That is a fair point. However, not knowing the difference while simultaneously trying to act like some kind of authority on whether or not the honeybee/bumblebee populations are in trouble, is surely a special kind of stupidity on the OP's part.

Well, judging by your level of education in this matter, as you don't know the difference between bumblebees (the subject of the article) and honeybees (the subject of your multiple anti-global-warming-crusade posts), I think we're done here.

Why should I edit your inaccurate original claim, when you've already confused honeybees with bumblebees?

Nice non sequitur. I was referring to your completely off-the-mark claim that pesticides were killing bees. Once I read that claim, it's hard to believe that there's any sort of logic or science behind your other claim.

To be blunt: it appears you might be just pulling stuff out of your ass.

Or not: "One clue to the importance of climate: Bumblebee ranges began shrinking 'even before the neonicotinoid pesticides came into play in the 1980s,' says ecologist and coauthor Alana Pindar, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Guelph in Canada."

Please RTFA. Thank you.

Since the range migration started happening "even before the neonicotinoid pesticides came into play in the 1980s,” both of your theories seem to not be relevant to this particular article. Especially the wacky cellphone tower tinfoil hat guy.

Please at least try to RTFA next time.

Christ, it's like the 5th paragraph in: "One clue to the importance of climate: Bumblebee ranges began shrinking 'even before the neonicotinoid pesticides came into play in the 1980s,' says ecologist and coauthor Alana Pindar, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Guelph in Canada."

I know, no one likes to RTFA. But if you did: "One clue to the importance of climate: Bumblebee ranges began shrinking “even before the neonicotinoid pesticides came into play in the 1980s,” says ecologist and coauthor Alana Pindar, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Guelph in Canada."

If I'm reading your multitude of comments on this subject correctly, you're saying, "fuck the wild honeybees, private industry will just make more of them and truck them around more and everything will be okay. yay capitalism!"

Is that about right?

I don't think the word "most" means what you think it means.

No, people bold things because, in their own deluded evaluation of the brilliance of their comments, they think they're saying the most important part.

What you think is of little consequence, as Lincoln never said that pithy quote. http://www.greatamericanhistor...

The fact that they went to war over it.

One of Napolitano's claims, in a segment that aired on Fox Business Channel:

“At the time that [Lincoln] was the president of the United States, slavery was dying a natural death all over the Western world,” Napolitano said." http://www.salon.com/2014/02/2...

Meanwhile, more slaves were alive in the United States than ever before. The international slave trade may have ended, but it was alive and well here, and slavery was expanding in the South, not contracting. Like I said, lies combined with half-truths designed to make the point that the war wasn't about slavery. And why, exactly? What's your motivation for perpetuating revisionist history? Do you even know?

Very few southereners owned slaves in the same way that very few Silicon Valley residents own tech companies. You might not be a CEO, but you sure as shit support the existence of those tech companies in the place where you're making your living.