Likewise, the GM food sector is trying to represent itself as the solution to world food shortages.

Environmentalists must be on guard against such exploitative and environmentally damaging ambushes from the corporate sector. Those of us who wish to protect the environment must also seek to protect the general public from being misinformned and bullied into false solutions proffered by vested interests.

You make some good points in this political-scientific article. However, your references to scientific papers which would support many of your controversial claims are scarce. I note that you referenced a 2007 science paper by Ramanathan, (whom I knew at Nasa, Langley Research Center), but did not reference your own article, Global Warming Facts,which was published at ECOworld in 2006 (link below).

http://ecoworld.com/features/2006/10/07/global-warming-facts/

Your analysis of temperature data from the US and the UK, although spiced with, what looks, like a pinch of bias here and there, still looks like it has merit. And to your credit, you concede , athough grudgingly, and not without your own spin, that the data show that tempratures have increased during the last century.

“The point of all this is not to claim that there has been no warming. After all, the system’s temperature is always varying. However, when dealing with small temperature changes in a turbulent system, there is little appropriateness to dogmatism. Perhaps the most important message one gets from the data is that the change in temperature has been on the order of 0.5 centigrade, and the main question should be whether we have any solid basis for considering such a change to be large or small, serious or inconsequential.”

You have apparently already decided - and wish to convice others - that this global temperature change should be considered both small and inconsequential. Or else, why would you be so vocal in your attempts to convince others that essentially no response is required

ad