Chart of the Day

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 3, 2013, 6:23 pm

This emoticon is called vv_chicken, and is CLEARLY a chocobo. I demand justice!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 3, 2013, 9:45 pm

The benefits of GM crops

Matt Ridley

Published on Saturday, October 06, 2012, updated Saturday, October 06, 2012

After 15 years, the ecological and economic dividends are big

My latest Mind and Matter column in the Wall Street Journal is on genetically modified crops:

Generally, technologies are judged on their net benefits, not on the claim that they are harmless: The good effects of, say, the automobile and aspirin outweigh their dangers. Today, arguably, adopting certain new technologies is harder not just because of a policy of precaution but because of a bias in much of the media against reporting the benefits.

Shale gas is one example, genetically modified food another, where the good news is deemed less newsworthy than the bad. A recent French study claimed that both pesticides and GM corn fed to cancer-susceptible strains of rats produced an increase in tumors. The study has come in for withering criticism from mainstream scientists for its opaque data, small samples, unsatisfactory experimental design and unconventional statistical analysis, yet it has still gained headlines world-wide. (In published responses, the authors have stood by their results.)

The French study contradicts a Japanese paper that used larger samples, longer trials and accepted experimental designs, yet received virtually no notice because it found no increase in cancer in rats fed on GM crops. This is a problem that's bedeviled GM technology from the start: Studies that find harm are shouted from the media rooftops, those that do not are ignored.

So to redress the balance, I thought I'd look up the estimated benefits of genetically modified crops. After 15 years of GM planting, there's ample opportunity-with 17 million farmers on almost 400 million acres in 29 countries on six continents-to count the gains from genetic modification of crop plants. A recent comprehensive report by Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot for a British firm, PG Economics, gives some rough numbers. (The study was funded by Monsanto, which has major operations in biotech, but the authors say the research was independent of the company and published in two peer-reviewed journals.)

The most obvious benefit is yield increase. In 2010, the report estimates, the world's corn crop was 31 million tons larger and the soybean crop 14 million tons larger than it would have been without the use of biotech crops. The direct effect on farm incomes was an increase of $14 billion, more than half of which went to farmers in developing countries (especially those growing insect-resistant cotton).

In addition, a range of non-pecuniary benefits have been recorded, from savings in fuel, time and machinery to a better health and safety record on the farm (since less pesticide is needed), shorter growing cycles and better quality of product. In India-where the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications says 88% of cotton is now genetically modified to resist pests and insecticide use has halved-bee keepers are losing fewer bees.

As this illustrates, the most striking benefits are environmental. The report calculates that a cumulative total of 965 million pounds of pesticide have not been used because of the adoption of GM crops. The biggest impacts are from insect-resistant cotton and herbicide-tolerant maize, both of which need fewer sprayings than their conventional equivalents.

The use of less fuel in farming GM crops results in less carbon-dioxide emission. In addition, herbicide-tolerant GM crops can often be grown with little or no plowing in stubble fields that are sprayed with herbicides. The result is to allow more carbon to remain in the soil, since plowing releases carbon as microbial exhalation. Taken together, Messrs. Brookes and Barfoot estimate, this means that the GM crops grown in 2010 had an effect on carbon-dioxide emissions equivalent to taking 8.6 million cars off the road.

There is a rich irony here. The rapidly growing use of shale gas in the U.S. has also driven down carbon-dioxide emissions by replacing coal in the generation of electricity. U.S. carbon emissions are falling so fast they are now back to levels last seen in the 1990s. So the two technologies most reliably and stridently opposed by the environmental movement-genetic modification and fracking-have been the two technologies that most reliably cut carbon emissions.

There's a lot of Anti GMO freaks out there. Of all the anti this or that groups, the GMO people seem to lack the most knowledge on what they oppose.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 4, 2013, 12:10 pm

One - I'm not even going to take the time to read more than the headline of what you posted, as I'm sure it's bullshit. Even if it isn't, the effects on surrounding communities; people, animals, ecosystems that are a direct cause of fracking are very bad, and very real. Second, reading of more and more studies (you know, peer reviewed research work by people who know what they're talking about, not journalists) related to the horrible health effects that so much of what we've been eating cause long term - I'm not interested in eating anything that is genetically modified, and hasn't been tested by anyone not tied to the corporation making it for longer than what, a few months to a few years?

