Does CO2 Level Really Hurt the Bees?

It's an interesting observation that may be contributing to lower protein content of pollen, but I don't think it has any real impact yet, but who knows, if the trend continues, we may have another obstacle to overcome....It certainly is something to keep an eye on, maybe the bees will adapt...In my opinion the chief cause of CCD is lack of coordination between farmers and commercial bee pollination services, and stress related to travel, then you have the mite problem...It's hard to coordinate the field treatments of everybody in the area when pollination service is deployed unless everybody is growing the same crop at the same time, on the same schedule, and on time... but GMO's might be able to mitigate that issue....

Don't think CCD can bee blamed (much) on transporting hives - it's also happening in static colonies.

..."As demand for pollination services grows, bee colonies often are kept for more time on sites in a mono-crop environment before being moved directly to the next mono-crop area. As more and more land is lost to urbanization and suburbanization, it also means a loss of habitat with a diverse mix of nutritious bee forage plants. In addition, when it comes to helping bee colonies survive the winter and droughts, both times when nectar supplies can be scarce for bees, beekeepers often provide an artificial diet. Scientists are still trying to perfectly duplicate a bee’s natural pollen/nectar diet for those times of the year when good forage is not available."..

..."Sublethal pesticide effects: A survey of honey bee colonies conducted in 2010 by ARS researchers looked at 170 pesticides or their residues in honey bees, beeswax, and pollen. The data showed no consistent pattern of pesticide that differed between healthy and CCD-affected colonies. The most commonly found pesticide in the study was coumaphos, which is used by beekeepers to treat honey bees for Varroa mites.

The pesticide class neonicotinoids (for example, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and imidacloprid) has been accused of damaging or killing honey bees or being the cause of CCD even when the exposure is below the level expected to be toxic. The nicotine-based neonicotinoids were developed in the mid-1990s in large part because they showed reduced toxicity to wildlife compared with previously used organophosphate and carbamate insecticides.

The scientific data about the impact of pesticides and neonicotinoids in particular at environmentally and agriculturally realistic levels is mixed. Some findings have shown that neonicotinoids have sublethal effects on honey bees at or below approved doses and exposures. Documenting such sublethal effects is very difficult due to the many factors that can influence individual situations in field studies and during grower use including timing of use, health and nutritional state of the bees, total mix of pesticides, pathogens and parasites present, crop type, weather during the growing season, and accumulation of pesticides from year to year. Other studies have indicated that healthy colonies appear not to be impacted.

While these four areas are easy to categorize on paper, in reality these factors often may overlap or interact with one another. Honey bees might be able to survive many of these problems if the problems occurred one at a time. But when they hit in any of a wide variety of combinations, the result can weaken and overcome the honey bee colony’s ability to survive."...

http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572

Repeating what climate deniers say doesn't make you a realist. It just makes you uninformed.

..."The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.^[2][3][4][5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.^[6]
• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.^[7]
• Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.^[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.^[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.^[8]
• The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.^[9]
• The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).^[10]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change}

^{When you stand alone against virtually every expert that would have a qualified opinion, and you insist you are right, and they are wrong, then you need extraordinary proof....You have none, just an air of unreasonable attitude...}

This site is an engineering site and I think we're all intelligent people. We believe what we want to, which is okay, it's our choice. If the large majority (95%) of scientists believe that CO2 is causing Global Warming, then why not believe them.

I have not done a study on the subject, nor do I have any raw data, but I'll bet there are scientist who have data to prove their hypothesis. That being said, I'm in their camp.

Back around 2004, I sided with the pro-business side. That GW is a political ploy to hurt businesses and that there is no evidence or proof. A couple years later, I changed sides.

You probably changed because of the heavy bombardment of the proponents.

For one, the 95% figure is fake as is the IPCC. It is perhaps the number of 'paid scientits' that must say so or they do not get funding anymore. I am not even sure if 95% agree. They keep quit and keep their job and are listed as agreeing even if wanting to be removed from the list of supporting scientists. Keep that in mind when deciding. There are many scientists who want to counter and have public discussions but are not invited for any public discussion as what they say may convince some people to think again. It is purely political. Elon Musk and Al Gore getting rich.

