'Hyperalarming' study shows massive insect loss.

[NNadir]

15. I have the full PNAS scientific paper before me.

Nowhere in the entire paper, is the words "Monsanto" mentioned.

Here, for example, is a graphic from the paper:



Here is the caption:

Fig. 5.
Trends in the abundance of canopy arthropods and walking sticks in the Luquillo forest El Verde study area. (A) Linear regression of the total number of canopy arthropods captured per foliage weight sampled at El Verde against the period when the samples were taken. (B) Cubic regression for the total number of canopy arthropods captured per foliage weight sampled against the MnMaxT during the period when the samples were taken. (C) Quasi-Poisson regression of total number of walking sticks vs. the period when the population was sampled. (D) Quasi-Poisson regression of total number of walking sticks vs. the MnMaxT during the period when the population was sampled. The 95% confidence intervals are shown around the best-fit regression lines. For the Poisson regressions, Pr(χ is the result of a likelihood-ratio χ2 test of whether the independent variable improves the Poisson model beyond an intercept-only model. P < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant regression

The word "chemicals" does not appear in the text; but the word "pesticides" does. Here is the excerpt of the only place - other than the references - where the words appear:

Research on causal factors has focused on anthropogenic disturbance and pesticides (57, 58). Given its long-term protected status (59), significant human perturbations have been virtually nonexistent within the Luquillo forest since the 1930s, and thus are an unlikely source of invertebrate declines. Due to the ongoing reduction in agriculture and associated farmland, pesticides use in Puerto Rico also fell up to 80% between 1969 and 2012 (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). Most pesticides have half-lives measured in days, not decades (60), making it improbable that, despite precipitous declines in their use, remaining residues are responsible for waning arthropod abundance.

Now, if one took time out to learn some science instead of screaming bullshit paranoid rhetoric about their primitive anti-corporate fantasies, one could clearly see that this is a paper about a serious environmental issue involving, rather than having one's head up one's ass in a Monsanto hate fest, heat.

I've been writing here about science for over a decade, sixteen years in fact.

I am not surprised to hear someone who clearly cares nothing at all about science, but has some kind of angry but highly superficial political agenda that has very little to do with reality spewing it all over an important scientific environmental issues.

However, as a scientist I am uninterested in irrelevant bullshit, particularly paranoid bullshit.

I do note, that Putin, a former KGB agent, worked for many years for the Soviet state, which advertised itself as the primo anti-capitalist organization in the world. When not reading science, I did, in fact read a considerable amount about the tawdry history of the nominally corporate hating Soviet State that Putin used to serve, concluding that the allegory put together by Orwell, animal farm.

Look kiddie. Because someone does buy into paranoid horseshit put forth by someone who is clearly disinterested in science, it doesn't make them a Russian. I don't expect a small mind to understand this, but I do wish people who are clearly disinterested in science would take their rhetoric to the anti-capitalist super-socialist websites on the far, far, far, far left that I'm sure are all over the internet, along with other extremist bullshit website equivalents on the far, far, far, far right.

You would need to know some history to know what Russian trolling might be.

I'm a Democrat, a left of center democrat - one who will plainly confess that I have met with and know Monsanto scientists who actually do not have horns and hoofs and whatever else is in your fantasies. In fact, I would consider many of them as having a high degree of environmental awareness and scientific integrity, as well as a strong interest in feeding other human beings. I believe in a well regulated capitalist state in which the government serves to protect the common resources and respects the tenor of Section 1, the 25th Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads:

Article 25.


(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

You see that part that reads, "...including food?"

The Ag industry is not perfect, and I have profound scientific agreements with some practices. But I also know that without the participation of agricultural scientists the world food supply might only support granola munching "organic food" airheads muttering anti-GMO claptrap with complete indifference to the poor who depend on the world food supply we have.

I'm a Democrat; an old school Democrat; which means I care about the poor more than I care, for example, about Elon Musk's car for billionaires and millionaires, to use one of my favorite examples. But frankly, while I care deeply about the poor, I am proud and happy to say that I care about them in a very different way than say, Leon Trotsky, and I know what Leon Trotsky thought, because I've actually read some the his writings.

They have nothing to do with climate change; nothing to do with science; and nothing, in fact, to do with the real issues in human decency. They're about power and its abuse, and, of course, a disturbing political agenda.

My personal opinion is that you are polluting something, specifically the wonderful science section of a fine political website. There must be plenty of places on this website to cheer for Monsanto hating. Why are you in this forum?.

I think I'll exercise my "ignore" button in this space. I have no use for ignorance.

Bye. Have a wonderful life.