Keep posting Team Monsanto propaganda though.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » June 4, 2013, 12:13 pm

the effects on surrounding communities; people, animals, ecosystems that are a direct cause of fracking are very bad, and very real

The community that surrounds the surrounding communities is known as the ozone, and it appreciates fewer coal emissions - made possible by fracking.

Morgrym · Post by **Morgrym** » June 4, 2013, 1:54 pm

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 4, 2013, 2:49 pm

Leonaerd wrote:
the effects on surrounding communities; people, animals, ecosystems that are a direct cause of fracking are very bad, and very real
The community that surrounds the surrounding communities is known as the ozone, and it appreciates fewer coal emissions - made possible by fracking.

At what cost? Who knows what's leaking into the water table as a result of all this and what effects that's going to have, not to mention harming people and the food we need - in many cases right in the middle of farm country. Are we just trading one thing for another? How long is it going to matter if we keep destroying and polluting everything we can get our hands on?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 4, 2013, 4:08 pm

Taking up fracking to quit coal, is like taking up dipping to quit smoking.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 4, 2013, 5:42 pm

Spang wrote:Taking up fracking to quit coal, is like taking up dipping to quit smoking.

Well technically that is an improvement for everyone around them over smoking. So I'm all for people going that route.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 4, 2013, 6:27 pm

You miss the point more than Obama misses the shot during a photo-op.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 4, 2013, 7:21 pm

Spang wrote:You miss the point more than Obama misses the shot during a photo-op.

You're dumb.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 4, 2013, 7:22 pm

No, you are.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 6, 2013, 8:47 am

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 6, 2013, 4:40 pm

words

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 12, 2013, 9:15 pm

The largest percentage Android OS was released in 2010 (gingerbread @37%) vs 93% released less than a year ago for iOS. Who do you want to develop for (before even seeing the lopsided revenue charts?)

Human Face Today

Human face in 20,000 years (slightly larger forehead)

60,000 years

100,000 years and still wearing the same t-shirts!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/human-fac ... 07969.html

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 12, 2013, 10:43 pm

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 14, 2013, 11:33 pm

Every river in the United States:

[Show]

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 17, 2013, 11:03 am

words

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 17, 2013, 3:06 pm

http://io9.com/if-bees-go-extinct-this- ... -513604512

Over the past decade, bee populations have been dropping, partly as a result of a disease called colony collapse disorder. This is very bad news for humans, because bees are a crucial part of the reproductive cycle of many of our favorite foods, including apples, onions, avocados, and more. This incredible data visualization shows what you'd lose if the world lost bees.

Whole Foods created this image (see full image below) to make an important point that many people miss in discussions about extinction. When a life form goes extinct, it can also cause knock-on extinctions in its ecosystem. Without bees to fertilize fruit and other crops, we lose many species. That's what it means to be part of an ecosystem in the first place: other life forms depend on you, just as you depend on them.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 20, 2013, 4:00 pm

Looking good there Obama!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ex_history

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 20, 2013, 4:29 pm

That graph doesn't appear to correspond with the data at your link. Obama's approval rating has been hovering at or near 50% for most of his presidency.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 20, 2013, 4:44 pm

Spang wrote:That graph doesn't appear to correspond with the data at your link. Obama's approval rating has been hovering at or near 50% for most of his presidency.

Good catch. I'll fix it later but links aren't correct.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 20, 2013, 5:28 pm

the graph is using 0 as a 50% baseline for approval ratings in order to skew the data in a negative light. that is how it is able to dip into the negative numbers; anything below 50% would dip below zero on such a useless and uninformative graph.

it is a pretty common technique for shitty conservative retard websites like Rasmussen and it does not surprise me in the slightest that an absolute fucking moron would use it in some desperate attempt to look like he has even a remote fucking clue what he's talking about. these kinds of websites, much like the republican party, rely on the stupidity of their users to exist.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 20, 2013, 5:29 pm

Winnow wrote:
Spang wrote:That graph doesn't appear to correspond with the data at your link. Obama's approval rating has been hovering at or near 50% for most of his presidency.
Good catch. I'll fix it later but links aren't correct.

Because the negative didn't give it away? If you have 100 people the lowest your approval rating could possibly be would be zero. Same principal applies even if you add more people. No wonder you're a REpublican.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 20, 2013, 7:34 pm

kyoukan wrote:the graph is using 0 as a 50% baseline

Well no fucking shit. Are you so stupid as to think less than zero people approve of Obama? At least attempt to use your brain. Take a basic statistics class. A GED isn't what it used to be. You need more than that these days even if you're just a life leeching off someone else.

