| Is that as accurate as how the polar ice
| caps are going to melt, and the ocean
| will be about 400 feet inland from where
| it was in 1975?
|

You'll never know if you just filter the news for
what you want to hear. Why not read it
yourself and think for yourself? The author
is controversial. She's actually an MIT computer
scientist with minor biology background who
simply reads studies and assesses them.

It's hard to tell whether her work is valid,
partly because it would require a lot of work.
I came across a paper she wrote on statins
but didn't know what to make of it. There's
just too much technical terminology that I don't
understand. She seems to be writing something
like a commentary to the people in the field.
Many of her peers seem to reject her work.
Then again, they would. Anyone coming up
with new theories who doesn't have a place
in the established hierarchy is bound to be
shouted down. (For that matter, *anyone* coming
up with a new theory, even if they are part of
the hierarchy, is likely to be shouted down.)

On the other hand, I found an interview of her
on alternet.org. She's not boastful and does not
misrepresent herself. She doesn't come across
as a quack. (She's not making far out, untestable,
New Age claims, like saying that she can send
dead people to Heaven by baptizing them "in
absentia", or that she got The Ten Commandments
"two point oh" from an Italian angel whom she met
in her backyard. She's only saying she thinks GMOs
are related to rising autism rates.

Anyway, how do you know the polar ice caps
are *not* going to melt? There are fossil forests
under the snow in Antarctica and the midwest
is thought to have once been an inland sea. Isn't
it possible that there's some truth in the global
warming research and that the Earth is warming
quickly? Maybe it's not even long term. Maybe
humans are not doing it. But you just reject the
whole shebang as not in accord with your world
view. Ditto with GMOs. Your view is always the one
that says there's nothing to be concerned about.
You're a habitual naysayer simply because
you don't want to have any open questions in
your life. If you actually looked into what you
talk about and gave it some thought then people
might find your statements worth hearing. Instead
you just make glib digs, trying to devalue what
others say.