We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Back in the day when I used to subscribe to the NYT I did so primarily for Tuesday's Science Times. Then it became as politicized as the front section and the editorials. Yet I hung in there with my subscription. When they could no longer publish the sports section without injecting politics I called and cancelled.
I still pick it up when in airports to see if anything has improved. It hasn't. In fact, it has declined. There's mold in the walls, or something else, that is eating away at their brains.
Why is anybody surprised that the NYT science editors are an idiots? It seems like a continuation of idiocy that has been going on for a hundred years.
In 1920, the NYT published a scathing and mocking editorial rebuttal to an article by Robert Goddard describing how rockets could be used for space travel in the future. It wasn't till 1969 after the Apollo 11 launch that the NYT finally got around to printing a correction, and it was was somewhat muted:
A Correction: On Jan. 13, 1920, "Topics of the Times," an editorial-page feature of The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a rocket could function in a vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows:
'That Professor Goddard with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to something better than a vacuum against which to react—to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."
Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.
One wonders if the NYT science editors didn't believe Newton's laws of motion or if they hadn't heard of him yet. Apparently, men traveling around the moon in a rocket for Apollo 8 may have been part of the "Further investigation and experimentation" but even that didn't convince the crack science editors at the NYT because it wasn't till six months later (and after Apollo 9 and 10) before they published their correction.
GMO is the "N" word of pseudo-science. You only have to use the word or imply it to upset and even enrage the foodies and quacks. I don't think these well known quacks are simply following what they believe in. I think they know full well they are inciting the nutcases and useful idiots and that is their source of power. They do this for fun and profit and not to enlighten the world. Most of them know exactly how far they can go and carefully avoid steppng over that line. That is what the "GMO" word is for, to make their followers step over the line and say things that these fear mongers dare not say. It provokes and that is the reeason it is used.