The chart is still outdated though while the linked stats are accurate. Either way, more people disapprove than approve of him.

While at the same time:

Posted: 06/13/2013

By: CNN News

(CNN) - A new Gallup poll shows Americans have a favorable view of former President George W. Bush for the first time since 2005.

Of those surveyed, 49 percent of people surveyed have a positive opinion of the two-term Republican president, while 46 percent feel the opposite.

More people like George Bush than Obama!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 20, 2013, 8:12 pm

Winnow wrote: Well no fucking shit. Are you so stupid as to think less than zero people approve of Obama?

No, but it's fully apparent that you did, and now you are trying to backpedal out of it with hilarious results. Well, it would be hilarious if you didn't routinely make a total ass of yourself every time you try to look like you have a clue about politics. It would be humiliating to watch if I didn't hate people like you so fucking much. You retarded troll.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 20, 2013, 9:44 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Winnow wrote: Well no fucking shit. Are you so stupid as to think less than zero people approve of Obama?
No, but it's fully apparent that you did, and now you are trying to backpedal out of it with hilarious results. Well, it would be hilarious if you didn't routinely make a total ass of yourself every time you try to look like you have a clue about politics. It would be humiliating to watch if I didn't hate people like you so fucking much. You retarded troll.

Seriously, what in the fuck are you talking about? Trying so hard to find some sort of error I've made, you're exposing your retard factor left and right. Spang is smarter than you are. He actually compared the fucking chart to the data. This had nothing to do with less than zero. You must have thought you were a fucking genius pointing out the obvious to everyone but yourself. Hope you didn't spend too much time on that challenge! Good job there dip shit. Try and squeeze in a pedophile reference next time. So-fucking-predictable.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 21, 2013, 1:36 am

it's hilarious watching you blow a gasket and squirm around like an idiot every time I point out how stupid you are. great chart you posted.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 21, 2013, 2:32 am

Winnow wrote:I'll fix it later but links aren't correct.

Winnow wrote:The chart is still outdated though while the linked stats are accurate.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » June 21, 2013, 9:31 am

GAH Winnow and Kyoukan please just go get a room and fuck out all this aggression.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 21, 2013, 10:38 am

kyoukan wrote:it's hilarious watching you blow a gasket and squirm around like an idiot every time I point out how stupid you are. great chart you posted.

Steal more of my lines parrot!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 21, 2013, 2:10 pm

yes because I'm the one that flips out every time I fall for one of your clever insults.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 21, 2013, 3:30 pm

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 24, 2013, 2:18 am

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 24, 2013, 3:49 am

are you sure that Americans get no paid vacation or paid holidays

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 24, 2013, 11:23 am

our finding that the United States is the only country in the group that does not require employers to provide paid vacation time,

I know our average vacation and sick times sucks in general. Most Americans get sick/vacation time.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 24, 2013, 11:43 am

Depends on the job really. A lot of low paying ones do not give paid vacation time. Or paid sick time for that matter.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » June 24, 2013, 11:54 am

My company gives FTEs 10 paid vacation days / year. Scales up to 20 / year after 5 years employment. Reasonable enough for me.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 24, 2013, 12:00 pm

It's probably not considered a "low paying job" either.

The point is it's not a requirement. It's simply a benefit that the job may or may not offer.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 24, 2013, 12:14 pm

Yeah, I get 3 weeks paid vacation and unlimited paid sick time to start for my job. I certainly can't complain.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 24, 2013, 1:20 pm

5 weeks paid vacation but that's because I work the drive-thru. If I was still working the fries it'd be 4 weeks.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 24, 2013, 2:06 pm

kyoukan wrote:are you sure that Americans get no paid vacation or paid holidays

There's no federal law in the United States requiring paid vacation/holidays.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 24, 2013, 2:16 pm

that's fucked up.

paid sick days are not a law in Canada but vacation is. even in jobs that you are not allowed to take vacation they have to pay you a gross percentage of your wage to compensate.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » June 24, 2013, 2:43 pm

unlimited paid sick time

daaaym

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 2, 2013, 6:16 pm

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 2, 2013, 6:38 pm

so teach minorities how to read and maybe someone will write books about them.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 2, 2013, 7:52 pm

Ola Amigos! Babies everywhere!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 3, 2013, 1:02 am

That graph is best case scenario, for the white people.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 3, 2013, 1:27 am

That's why we need a border wall!