[cool_look]

"In a study spanning two decades, a team of researchers led by Colorado State University found declining numbers of..."

20 years, is but a blink of an eye. It takes us back to 1997 only. What was the longer term trend ? How would they know if we started in a local maximum, or how often populations rebound ?

I complain that we barely have enough arctic and antarctic satellite samples and we have those from 1979.

So any decline of anything is linked to climate change automatically ?? That doesn't follow at all.

[Denzel]

Your comment history shows a rather singular affliction for climate change submissions, along with a very common dismissal.

[vanattab]

Attack the argument not the person making the argument. I believe that climate change is a major problem and we need to take steps to mitigate it, I also agree with the gp that the media is using a lot of crap logic and crap science to try and fight the good fight but in the end it's only going to give cover to climate sceptics.

[Denzel]

Except there's no argument to attack. They never offer any argument or solution and instead seek to spread basic fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). It's most certainly valid to attack the person when that person has shown a pattern of action that is not based on anything substantive.

[tezza]

You are correct about my opinion. I have an opinion like everyone else and that does not invalidate my argument.

My opinion is informed by facts such as:

This study is only 20 years of a multicentury phenomena, how do we know what is the "appropriate" amount of nematodes ? Is less than 20 years ago a bad thing or a complete irrelevance ?