[tptacek]

Sorry, I think you're going to need to (1) clarify exactly what it is you're claiming and (2) back that up with a source that isn't simply a news outlet reporting things secondhand.

Regarding (1): are you trying to say that recent bee losses are related to pesticides and not mites? We might not disagree. The eradication of feral honey bees occurred decades ago. Neonicotinoids were introduced more recently. Clearly there are some feral honey bee colonies today (after all: American beekeepers keep reintroducing new honey bees). If you want to tell me that pesticides are a greater threat to those colonies than the Varroa mites that wiped out all the 90s-vintage honeybees, I'm not going to dispute that.

[mmjaa]

I'm saying your claim that its mites is a straw man, is all. We've actually had almost this exact conversation before, you and I, and last time you weren't convinced that the science was 'sound enough'.

I don't expect you to be convinced this time, but .. lets see:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1393

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49768/...

[tptacek]

Sorry, I'm still not clear just exactly what it is you're claiming. I don't need to critically read magazine articles (or their sources) if we agree on the argument you're defending with them.

If all you're saying is that neonicotinoids are bad for honey bees, I don't disagree! My issue is that I don't think it really matters what's bad for honey bees, because it's not like there was a thriving population of wild honey bees for neonicotinoids to ravage: the mites took care of that 2 decades ago.

[mmjaa]

Well, either way, you and me should (and are?) both quite happy to know that neonicotinoids will no longer be being used in many expanding markets for bee-based products .. at least, I am.

Glad, also, to hear the bees can bounce back. In my neck of the woods though, it has to be said: there are as many bees as ever, and that is to say: lots. Happy summer!