In that vein, given the ubiquity of computers, just how many people and how many companies can make and understand the intel processor family and their machine instruction sets? Maybe we should destroy their silicon foundries too and replace them with electronic tube (valves) makers?

And, let’s not forget about steels and other metals and alloys. After all, only a few companies worldwide actually make the stuff ! Shut them down too and let’s all go back to wood and stone.

The result is a sod’s opera of opinion supported either by emotion or doctored science.

1. Are you opposed to conventionally-generated herbicide resistance (like Clearfield)? Why is that different?

2. Is there any case of a GMO you would ever entertain? What would its criteria be?

First off, the agricultural side of things. The past, present and future of ag biotech is pesticide-promoting, herbicide-resistant GM crops. 85% of GM crops worldwide (by acreage) are herbicide-resistant, mostly Monsanto’s Roundup Ready (RR) crops, and herbicides represent 2/3 of pesticide use in the US. These crops do not increase yield, they do not “feed the world” any better than conventional crops do. The chief “advantage” of Roundup Ready crops is to help already large farmers get still bigger by reducing labor needs for weed control. That’s why RR crops are so predominant in industrialized megafarm agricultural systems (North and South America). Poor farmers cannot afford expensive GM seeds and herbicides that go with them. For more, see http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=46.

These RR crop systems have dramatically increased Roundup (i.e. glyphosate) use, and thereby fostered an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds. On the same principle by which overused antibiotics breed resistant bugs. These resistant weeds are driving development of a host of new GM crops each resistant to one, two, three or more herbicides – as the “solution” to Roundup-resistant weeds. Weeds are rapidly evolving multiple herbicide resistance, in a futile and toxic chemical arms race. Entirely unsustainable, but quite profitable for the seed+pesticide=biotech companies. For how this has increased pesticide use, see http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159.

Dow is poised to introduce crops resistant to 2,4-D, the nasty dioxin-laced weedkiller that formed one component of Agent Orange used in Vietnam to defoliate rainforests. While 2,4-D was the less toxic of the two components (2,4,5-T was banned in 1978), it still contains appreciable levels of dioxins, which is likely why many epidemiology studies link 2,4-D exposure to higher rates of the deadly immune system cancer non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (and perhaps other cancers) in farmers. 2,4-D has also shown endocrine disruption effects. 2,4-D corn and soy would dramatically increase use of this toxic weedkiller. See link to letter from 48 health professionals objecting to 2,4-D crops due to health concerns with vastly increased 2,4-D use: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/2012/04/26/usda-receives-over-365000-public-comments-opposing-approval-of-24-d-resistant-genetically-engineered-corn/.

13 of 20 GM crops awaiting USDA approval are herbicide-resistant, by far the most active area of biotech-pesticide-seed industry R&D. See http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html.

Oh yeah, did I forget to mention that pesticide companies have bought up about half the proprietary seed supply, patented the seeds, and in the case of Monsanto sued thousands of farmers for committing the “crime” of saving seeds, as farmers have done for millenia? See Monsanto vs. US Farmers at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/genetically-engineered-food/crops/other-resources/monsanto-vs-u-s-farmers-report/.

For some resources on how genetic engineering generates higher risks of harmful changes to food, and how inadequate our regulatory system is, see http://www.biotech-info.net/different_perspective.html and http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/BGER-PAPER.pdf.

Too bad Keith decided not to do any meaningful research for his article, one would have expected better from a professor of journalism.

I am a skeptic because not a single solitary GW model can reconcile its *cough cough* “conclusions” with the most fundamental equation in physics.

E=mc2.

It has nothing to do with my politics or closing my mind to “a one world view”. GW does not exist as a function of man made efforts. It can’t…unless we embrace the concept of magic.

Sadly – physics communities are often shouted down or have their funding “re-allocated” because GW brings in funding. Lots and lots of funding.

We, as a society, have reverted to the dark ages in physics. Pun intended – too many people taking up physics as a science branch out to dark energy/dark matter studies.

That being said – pollution and contamination – which are FAR different subjects worthy of debate and action – are totally ignorred by the “green nazis”.

As far as Suzuki being trusted – that was a good one. You looked at the wrong survey – the survey by Ipsos has Suzuki just ahead of Jean Chretien as the least admirable Canadian.

Cheers