Omigod, Chan made a funny! (And I was thinking along the same lines myself.)

__________________


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

My source is from the Scientific Journal Nature. It's more than adequate, and it provides direct links or citations to all of the peer reviewed literature used (and it itself appeared in a peer reviewed piece). Either address it specifically with a similar piece, or really, there isn't much to do. I can't access the peer reviewed studies myself---I don't have subscription to them. They're not free, you know. THerefore, I must use secondary sources from respected institutions.

This was also posted by the Institute for Cell and Molecular Biology, and the author is a molecular biologist studying in the field of agriculture.

What exactly is false about what he wrote?

I have more than fulfilled my burden of proof for my claims. Care to contradict it with as credible a piece as I have? If you can find something better from a more prestigious journal or organization, okay. I'll look at it.

I did. It was a commentary, not a scientific report. THIS (which was one of the footnotes) is an example of a true scientific report (as opposed to commentary):

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/...n1200_1301.pdf

__________________
January 20, 2009 - The end of an error.

You're confused as to what "address" means. Addressing isn't synonymous with "dismissal of the source." You are dismissing information for respectable sources, but not providing any reasoning or evidence as to anything's false. You can't dismiss the source because it's secondary and commentary, and thus ignore it. It comes from a valid peer reviewed source and cites valid resources. This isn't from the national inquirer. Scientific Journals have commentary and research review pieces all the time. I can't even access this piece from Nature itself (it's a paid subscription). According to your logic, we should dismiss them all without thinking for that reason alone. If you have a problem with something said specifically, you can choose to contradict it with some piece of evidence, or you obviously have nothing which can do that.


No one's been able to address this issue or any of the points made with credible contradictory material, so until then, the information stands. Again, dismissal out of hand != legitimate argument against the information.

By and large, there's no evidence in the first place that any of this organic stuff really is green or does what it says it does. The vast majority of research cited indicates it does little or nothing, and in some cases, can be more harmful. It's a fad, like beanie babies and pogs. Except people think they can be all uppity and snark because they think they are being green while doing it.



Organic agriculture requires MORE LAND than non-organic agriculture. It requires more land because it is less efficient. Additional evidence of it being less efficient is found in that it consistently produces significantly LESS food on the same land. This is virtually indisputable. More land extends the human ecological footprint. In order to meet demand, organic agriculturalists must use MORE land to get the same yield.

Please let us know when you provide "credible" material instead of mere opinion pieces. Perhaps Nature has published a peer reviewed article studying the merits of organic farming.

__________________
January 20, 2009 - The end of an error.

__________________

I accept your concession then and recognize that your objections are unfounded and that you can't provide any contradictory information.
The burden is on you. You are the one dismissing it without any evidence it's wrong. The reasons you gave are inadequate. I think it's hilariously ironic that you cite an environmental news paper (yea, no bias there) with NO citations whatsoever, no statistics in it, yet dismiss my peer reviewed journal piece out of hand without batting an eye because it's secondary.

The irony is sweet.

For someone to claim they have organic produce, they need to be tested for pesticide residues. And this is a legal requirement to make the claim that the produce is organic.

Where did you get the idea of more land for organic agricultural lands? Crop rotation? The commercial guys do the same thing to some extent. The difference is that the organic method builds deep rich soil and sustains it over the longterm. I am hoping to see switchgrass and cellulose ethanol replace corn ethanol and give family farmers a role in using those fallow fields. Switchgrass has deep roots and builds excellent topsoil. On the othre hand, those huge agricorps are getting government subsidies for not growing on land.

When you support organic farmers, you are supporting family farmers. When you support commercial growers, you are supporting huge corporations that hire illegal immigrants.

And the best form of organic produce is growing your own.

My ancestors in the midwest were hardworking Irish immigrants. When I was a kid and visited their farms, they were the first generation of farmers to use pesticides. They were using them without warning of potential risk. Most of them are now dead from cancer.

__________________
National Debt =