Why does Al Gore not debate the case in public? For that matter there are no public discussions anywhere only propaganda of how serious it is and how many 'scientists' say so. I have yet to see any proof that CO2 is bad in any way. Have you? Please let me know. All I get is propaganda.

It is all a farce. IPCC has lost all credibility.

10's of thousands of scientists agree that global warming has been happening since industrialisation. VERY FEW of these scientists are studying climate change. Most are biologists, oceanographers, and so on. They have seen changes that have pointed to an alarming future and sought the reasons for the detrimental changes they observed. Once the cause was identified they published their work. Gradually a picture emerged that led to the hypothesis that the root cause was climate change due to various natural phenomena exacerbated by mans' activity since industrialisation. Was it over sold? That is a moot point. Action was needed and very quickly and by over selling at least some action has started. Your cynical view of scientists is unwarranted and unwelcome. Jim

As a science minded person, I see things happening, I do some research and then I create a hypothesis. I see how my hypothesis fits new data coming in. If it all correlates, then I feel more confident that my hypothesis is correct.

The reason I changed my mind is because I've seen some strange weather and it seems to be getting stranger. Where I live, we have had very small rainfall. This year was suppose to be an el Nino year, but we received less than average rainfall.

My mom and sister live in Chicago. They've both told me that December's are an extension of fall weather. I was there last December and it was in the 60's in mid December! When I was a kid, warm weather in December was a rare anomaly. Now it's the norm.

I am not a believer that such a large percentage of scientists have been paid off. I think that the massive amounts of petroleum products that we are burning is doing something to our planet. It's normal for me to see 18 lane freeways gridlocked - think of how much CO2 is being created. And not just one freeway, but dozens of them here in Southern California! And this is just one city in the world. Add to this the factories, energy used in homes, etc. What I do believe is that we're doing a good job wrecking our planet. That's not a good thing!

I have to throw my 2 cents into this.

1. If 11 years ago, there was a debate about global warming and someone made a prediction that all of the glaciers would be gone in ten years, then the person who made the prediction did just that - he made a prediction. One would think that he based it on many variables. I don't know what they are and I doubt anyone here does.

2. The glaciers in Greenland are melting. That's a fact. Data exists. Photos exist. The spirit of the study was that we are causing glaciers to melt.

3. None of us knows what happens when the oceans rise. How much will it damage the coastlines? What will it do to our weather patterns? Will it create more tsunamis? What other effects are there? It's not scaremongering - it's asking everyone to be more careful - that's all you can ask people.

4. All the computer modelling won't tell us what will actually happen. We just don't know, because there are a lot of variables, some we haven't added to our model.

5. I am not one to blame everything on an incident. Dolphins with birth defects? and the link to GW?

The term scientific only applies in the most loosely held sense when statistical projections are extended past all reasonable bounds of the mathematics model, and existing data, especially when the signal/noise ratio of the data is not favorable to a projection of more than one period of the observed time frame. Now in this present world of high class computers modeling everything under the sun, one would think someone would go back and spend some actual time on designing a more precise and accurate data gathering system (such as the recent launches of NASA), narrow down the projections or once and for all reveal the source of the poor S/N ratio as the actual fluxional changes in the earth's natural climate. If the periodicity of the data (from actual Fourier analysis of the real (not massaged) data cannot be discerned with an uncertainty of less than 20%, then something is wrong with the model, either poor choice of observables, poor design of experimental gear and the experiment itself, or leaving out key variables by too narrowly defining the system.

Our Earth climate system is not a closed system. Matter is entering into our climate every day, little escapes, and also large energy inputs with high variability. Things as far reaching as a magnetic storm from a supernova, or a magnetar

http://www.space.com/30263-paul-sutter-on-why-magnetars-are-scary.html

are highly dynamic, even dangerous to our climate.

If one wants to simply test bees against carbon dioxide, I suggest a gas bag, some bees, and some gas. We should have several sources of all these lying about.

Can you provide a link to the "study" that you claim was published?

In response to your claim about fear mongering.

1. An insignificant study done 11 years ago does not prove that a conspiracy exists. Yes, that study may have had an agenda and we can all agree that their prediction was extreme, but it unsuccessfully scared anyone. If you polled the general public, I doubt more than one could tell you about this study. In one breath, you claim that there is a conspiracy out there to scare the public and in the other, you say this obscure study is an important part of the conspiracy. If it was a conspiracy, they (whoever they are) would've done a much better job getting the word out about this study and scaring the public.

