"The Daily Caller is a news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010."
>The Daily Caller also regularly publishes articles that cast doubt on global warming <
The Daily Caller is a news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010."
I'd characterize 'The Daily Caller' and author, Jon Entine, who featured Randy in a 'Forbes' piece, as having close organizational ties to the Bush Administration.
I'm picking up on the 'NeoCon' vibe.
I think that it's important to know that when reading a piece on a controversial subject.
Why should I read a political piece with a neocon spin to it?
No... We're all supposed to absorb the political and social activism that WLC spews. Those who don't are obvious "neocon's", Big-Chem shills, or too stupid to understand his self professed brilliance.
However, he gets to immediately discount anything that doesn't follow his agenda instead reviewing the actual findings.
The financial difference between what someone like this is actually worth versus what they think they are worth is easily in the millions.
If you folks would stop quoting his (wlc) posts...I wouldn't have to read them at all. The ignore option is my friend....now if I can only get it to ignore those quotes....sigh.
Good of you to ensure that only closely vetted scientific information meeting your highest standards is granted credibility of the WLC seal of approval. After all, what with you being a widely recognized, high profile, public persona, and all ..... the public might get mislead.
I do read the scientific literature, and I've kept current enought to say that neonics have been shown to be a contributing factor to Honeybee declines.
It makes no sense whatsoever to imply otherwise.
I prefer to get my information from a primary, peer reviewed, source rather than elsewhere.
It cuts out the middleman and any bias.
What you're linking to simply isn't mainstream science by any stretch of the imagination.
I'd rather read about cell phones and the Earth's changing magnetic field as a cause for Honeybee decline on a different 'fringe' site. I'd find it to be far more amusing.
I do read the scientific literature, and I've kept current enought to say that neonics have been shown to be a contributing factor to Honeybee declines.
WLC - I'd be interested in reading this, if you can provide a reference. Thanks.
WLC... I would respectfully disagree with that statement, as it applies to the article at hand..
Any time you are writing about a subject, should you only preach to your membership. No, you should seek out those with differing opinions and try to convince them. You get a larger and more diverse audience when you publish in journals who fundamentally disagree with you.
No accomplished author would ever consent to only being published in journals where everyone agrees with him. If so, only a very few would even bother to read it, even fewer would challenge any findings or conclusions.
In scientific studies not only the content or conclusions, should be challenged, but, methodology and control. More importantly, can the results be duplicated. I would encourage everyone to read every article with an open mind, then start sorting. Never attack some author simply because the work was published in a certain forum, or, because that forum has an unrelated stand or opinion that you disagree with.
There is a TED u-tube presentation from Marla Spivak ya all should check out she nails it. Spot on. Randy’s science is a bit thin really sounds like a self promoting high school paper. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY7iATJVCso
If you find Randy's Science flawed then the professional response is to intellectually challenge that Science instead of disparaging the messenger. Example: I found the Science in Marla Spivak's TED presentation to be unbalanced because it failed to mention the number of honeybee colonies in the USA has actually been steady for 20 years and growing in recent years and that most beekeepers themselves do not forsee a rapidly approaching "tipping point" where the nations food supply is threatened. And with regard to the impact of neonics and monocultures on CCD, Marla failed to mention CCD hardly exists in very heavy neonic and monocultural areas like Illinois and failed to mention feral colonies appear to be doing fine in Illinois. And Marla failed to mention the prevalence of CCD has been on the decline in recent years even though neonic usage has been increasing. And while Marla's proposal to grow wildflowers everywhere sounds appealing, she left out critical details like whether it would be logistically possible and financially affordable for Society to compensate more than a handful of farmers to grow wildflower strips (instead of more food crops) on their land.
Haven't you been paying attention to what has recently happened in Canada?
Health Canada and the PMRA has found that neonic corn and soy caused honeybee losses this past season, and in addition, they've called neoinic corn and soy unsustainable.
As we speak, they're working on solutions to the problem.
Yes, those were field realistic concentrations of neonics that killed those bees.
Health Canada and the PMRA has found that neonic corn and soy caused honeybee losses this past season, and in addition, they've called neoinic corn and soy unsustainable.
Yes, those were field realistic concentrations of neonics that killed those bees.
"current agricultural practices related to the use of neonicotinoid treated corn and soybean seed are not sustainable."
(emphasis added)
"the practices" that are not sustainable involve not controlling dust from seeding, something randy oliver has often spoken out against. the solutions are measures to control the dust.
"The PMRA said that its own testing of dead bees in 2012 determined that the majority of the deaths were caused by exposure to the pesticides -- likely through dust generated during seed planting"
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Beesource Beekeeping Forums
1.8M posts
54.7K members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to beekeeping, bee owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about breeding, honey production, health, behavior, hives, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!