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #157

And then you make stuff up? basselope Jun 2016 #161

Let's not forget - glyphosate is only 40 per cent of Roundup womanofthehills Jun 2016 #233

You might want to clarify the difference between the IARC and the full WHO. HuckleB Jun 2016 #112

Good point, but it appears this poster isn't interested in honest discussion. Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #118

I know. HuckleB Jun 2016 #119

OK. Show us some science to back up what ever you're implying. progressoid Jun 2016 #100

Posted lists too many times... basselope Jun 2016 #110

You do understand the difference between individual, cherry picked studies, and consensus, right? HuckleB Jun 2016 #116

Now you are posting articles by David Gorsky who blogged as a woman womanofthehills Jun 2016 #234

All you can do is attack people, but you can't support your claims. HuckleB Jun 2016 #243

OK. progressoid Jun 2016 #124

I love science too. basselope Jun 2016 #145

Sure, wiggle words. progressoid Jun 2016 #149

So by all means, let's keep adding them. basselope Jun 2016 #158

Show us the data where cancer rates are higher due to GMOs. progressoid Jun 2016 #193

WHO Publishes Full Probable Human Carcinogen Report on Glyphosate womanofthehills Jun 2016 #195

that basselope Jun 2016 #196

That, progressoid Jun 2016 #207

Dietary exposure to glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer, U.N. report says progressoid Jun 2016 #206

Non definitive. basselope Jun 2016 #208

It is definitive. As defined through the EPA's rating system. progressoid Jun 2016 #209

Not definitive. basselope Jun 2016 #210

Yeah, still waiting for you to do that too. progressoid Jun 2016 #211

Already did. basselope Jun 2016 #213

My mistake. progressoid Jun 2016 #218

Your apology is accepted. basselope Jun 2016 #225

I didn't apologize. progressoid Jun 2016 #237

Yes you did. And I accepted it. basselope Jun 2016 #244

Sweet Jebus, is this really the best reply you could come up with? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #212

Facts are good like that. basselope Jun 2016 #214

No, sometimes mentioning them are simply moronic Major Nikon Jun 2016 #215

Yes. Many are safe. basselope Jun 2016 #216

I asked you to name just one substance that fufills your requirement Major Nikon Jun 2016 #217

And I answered. basselope Jun 2016 #219

This shit again? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #220

Your apology is accepted. basselope Jun 2016 #222

Strange, namecalling is so unlike you Major Nikon Jun 2016 #224

Where are all these lists? HuckleB Jun 2016 #125

It's a fool's errand asking that one to prove any claim he's made. Major Nikon Jun 2016 #221

So okay then, what do we do about the other thousand or so conglomerates that run the planet? Rex Jun 2016 #95

Your view is "we've been abused by Goldman Sachs and Haliburton so why complain about Monsanto?" Vote2016 Jun 2016 #131

No my view is why does it take this long? Why no out cry decades ago? Rex Jun 2016 #134

But they make some rich people richer and that's the most important thing in the world. valerief Jun 2016 #103

It's fun to be passionate. But you need to actually be right. Bonx Jun 2016 #104

Or have at least a basic plan and ambition to change everything. Rex Jun 2016 #137

No surprise that the last link doesn't even mention how GMO's saved the papya crops in Hawaii progressoid Jun 2016 #105

GMOs suck the life out of life! Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #185

Did anyone notice the articles cited in OP are not science related? pediatricmedic Jun 2016 #201

This was really just a drive-by thread from another thread anyway Major Nikon Jun 2016 #204

Sociology is a 'science', but..... CanSocDem Jun 2016 #205

Sociology isn't a hard science Major Nikon Jun 2016 #223

Did anyone notice the links cited by the pro-gmo Monsanto people womanofthehills Jun 2016 #235

Crazy is the OP's linkapalooza Bonx Jun 2016 #240