2. Glaciers do grow and recede, agreed, but how do you explain the following statement?: "Greenland, for instance, is now experiencing an average net loss of about 303 billion tons of ice every year." Or this one?: "In late August, for instance, a highly active glacier in Greenland named Jakobshavn calved one of the largest icebergs in its history, a chunk of ice about 4,600 feet thick and about five square miles in area." This is not fear mongering. It's something unprecedented that is happening - something man hasn't witnessed since he's been on this planet. If we consider that we are producing record amounts of CO2 (see figure 8 in http://www.averageglobaltemperature.com/), and Greenland is experiencing record loss of glaciers, one could come to the conclusion that our CO2 production is the cause.

3. Hollywood is not in the conspiracy to scare the general public. The movie studios are out to make movies that people want to watch. In this day and age of exaggerated special effects, they need to make movies that are thrilling. If it were fear mongering, wouldn't there be a lot of movies about the exaggerated effects of global warming?

4. If the political agenda is to make people aware that they need to start being kind to our planet, I see nothing wrong with that. I can't remember a time when the POTUS (supposedly the most powerful man in our country) put global warming as his top priority. ISIS (ISIL), those Republicans on the other side of the aisle and health care reform are more important to him.

5. I think I lost you on your logic. You use this dolphin defect as an example of fear mongering by the unscrupulous media and that the masses swallowed it whole cloth - I'm just repeating what you wrote. For one, the masses (or even a small percentage of the general public) doesn't know about the dolphin defect. I believe it's true, hence the masses don't know about it and they didn't swallow it whole cloth. A successful media push would've put the topic in the spotlight - like Hillary and Trump. Ditto for sunscreen and killing of coral. The logic is missing, since the two things you mentioned had nearly zero effect on the general public. Instead, if you would've mentioned the media making a big stink about Trump's plan to deport illegals or Hillary's personal email, then I'd say you are correct that the media did control the public opinion.

To summarize; if a conspiracy exists to use fear mongering to scare people 11 years ago about ALL the glaciers in Greenland melting or the Dolphin defect or sunscreen killing coral, then it was either a poorly planned conspiracy or it just didn't happen. If you want to hear about a successful fear mongering campaign, think about how frightened the public is about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31709115

http://www.record-lrc.co.uk/c1.aspx?Mod=Article&ArticleID=G00100004

Sounds like doom seers. Looking to blame something else on climate change.

The plant that they tested does not grow in all environment the honey bee habitates.

The protein content of the pollen changes from flowering species. Also the yearly change in plant health because of weather issue effects the protein level. The pollen is used to make royal jelly. Which is fed to the larva stage of the worker short term. Mainly used to get drones and new queens to form. And fed to the hive queen. With all the posible causes of protein changes in the pollen. They have done okay in the pasted in all environments. Most desert flowers have very low protein levels.

You are just a fool if you actually believe the words you just typed.

It is NOT about climate change. It is about CO2 levels, which even fools should admit have risen in the last 100 years.

So, what does CO2 do?

Perhaps something bad? If that is the case, what is it?

I know good things it does like keeping the world from starving. Thanks to volcanoes food keeps on growing.

Perhaps you should read the publication before asking silly questions. The author has obviously done far more research on the subject than you have.

"Elevated CO2 levels affect plant physiology by enabling the plant's starchier parts to grow faster and bigger, since atmospheric carbon dioxide is a building block for plant sugars. For goldenrod, this growth essentially dilutes the plant's total protein,

From 2006 to 2011, losses from managed honeybee colonies averaged 33 percent per year in the U.S. rather than concentrating it in the grain, which makes a starchier pollen. As CO2, the source of carbon for plant growth, proliferates quickly in the atmosphere, soil nutrients - such as nitrogen, iron, and magnesium - remain the same. As a result, plants produce more carbohydrates, but dilute other nutrients."

I agree the author has done more research. My silly question is;since there is no Dr. Dolittle for the bees and they don't tell us out right what is bothering them; why are we to be so certain that this element - CO2- that has been around since the beginning, is the bane of the bees existence? Settling on this theory is it not possible that we are missing another possibility?

