Perhaps I agree with Mark Lynas. Why shouldn't I? Your posting does little more than call him a Luddite, but does not explain why he wrong.

And are you comparing the interbreeding of plants and animals to gene-splicing or gene-modification?

I didn't think Mr. Lynas's "you can stick your mutant trees" deserved any sort of rigorous scientific response. My goal was to point out that ill-considered luddism is the status quo among people against this type of biotech - even if it could have environmental benefits.

And yes, I think transgenic biotech techniques are more predictable and reliable than old-fashioned breeding practices. Neither of these are "mutant," as the term implies randomness. If anything biotech is less random than cross-breeding.

I might be the only person who regularly reads both this site and MarkLynas.org

I think in this instance, the accusation of Luddism is quite well-founded.

I've read his book and it's streets ahead of almost all reporting on global warming that you might see in the British media in terms of how closely it sticks to the scientific literature. Unlike even many science journalists, he doesn't make the mistake of taking a single paper as meaning the entire literature.

However, it's obvious he doesn't have much time for any solutions that don't come from the "let's go live in a wigwam in the woods and pick mushrooms" school of thinking; he even criticises the proposals for trading emissions.