Derald wrote:
Bill who putters wrote:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...o-roles-for-in
dustry-and-organics-in-agriculture/

Someone once said you can't have one without the other.
Well, I've never heard any such assertion from anyone rational but
that's not the point. The point is that not only is the headline pure
fiction but the entire setup as well as the suppsitions and opinions
presented as "conclusions" and attributed to Foley in the NYT blog
piece exist only in his and the blogger's minds and have nothing to
do with the cited study.

As I read the article the comments were obtained by email by the blogger
Revkin from one author (Foley). Whether or not they are in the main paper I
cannot say since it is paywalled. What exactly are you so unhappy about?

The actual results are summarized he
Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields
are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield
differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site
characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed
legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13%
lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower
yields (when the conventional
and organic systems are most comparable). Under certain
conditions—that is, with
good management practices, particular crop types and growing
conditions—organic
systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under
others it at
present cannot.
Most notable is the 34% lower yields when growing conditions were
most comparable, which implies that the other, better, results were
achieved under more narrow "special" circumstances.
Further the only actual -conclusion- expressed in the study is,
To establish organic agriculture as an important tool in sustainable
food production, the factors limiting organic yields need to be more
fully understood, alongside assessments of the many social,
environmental and economic benefits
of organic farming systems.
Notice that this study does not address (neither does is express
any faux "conclusions" about) the environmental damage that often
results from large scale agriculture, even so-called "organic"
methods. Interested readers can find an abstract of the study at the
link
cited in the NYT blog piece or may read the whole thing by subscribing
to Nature magazine or to the nature.org web site.

Did you read the full paper or just the extract?

I see this as a prime example of advocacy being presented as actual
science and reportage which, frankly, seems to be NYT's sole claim to
fame. It is not information; it is propaganda. The only "conclusion" a
rational person can draw from it is that further utterances from that
Foley person should be viewed with skepticism or perhaps outright
cynicism.

The quality of science reporting around the world is inadequate. Finding
some amazing result in the headline that is not supported by the actual
research is par for the course. But I still don't see what you are getting
so excited about. You now seem to be saying the author Foley is to be
distrusted as well as Revkin. Why is that?

In my view, ideologues keep barraging us with this sort of sewage
as "science" only because a subculture of sycophants continues to eat
it. Does "enough" ever get to be "enough"? I mean, face it: I only
_looks_ like chocolate.

Who is the idealogue here the Revkin or Foley?

So far all I see is scattershot criticism and nothing specific.

David