Really?

Read this and tell me what you think.

It seems to be a lot of confusion going on.

Is there Carbon sinks or is there not? How do they work and what would it mean for the ongoing debate?

Wow! What an intelligent and honestly brutal paper! I love it!

Yepp, so it is!

I am an amatuer beekeeper and the articleprovides some interesting observations.

It is of interest that such well educated individuals haven't remarked on the primary impact of low protein content in pollen. Protein content is a direct indicator of the "voracity" of the pollen and its ability to actually fertilise the seed.

I have also had significant involvement in growing wheat, where protein content attracts a bonus invalue. Again, the welleducated individuals are drawing no comment about the nutritional impact this will have if ONLY linked to CO2 levels.

It has been our observation that protein yield for grains relates to total plant growing history, from the very seed planted to the rainfall timing and nutrient patterns in the paddock and temperature across the growing season andstress caused by weeds, wind and so on.

As far as CCD isconcerned, last year I went into winter with 3 hives, captured 6 swarms fromthose hives in spring, gave away 2 swarms to other amatuers and combined the others.

Have gone into this winter with 5 hives and two are already getting heavier (making honey) even though for me it's mid-winter here.

Whatever happens to CO2 levels, I'll just have to "suck it up".

Those dern bee cowboys found some non-Roundup ready bees!

CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for anytime during the past 800,000 years.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Other research, though, shows that you have to go back much farther in time, well beyond 800,000 years ago, to find an instance where CO2 was sustained at 400 ppm or greater.

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn't Exist | Climate ...

Whatever you say is fine by me.

I'm not looking for a debate.

Nothing you presented contrasts with what I said.

.

Remember 800,000 years is 4/5 of one million years and only 2/250 of 100 million years, i.e. a pretty small fraction, far below what is needed to qualify as 'most'.

CO2 levels were easily much higher than today from 100 million years ago to at least 45 million years ago. This unambiguous majority of the past 100 million years means it is quite reasonable to describe the condition as occurring during 'most' of the past 100 million years.

.

Yes, humans were not around, but why should CO2 affect bees differently just because humans are observing?

I'm not an expert in regard to bees or evolution, so my comment is based on general science and common sense. The one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb in Lyn's graph is how fast the increase in CO2 has occurred. Darwinism says that creature naturally adapt to their environment. In the last 800,000 years, CO2 levels have been pretty consistent, until they started to increase in the 1950's. So, for 60-65 years, the CO2 level has increased 25% - we all can agree that's a pretty large increase in a short amount of time. Can evolution happen that quickly? Can bees adapt that quickly to the changes in their food? Or what I should say is can the population of bees mutate to a new bee that can assimilate their new food source better?

The increase in recent police shootings must have a cause.

Ahh, I know, CO2 has increased a lot so it can only be that, right?

CO2 is blamed for anything else, now even for the bees demise why not for increased shootings?

It is amazing what CO2 is being blamed for. Every new abnormality must be caused by CO2. The bees suffer from Glyhosate and other pesticides Monsanto has a monopoly on and getting rich thereby. They want to keep on doing their dirty work, deflecting blame to CO2.

What next will CO2 be accused of as the cause?

It is only a few years ago that CO2 was considered not a pollutant but part of our nature. That suddenly was changed and now every 'scientist' says so. How come the 'scientist' did not think of it before only after it became politically correct?

BTW, it is absolutely insane to try to get rid of the so-called fossil fuels as these are the only fuels we have. Sure, there is sun and wind, but these cannot make up and substitute the hydrocarbon fuels nature is providing and replenishing continuously.

Just think the US or any other nation is fighting a war on electricity as power source. Is that war winnable? Ask a military commander.

Again check this paper and say that while you do not try to get into a debate you have done your homework and worked along the lines of giving it the propaganda material the benefit of a doubt.

Since you all have proclaimed that the author, the only person who has done any ACTUAL researchon the subject, knows less than you do, I see no reason to waste any more time here.

Ooooh, good idea. Don't waste time here, or anywhere else, if you can help it. Make good use of your time here, or wherever you might see fit.

