Given a chance to rebut, Greenpeace punts — essay.
Greenpeace writes:
Syngenta is trying to make us believe that bee populations can recover if we mainly fight one of the factors: the varroa mite. According to Syngenta, “there is (…) no direct correlation between neonicotinoids use and poor bee health, although a correlation can be drawn between bee losses and the presence of the Varroa mite”.
But bee decline is more complex and all factors that contribute to bee decline must be addressed. How long will Mr. Martin Taylor, Chairman of Syngenta, deny scientific evidence showing that Syngenta’s blockbuster pesticide thiamethoxam is linked to the global bee decline according to peer-reviewed scientific studies? Bees are running out of time. [Emphasis added]
Best,
I tend to question any work product that is computer modeled as we all know GIGO hypothesis has been proven a million times. When I went to University there was no “CONSENSUS” of anything – only proposed conclusions util a “PROOF” could be verified.
It’s amazing how much total crap is out there that is ‘peer’ reviewed. Grant-grubbers checking the work of grant-grubbers. And if it’s climatology, it’s the old-boy network doing its ‘consensus’ thing.
I used to have higher regard for peer-reviewed work. And it’s getting worse. The ‘new wave’ in scientific publishing is you can publish any damned thing if you pay the publisher $500. They’ll provide the peer-reviewers, but bottom line, if they don’t publish it, they don’t get the money. The system is getting sicker, not better.
What this means is that it’s entirely possible, and even likely, that Greenpeace has ‘peer’-reviewed research that supports its contention.
Bottom line: don’t cite peer-reviewed work unless you’ve read it yourself and made up your *own* mind.
More Grant funded research huh? Where is the peer reviewed data – come on E=GREEN do the real science and present all the data sets so the work product can be reviewed for real using the real data that can be checked.