Er bollocks. You're arguing for autarky in food production which has never been realistic. There's been a great quick change after ww2 - surely any change will take max the same amount of time. The top 10 countries Britain imports from are the USA and countries in Western Europe. I don't know why, given this, you think a great change in the UK is going to change that.
And here we go again. Don't like the science because it undermines your amateur opinions? Then dismiss it out of hand!
What relevant, peer reviewed papers has he published recently?So you haven't read it then. Righto.
You have an agricultural scientist right here to talk to btw, but you refuse to engage. And I'm the one with the agenda???
Of course it won't - look at the global population now compared to 1945. Norman Borlaug, who is credited as being the leader of the green revolution is credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, for which he received a Nobel Prize. Those developments prop up our population and provide them with cheap food. In order to move away from them, we need to work out how to maintain the massive yields necessary to ensure people don't starve (whilst simultaneously taking land out of production for nature).
you can publish your research where you will, but be aware that this isn't a peer-reviewed site in the usual sense of the term. but i'm sure you have a well-respected mane.
Why are you like this?
My hair is magnificent, thankyou.
Then why not rework farms to produce manure as the primary produce? Is eating meat necessary to produce manure? Surely this could be a way to cut down on meat (not that you have to agree with this as an aim but for the sake of argument) without being a starvation enthusiast.
Do you have a valid, peer reviewed criticism of that report past you not liking its conclusions?
In those articles you have posted, how do they deal with the soils question? Do you know? If they don't deal with it, do you accept that FM knows what he is talking about when he says that this is a massive challenge for a post-fossil-fuel future, and therefore this is a significant omission?
tbh a thread dedicated to discussion of Poore and Nemecek (2018) would be a good idea.
I'm also a bigot. And I have an agenda. Am in denial. Am a know-nothing amateur. etc etc.
Not even close. It has about 3,000 citations, according to Google Scholar. By comparison, Mind In Society by Vygotsky has about 150,000. If you want papers rather than books then just by quickly searching for ones by Tajfel, Billig or Reicher, for example, I found plenty with 8,000+. And that’s just me looking up a few names that I know are big in social psychology. I’m sure there are papers to do with methods in biomedicine that must have tens of thousands of citations.
Only 60,000 according to Google Scholar. Vygotsky beats Darwin by a factor of 2.5. As well he should.
Nope. For example, by looking up Reicher, I found this:
That's not exactly what I'd call 'personal abuse' myself given the kind of language that was previously bring used, but if you're that hyper sensitive, my apologies
Must be a reliable source of information
I have a feeling that my thoughts came from a session that senior leadership ran on impact, in which I probably wasn't paying as much attention as they'd have liked me to...
You're a fucking hypocrite because you have been laying it thick about me for fucking pages and pages and pages now, including calling me a bigot, which is bang out of order. Not only are you laughably wide of the mark most of the time, you're relentlessly abusive.