As a suggestion, refraining from summarily paraphrasing (poorly, I might add) all the various other comments on a subject (as if these together comprise a message directed at you, solely to draw your ire) would be one good place to start.

You are a HYPOCRITE!

You offer two completely unsubstantiated sentences and now you are insulting me for direct quotes from the referenced piece?

Tell it to the author of the article. She likely entertains fools like you all the time!

CR4 ADMIN - email address and phone number removed

From the CR4 Rules: Do not post phone numbers or email addresses. The CR4 Admin will delete all phone numbers and email addresses posted in threads or comments. You can share this information via the CR4 internal messaging system.

Oh Lyn, don't let yourself get too emotional. Take a deep breath and as you exhale, just let go of all your negative assumptions.

There was no insult intended.

I was chiding you about the very broad skewed interpretation you presented of all the other comments here. I was definitely not discussing your action of reproducing two direct quotes from the article....you did a fine job of that.

.

Okay, now with which two statements of mine do have problems. Just point these out and I will help you to understand how the statements are substantiated.

.

.

Perhaps next time before leaping to all caps name calling, you could check to see if perhaps there might be some intended meaning other than the very insulting one you first read into the comment.

Really, Lyn, you run the risk of qualifying as a HYPOCRITE yourself, if you refuse to substatiate the your claim about two unsubstantiated comments I made.

.

If on the other hand you already substantiated what I wrote, an apology and retraction of you attack would be welcome.

The dispute is not who does more research. The dispute is the conclusion drawn from that.

Scientific facts need to be proven. There is no proof that bees suffer from CO2 or from the results of more CO2 that is of very minute quantity in the air and its amount is changing all the time just like climates do with or without human activities. To say bees are killed by higher CO2 levels is at best a very hypothetical guess. Also noting that CO2 has been much higher in the past but bees have not died out.

Bee death is a recent phenomenon. What else is recent? Pesticides! Why not have a look at pesticides which is a much more obvious cause and fits time wise. Spray some pesticide into a bee hive and see how many bees survive, Mr. 'scientist'.

So which came first in evolutionary order? Flowering plants, herbs, and grasses, or bees? Can bees get pollen from conifers? How about large ferns, or even small ones?

Neither really.

.

The generally accepted idea is that bees and flowers coevolved together. Bees from predatory wasps and flowering plants from non flowering plants, possibly something like seed ferns.

.

(Hey, Lyn, when you read this, since we all know you are adept at Google searches, why not verify my statement before hitting CAPSLOCK and proceeding with accusations of hypocrisy, foolishness and lack of substantiation?)

Already did. I assume the "Bee Facts" is the source?

Providing sources would have helped your cause.

My 'cause'? Flattering, but I really can't make any reasonable claim on ownership nor invention of the 'cause'. Unlike other causes, help is not that vital; the truth usually comes out eventually, and even if it doesn't it is still the truth.

Some of us need to re-read the "bee"-attitudes. When the humidity is high, the humility is high also. Let us gather pollen and make honey, otherwise there could be too many sour grapes.

By the way, when did the first chicken cross the toad, and please don't tell me shickens and toads evolved together. How mad did the toad get when crossed? Assume a humility factor of 1.3875, and a %RH of 73.2. The toad was at sea level.

OK, delete cause, replace with credibility.

Truth is an elusive word in today's world. Hard to find and even harder to prove.

We can all harvest published sources to support our opinions. A fact I repeatedly pointed out to the long departed kramarat, God rest his tortured soul.

I believe that CO2 may affect plant composition, which may impact bee nutrition.

You believe otherwise.

Truth may at times be hard to find, even as it stares you in the face.

.

There is truth in your comment to which I am responding, not in that last sentence, but elsewhere.

.

I find it interesting that you are so careful to hedge for uncertainty when describing the outcomes of a scientific study you have reviewed, i.e., you 'believe' ... 'may affect'... 'may impact'. Yet in contrast you write with absolute certainty (offering no hedges or even the slightest possiblity that your evaluation might not be exactly correct) when you make claims about what others (in this case, me) think.

Perhaps afford your fellow cr4ers the same possibility that you might not have perfect insight into them as you do for a scientific paper. Or, you could just ask what we think.

As an example, I agree with the second to last sentence in your previous comment.

