I can make it this year my first:)
so I am look forward to your public evisceration Friday night. I think I signed up for one or your Friday sessions I am following track 2. Anyways, will see you around, buy some swag etc. Looking forward to it.
I want to get my Paul Offit book signed if I can.
I will also be going to the SGU private show. I also signed up in 2012, but they canceled by ticket due to overbooking, apparently.
I am going solo since 2 people I know had to cancel their trip due to work.
locutusbrg – It would be nice to meet someone who frequents this blog. I have not met anyone here (except for Steve back in 2012 NECSS)
I do wonder what some of the commenters here look like. I assume that everone creates a mental image of others, taking into account their writing, their name/username, and little facts they have acquired over time. I’m sure that such images are way, way off.
Like… would I be able to tell BJ7 from Sonic just be looking at ‘em?
I don’t believe that Marty Mesh vs. Kevin Folta is much of a GMO debate. At least not the science of GMO. It will perhaps be a good debate on the industries of organic vs. non-organic.
What makes you think there will be no science involved? Generally, pro vs. anti debates ARE science vs. misinformation debates, where the science falls squarely on the pro side and the misinformation on the anti side. Framing a GMO debate around organic isn’t a GMO debate, now is it? I’d like to see your rationale on this. It’s understood that anti’s do like to promote organic as the default alternative to GMOs, which is, in reality, a false dilemma. However, considering that organic is for the most part non-GMO, anti’s are the ones who bring it up.
I’m curious too about why skeptics would be interested in a “debate” on GMOs. The facts are the facts, aren’t they?
It’s so ironic how the ideologically inclined activists make statements where they are apparently unaware of the irony they are proposing, which was apparent back on the conspiracy theory thread when you were speaking about conspiracy theorists as if they were an entity exclusive of yourself. Anyway, the reason why GMOs would come up as a topic for skeptics is that it’s a prime example of how faulty and fallacious thinking so often informs and pervades society. It would be no different than choosing, say, creationism to discuss in relation to evolution, or climate change. Furthermore, there is clearly a great need to continue to correct the constant stream of misinformation propagated by anti-GMO activists, to better prepare skeptics. Furthermore, it’s at the core of skepticism to base conclusions on the best information possible, which means attaining the best evidence possible – considering the glut of misinformation, it’s in the best interest of any skeptic to get as much accurate, reliable, and high quality information as possible.
Rez, once again, you misinterpret my comments. And for some reason unknown to me, you wish to paint me as anti-GMO. I understand that for YOU, the facts are NOT the facts – so i can understand your interest in a “GMO debate”. However, if you hope to thereby learn “…to get as much accurate, reliable, and high quality information as possible.” you don’t make a good case for Marty Mesh v. Kevin Folta as a “science of GMO” debate. And again, you don’t explain how GMO science is open to debate.
You are a reliable source on how to debate GMOs without resorting to facts.
I was at the “debate” and it was a bit of a disappointment. Marty Mesh was out of league, in terms of having relevant GMO related arguments. It is clear that he is not skilled in debate, but that was not the main problem – he is not knowledgeable when it comes to the science of GMO (he admitted this several times during the debate). So, if he does not feel knowledgeable enough about the science of GMO technology to discuss those points- why was he there to debate the topic then?
His main initial points were anticorporate ones, pointing to the problems of large corporations. There are legitimate concerns with a market dominated by a few large corporations, of course, but this is not specific to GMO technology and is a peripheral topic. His other main point was the “not enough long term evidence” argument. Yet when pressed to give some idea of what evidence would be sufficient, or how he would handle GMO technology, he had zero ideas to put forth, and referenced that he was ‘not a scientist’ nor regulator. With that in mind, why is he so opinionate on the topic?
Overall, it was a friendly and reasonable discussion, but a good debate it was not. I really wanted to see a rigorous debate, but this was very one-sided (it did get a little better after the initial arguments, which Mesh rushed through staring at his notes). I give Marty Mesh credit for showing up and he was friendly, but thats about all I can say that is positive for him.
BTW, Johnny -there was a camera, and there was a note saying that videos will be posted to Youtube at some point. I don’t know any details beyond that.
NECSS was very good overall, but the GMO one wasn’t among my favorites. It is a great topic, so they definitely should revisit the topic with a larger panel perhaps.