It's possible, but I think if you were going to pay someone, you could do much better than this turd of a man!
It's kinda interesting. Whether he's paid or not, he is defending small farmers, which of course may be due to the corporations they make profits for. However, these farmers harm the environment... So in order to get major activist groups on his side (his group is nothing, 2000 likes on facebook), he needed to go after Synbio by claiming it's an environmental hazard. These activists took the bait hook, line, and sinker and are now unknowingly supporting his guy's agenda to kill any competition for small farmers. Even if the technology does people and the environment good.
He seems to be against efficiency gains (aka progress) that harm jobs for the little guy, but efficiency gains are a fact of life. If he truly was an environmental advocate (he isn't), then he would need to be for the reduction in farming in the rainforests. His stance is the exact opposite. He's supporting small farmers who cut down and cultivate sections of the rainforest to farm the oils that are in demand. Therefore, he is likely against regulation that restricts farmers from cutting down additional swaths of the rainforest. The thing is, if that demand had never risen to the heights that it's at today, then there wouldn't have been a need for these farmers anyways! Solazyme's process removes the demand for the farmed oil, which goes against his agenda.
My question is, as the demand for these oils increases, and if more efficient alternatives are not found, is he advocating growth in the number of small farmers, which would of course lead to additional rainforest deforestation, and additional environmental problems for our planet? At what point does he believe that the size of this environmentally unfriendly behavior is too big?
He doesn't need to be paid, he just needs to have an activist agenda. Every article he puts out is a defense of small farmers. His agenda coincides with his attacks on Solazyme as being a potential major player in replacing the need for small farmers producing oil crops.
As far as I can tell, environmental policy is not a main priority for this guy. He uses it as a talking point to backup his agenda, but his arguments are weak. In fact, each time he does argue environmental policy, it blows up in his face with his blatantly false statements, which is likely why he left it out of this article.
The article was posted in July, soon after he went after Ecover for using Solazyme oils, where he was attacked on his statements regarding the environment. The Ecover attacks never had anything to do with Synthetic Biology being harmful, and everything to do with replacing small farmers.
Showing your 'back of the envelope' calculations would help to determine if there were any credence.
The expected numbers may as well be analysts throwing darts at a board at this point in time. Remember, these were their expectations, and the consensus stock price is upwards of $13-14 per share.
There was significant derisking here.
Their losses were greater than expected. Although those numbers are basically meaningless still at this point in time. Lots of good stuff in there, will have to see what's going on during the CC.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
From the earnings release:
"AlgaVia™ brand launched at the International Food Technology (IFT) Food Expo, Solazyme’s High Stability High Oleic oil won a prestigious 2014 IFT Innovation Award, and Solazyme added key food ingredient customer, and distribution agreements. Solazyme secured an important new AlgaVia™ Whole Algal Flour customer, and also signed agreements with two of the top North American food ingredient distributors to meet demand in the US and Mexico. "
Sentiment: Strong Buy
It's like arguing with an ideological religious person. When the belief is ideological, you will find evidence (regardless if it exists or not) to backup your claim. You will distort facts to backup your claim. You will cherry pick ideas and information to backup your claim while purposely leading out information that can be used to counter your idea.
Jim Thomas is ideologically anti-GMO / anti-SMO. Without any proof to problems being caused by this technology, or possible with this technology, he is against it. He is for small low-yield farmers, and is willing to attack anyone that tries to come up with a better solution that may put those rural farmers out of business. I'm sorry, but that's how the world works. If we find a more efficient process that improves millions of lives, then we use it. I'm sorry that this causes some job losses.
It's ironic that Jim Thomas posts on the internet on his computer, which I'm sure has caused millions of job losses world wide, but has increased efficiency many times over.
If he wants to take up arms about big corporations making money at the expense of everyone else, maybe he should look at facebook which makes money off the content of its users, when those users are doing all of the important work of providing the content. Without the content, Facebook's Zuckerberg would not have made $30 billion for 10 years of actual work. There you go Jim, I just handed you a *real* issue of people doing work and not being paid for it.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Oof, just realized how many typos were in my post. For you and me, the half truths are ridiculous. However, for everyone else reading the article, how are they to know any better without hours upon hours of research?
Stating a lie is easy. Proving that it's a lie is difficult. The first thing I do after reading an article is read the comments to determine whether people have any criticisms about the facts of the article. This isn't even possible in his articles! You go on the ETC Group's facebook page to post criticisms to his articles and he deletes them. So not only do we have this guy posting incessantly, we have no way to verify/criticize his information.
Ecover responded to his first Ecologist article. Jim comes back with another article that is just as cherry picked, attacking Ecover for lying in their first article denouncing his statements. What is Ecover to do, keep responding with article after article to fact check Jim's statements? This would be a never ending process and would be completely unprofessional.
I almost think Ecover should put out a statement stating that they are open for discussion, just not with Jim Thomas, and state exactly why: Cherry picked information. No references to backup the information he's spreading. At least in that case, if Jim decides to keep responding, people can point back to Ecover's article and say: "Oh I see, Jim is actually just making s*!t up, why should I believe anything this guy has to say?"
It's absolutely infuriating reading anything written by Jim Thomas. He cherry picks every biased statement he uses in his arguments without giving the entire picture. There's good reason he never posts articles where comments are allowed. In the few places you can comment on his articles, he never responds to the criticism, and simpy dismisses it as if it never happened. The same arguments go into his next article, where there aren't comments, thereby propagating the misinformation across the web.
Free speech is great. The internet is great for information. But what happens when you get someone like Jim Thomas starts passing bad information across the internet without the ability to scrutinize his statements?
BTW, after Ecover wroter their response to Jim's article in the ecologist (which Jim references in this article), Jim took issue with a piece of the Ecover article that stated that he was in the Coconut industry's back pocket. In that response, he also said he would respond to the rest of the article, which was strewn with fact checking of Jim's ridiculous claims. Jim has yet to respond to any of it; now going on two weeks.
Jim Thomas is such an effing moron. He's come out against a term that is yet to be well defined. A term that can represent a great number of things, and here he is attempting to define the term that he has already made great efforts to protest against. Simply put, he's petitioned against an idea that he doesn't have the ability to define.
To put the article in simplistic terms, Syn Bio can represent just about anything relating to human intervention into the DNA and characteristics of an organism. In other words, it can represent our entire history of breeding techniques as it relates to plants and animals. He may as well be arguing against anything that hasn't evolved through 100% natural selection without any human intervention.
At what point does it cross the threshold from good to bad in his mind? We don't know because he doesn't yet know how to define it. Simply put, ideologically sometimes he thinks it's ok, other times he doesn't. What's the difference scientifically? ... It seems he doesn't actually know... just like any other anti-GMO/SMO activist.
You didn't say "it's possible". You said "They are losing batch after back to contamination". That is a statement of truth. I'll have to look up the FTC rules on making such factual statements, to determine what consequences can be had to the person making those statements if they should prove to be false. Further, I wouldn't mind seeing an investigation into kingofshorts9999 as to determine who he is, whether he's making these facts up, or if not, who his resource is.
"Word on the street" meaning his word on his street. Curious, where did you first hear about this? Was it through an inside source? Was it through gossip? Was it because you simply made it up out of thin air?
Is it possible this is being lumped into the solar sector? Solars are way down today.