The whole idea is a tube of baloney. Plants have biochemistry based on their metabolic pathways, which are highly known, and completely laid out, and the rates do not change based a few percent this and that. These are complex enzymatic reactions where the enzymes comprise the rate-limiting steps, unless a factor is changed by an order of magnitude higher, or removed completely, not much changes.

It is more about the availability of the limiting nutrient, phosphate in most cases.

Without a major change in soil acidity/alkalinity balance, there is not much change in phosphate availability. You need a real agronomist/crop specialist in on this debate, of which I am not, but I did grow up farming, and I know pretty much this is b.s.

It is well established that small increases in CO2 concentration can lead to significant increases in plant growth. There is also a lot of evidence suggesting that the increased growth rate is accompanied by changes in composition.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227893380_Effects_of_elevated_CO2_on_the_protein_concentration_of_food_crops_a_meta-analysis_Glob_Chang_Biol

It isn't unreasonable to assume that these changes MAY affect bees. Given that bees have been around long enough to have lived through periods of much higher co2 levels than exist today, a cap on the extent of any negative effects is strongly suggested.

Plants and bees have bee around for millions of years with varying degrees of CO2. Bees survived, no problem.

The demise of bees is recent. Like you said it is strongly suggested to look into pesticides that are also recent to find a cause for the dying out of bees. A cap on the extend of pesticide use and their negative effects is very strongly suggested.

Anything goes to blame CO2. Next it may be the obesity of a large portion of the population or baldness in man and woman? I am sure you can dream up a 'scientific' explanation. You may think of many more cases why CO2 must be banned.

It may be ok with you but I do not want go go back to the stone age without power. Wind and solar is just insufficient. Stop using pesticides and you will stop killing bees. Look elsewhere and leave the molecule of carbon and oxygen alone for reasons of what might be wrong. I for one do not see anything wrong with nature. What is it your are complaining about?

It can't be the climate as it has always been changing. Just visit a museum for nature.

Lyn, why do you think CO2 is the root of all evil in nature? You are just sounding off the alarm that is lately put forth to fight the only fuel we have which does not make sense at all.

You do know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, don't you. And specially the increase over last 50 year of 0.00008 parts. Why would that be so terrible?

CO2 is like H2O, a fundamental block of nature, both are equally needed. Since CO2 is an invisible gas that is not being noticed by the average person in everyday life and nobody is really aware of it which allows the 'scientist' to succeed in making it the scapegoat since no one of the general public really know what it is. Why not blame H2O? it is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. But you could not succeed in blaming H2O as the world would realise that you are a politician, however CO2 is easy to blame.

Also, you use the term 'may' consistently. Nothing is definite. CO2 may affect plants and CO2 may impact bees. It is really tiring to read this.

I can say the same as you in opposition, namely I believe that CO2 may not affect plant composition, which may not impact bee nutrition. Both have the same truth and value and are equally correct.

The only difference is that your version is 'politically correct' as of late. It is about 7 or 8 ago when CO2 was proclaimed to be a environmentally detrimental.

The fossil fuels are the only fuel we have. Wind and Sun will not cut it at least not at this time. But you build a case that the hydrocarbon fuels are 'bad'. Why? it is all hypothetical. Just calls that the sky is falling for the purpose of crating fear and uncertainty in the general public's mind. We will be back into the stone age without fossil fuels. As I said before try fighting a war on green fuels and electricity.

You also should stop volcanoes from emitting CO2. How would you do that? Thanks goodness they provide the CO2 nature needs. Why is CO2 measured in Hawaii that has the most volcanic activity? Just to get a high reading to support your fear mongering.

All that you 'scientist' say is in the indefinite, the uncertain, 'may', 'could', etc. It is really tiring and boring to have to read that constantly.

Nowhere, have I ever said that I think that "CO2 is the root of all evil in nature".

You put words in my mouth and that is offensive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We were discussing a single article, the subject of which was does CO2 level affect plant quality, until all you "climate experts" chimed in with your "facts".

Have it your way.

Hi Lyn,

At least you are still here. And thanks for your 'off-topic' vote.

The topic is: Does CO2 Level Really Hurt the Bees?

You said: 'I believe that CO2 may affect plant composition, which may impact bee nutrition'. Is that not saying I think that CO2 is bad equal to 'the root of all evil' when you have many other comments to that same effect?

