Yuyutsu,

"So if the farmer is not allowed to keep the seeds from the previous year, then they have to beg the state when it's time to sow - or starve! - which means that the farmer is forced to comply with the government and whatever its idea of what progress consists of, for example that "Man must conquer Nature!".

Monsanto does the same, but at least in theory one is allowed to have nothing to do with them (... not so in practice)."

Monsanto has come in and taken over at the behest of govt...so now farmers have no autonomy. They have to buy these hybrids every planting.

And as for the stupidity of "Man must conquer Nature" - where is the wisdom in that? That sort of thinking has denuded the soil in India and depleted the groundwater. The soil in many places is dead because of pesticides. Soil is supposed to be alive with microbes - not dead.

So monoculture, corporations, pesticides and fertilizers have usurped traditional farming practices in places like India with the loss of much ancient knowledge and traditional farming practices.

None of it is "sustainable" - meaning serially damaging your environment to such an extent as to render it non-productive without regular massive (and expensive) injections of non-organic matter - is the height of madness.

Barry York, you say;

“The IPCC's recent summary acknowledges that nearly all of its computer models have been proven wrong - that they overstated the warming.”

Here is the link:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

You really don’t have to make stuff up, Barry.

“Or... am I not permitted to make that point because I do not have a degree in a climate science”

The below article/video pertains as much to you Barry as it does to Sen James Inhofe (Rep):

http://www.inquisitr.com/1600031/stephen-colbert-slams-climate-change-deniers-im-not-a-scientist-argument-video/

Or indeed, any other "I'm not a scientist but..."

Barry, your blog site is ideologically driven.

Dear Poirot,

I fully agree, but the argument of sustainability is somewhat weak and I've read valid challenges to its objective correctness.

So I prefer not to get into it, because even if "progressive" policies are sustainable, we pay dearly with the quality of our life and with our personal freedom - which I consider more important than merely being able to keep our bodies surviving.

Yuyutsu,

What's "weak" about a farmer being able to save and share his seeds, co-operate with his neighbours, feed his soil with manure and other organic materials, and engage in biodiverse practice to nourish his community?

That's "sustainable" practice - it's also "freedom"...all follows from a healthy environment.

Interesting how DavidK cannot consider that I may be mistaken rather than dishonest.

Anyway, this is the part of the IPCC synthesis summary (long report) that acknowledges the great majority of the models were wrong - they overstated the warming:

"For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface
warming trend larger than the observations (Box 1.1, Figure 1a). There is medium confidence that this
difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by natural internal climate
variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming
trend (compare Box 1.1 Figures 1a and 1b; during the period from 1984 to 1998, most model simulations
show a smaller warming trend than observed)".

It continues:

"Natural internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of
short trends for long-term climate change. The difference between models and observations may also contain
contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some
models, from an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing
(the latter dominated by the effects of aerosols). {WGI 2.4.3, 9.4.1; 10.3.1.1, WGI Box 9.2}"

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf

Ok Barry, you were mistaken.

Apology accepted.

Can I ask what your 'day job' is?

Why?

Too many "I'm not a scientist" types keep telling real scientists they don't know what they're talking about?

Why?

They're typically ideologically driven (imho)

Have a good night.