You have argued against CO2 in general in many of your earlier comments.

Agreed, you did not say it directly but indirectly that is what you emphasise.

It cannot be offensive to summarise your comments. It is only offensive when you feel hurt by it. However, it does not change your way of attacking CO2 as being bad. Get a hold of yourself, it is simple Carbon and O2 No. 7 and No. 8 of the periodic table not some weird chemical as in pesticides man produces to really change plant life and hurt the bees.

But you and your 'scientists' are ignorant enough to not even look at that possibility and single out a trace increase of a trace natural substance that is just as much needed in nature as H2O. CO2 is not a man made chemical!

Where is you logic to blame CO2 rather than something else? Pesticides as No. 1 in the case of the bees.

No, absolutely NOT.

Once again, you put words in my mouth.

You are disingenuous and twist my words to suit your own purpose.

Don't argue with a sign post (it has a single message, and is not apt to change the message any time soon. This is not to say the sign post has correct information on it.

You are offensive. And arrogant!

Don't tell me what I mean.

And especially don't quote me and then twist the words to suit your pitiful case.

We're all science minded people here, correct? As science minded people, we strive for having facts and we use these facts to hypothesize - come up with a solution we think is correct based on our knowledge and research. We test our hypothesis (and the null hypothesis) and come up with what we believe is the solution to the problem. I'm doing this, to hopefully prove a point, so humor me and follow my lead.

You're hypothesis is that Lyn is wrong about the correlation between bee population and CO2. Nothing wrong with that, it's your belief based on your knowledge of general science, nature, bees and CO2 levels. The OP seems to have done some research on the topic and has his/her ideas on the subject. Lyn has knowledge of general science, nature, bees and CO2 levels and he agrees with the OP. Nothing wrong with that. On this forum, we discuss things that we know a lot about, things that we know something about and things we're not experts on. We share our theories and information. All good to this point.

What isn't good is when things get nasty. I've witnessed this too many times as I've sat on the Town Council or other boards. I find it interesting that the same tactics are used to win an argument - whether it's local citizens (not science minded people) trying to make a point and using the tactic of putting words in their opponents mouth or businesses twisting the words of citizens and again putting words in their mouths.

Because I see this so often and also, because I've also been the target of it too, I have my radar on sensitive mode when it comes to this tactic. To conclude that Lyn believes that CO2 is the "root of all evil" based on his statement that "CO2 may affect plant composition, which may impact bee nutrition", I believe it's not playing fair and it's using an unethical tactic to win an argument. You've put those words in his mouth - words he did not write and from an outside point of view, I don't see that he implied it either.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you're a bad person, nor am I implying it. All I'm saying is that I find it interesting that we as a civilization have somehow determined that it's okay to put words in other people's mouths when it comes to winning an argument.

I recommend you go back and read Lyn's comments. Is it an attack on fossil fuels? I don't see it, but I could be missing something. And yes, I did go back and read his comments - that's why I made the decision to write this. I'm hoping that we as a group can become "better" at arguing our point and we can work on getting rid of the the nasty tactic. It doesn't make sense to make enemies here, since we're all here for the same reason - to help others and to share our opinions and knowledge.

And yes, I do think that pesticides may be another reason for the bee problem. I also believe that CO2 increase may also be a reason. But I'm probably the last person here you'd want to ask about this, since I haven't done any research, nor have I read a lot about it either.

Here is a new research on the topic:

http://canadajournal.net/science/neonicotinoid-pesticides-cause-harm-honeybees-finds-new-research-50629-2016/

If finds that neonicotinoids are harming bees. (No need to try to blame CO2)

Or just google

https://www.google.ca/search?q=hurting+bees&oq=hurting+bees&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.2861j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Even though there seems to be compelling evidence linking neonicitinoids to the current catastrophes in bee populations...

And...

Even though I have my doubts about higher recent CO2 levels being a significant problem for bee populations....

...I still can't abide the flaunting of faulty logic. Documenting neonicitinoids are harmful to bees does nothing to demonstrate higher CO2 levels are not harmful to bees.

I suppose if the CO2 was in the toxic range for bees, it would also bee in the toxic range for many other creatures, including humans.

Now there's a no nonsense answer.

Well of course if you can definitively show CO2 doea not have a significant effect then pursuing CO2 as a cause further is needless, but that is independent of confirming neonicitinoids are harmful....unless you have a way to quantify the amount if harm neonicitinoids should do and compare it to the other way you have to quantify the total harm to bees AND the amounts were equal.

I was merely responding to the original comment that suggested CO2 was off the hook, because neonicitinoids are the likely culprit. Unsound logic.

Viewing what is reported with suspicion is healthy. AGW or otherwise.

.

"All models are wrong. Some are useful" - George E P Box.

This link to the Australian Gov't Ag Dep't talks about the many areas being researched having not yet reached a satisfactory conclusion. Under the pesticides heading.

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/pests-diseases-weeds/bees

The Aus. bee populations have not suffered as much, indeed, if at all. So that alone would seem to point to CO2 as not being the culprit. BUT that is not saying that the paper was poor science as others have tried to say. Without conducting an experiment and publishing the results it would just be conjecture or dogma. It appals me that a couple of posters have ridiculed the scientists saying they haven't behaved scientifically when they themselves did not even read some of the links provided to enlighten them. On Oz tv there was a ( Canadian or American ) Prof. loudly beseeching Gov't to ban neonicitinoids as he firmly believed those pesticides alone were the cause of the population decline. He also had done research and published. Our Ag. Dep't has seen that weather events cause colony decline ( see link ). The same sort of weather events that have had an effect here are also repeated throughout the USA. Google the great tree die off for evidence of this. The native bee populations may also be in decline, i do not know. I would expect native bees to be more sensitive to pesticides but that is pure conjecture on my part. If so, i would expect the effect to be more pronounced on the native bees.

So, in short, many scientists have conducted research into this phenomenon and published their results. As yet no one cause has been definitive in proof as far as our Ag. Dep't is concerned.

Jim

In addition to what JIMRAT has added to the diaglogue, I have only this to say:

In 'Merika, we have what are known as Africanized honey bees. These are aggressive, wild, and take over every nook and cranny they can swarm to. A neighbor recently had to have a hive sprayed and exterminated in a hollow of an old mulberry tree in his back yard. My wife had expressed concerns about our dogs and cats being in our back yard when these bees were picking up water constantly from the back yard dog waterer.

Is the poison used to kill Africanized bees more deadly? I doubt it. A bee is a bee in that regard. Metabolism is metabolism. I do think the Africaned bees drive out colonies of domestic bees from their hives, i.e. kill them off. The bad bees will kill persons who move wrong, disturb the hive, etc. I thought my wife would get swarmed by them (she was out there swatting them with fly swatter), but no such luck event.

?Quien sabe'?

I think it would be pretty simple to see if pesticides harm bees, just spray some neonicotinoid into a bee hive, or separate a few bees out and see how they react. If they die would we not be able to say that that is the cause?

Neonicotinoids has been shown to be present in dead bees, but opponents say that is insufficient proof as their demise could be something else. Nicotine is bad for humans why would it not be bad for bees?

It is pretty obvious that bees die from pesticide exposure. After all it has been developed to fight insects and bees are insects are they not? It is a matter of concentration, the amount that is being sprayed.

Blaming CO2 is really ridiculous and nothing more but an attempt to divert attention from pesticides and most of all to blame CO2 for whatever might be possible to be blamed on in the fight against hydrocarbon fuels that’s being done for whatever reason. The weather looks fine to me. We had more floods when I was a kid. There are fewer floods now and the weather is less adverse.

See the attached picture how interesting a climate change debate really is.

_"... he firmly believed those pesticides alone were the cause ..."

.

Seems like a rather unscientific statement for a researcher to make....at least with 'alone' specifed. He could have strong confidence in knowing that neonicitinoids are causing damage. He might even know with much certainty that neonicitinoids without other factor are sufficient to cause the observed problems. However uncertainty will likely be very high for knowledge that nothing else in the universe is also significanty negatively affecting wild brr populations or even captive bees working in uncontrolled environments.

Hey dude, what's the buzz? It's bee-yond our paygrade....

Oh, was I droning on and on? It's gotta bee that hive mind thing again.

Back to the wiggle dance!