And yet the actual data says they're not dying like never before, in fact they're doing quite fine: http://www.capabees.com/2014/0...

The decline in honey bee populations in North America correlates very well with 2 factors: varroa mites and cold winters. The mortality rate for bee colonies over winter correlates very well with both the spread of the varroa mite, as well as the development of resistance in the mites to treatments. We also see spikes in the mortality rates for bee colonies in regions that suffer an unusually cold winter. I didn't claim that neonicotinoids can't be to blame. I claimed that the data didn't correlate, and I claimed that it was more likely to be the varroa mite. And if you actually looked at the data yourself, you'd see that for yourself.

Here's your citation: Annual Colony Losses If you're too lazy to actually read it, here's the relevant numbers: Alberta 13% loss in 2012, 23% in 2013, 18% in 2014 Saskatchewan 17% in 2012, 27% in 2013, 18% in 2014 Manitoba 16% in 2012, 46% in 2013, 24% in 2014 You can read more about the devastation the varroa mite has caused here: Varroa Mites The varroa mite is developing resistance to our normal methods of treating them, resulting in a decreased ability to control and limit the damage they cause. The Canadian Honey Bee council lists the varroa mite as their primary concern.

Actually, there's no carpet bombing of neonics, that's not how they're applied.

Complete bullshit is right! How is it that some regions that use neonics are not suffering any bee colony deaths at all? Australia is one of the heaviest users of neonics, yet their bee colonies are quite healthy. Canada's prairies also use neonics, yet their bees are doing absolutely fine. Neonics were in use for 15 years before these bee colony deaths began to appear. Certainly not very much correlation at all between usage of neonics and bee deaths. It's quite likely that the real culprit is the varroa mite, and the bee viruses it carries. The mite has become a serious problem in both the US and Europe, and the spread of the mite correlates much better with the spread of CCD.

Considering how much California seems to be willing to spend on dubious infrastructure such as not so high speed trains, why aren't they building desalinization plants to solve their water shortage?

If you can turn the earth into a snowball in a single year, then yes I would think we'd suffer a massive loss in population. But if you want to have a logical discussion, you need to ditch the hyperbole. There's no way our planet is going snowball lightning fast without some sort of catastrophic asteroid or volcanism event. As for which is more survivable, cold versus hot, all evidence points to life flourishing with warmer worldwide temperatures. What we don't know is the optimal temperature, after which increasing heat will begin to hamper life instead. But whatever, you're entitled to your opinion, and I thank you for sharing and defending your wrong opinion.

Maybe you want to spend a few months up in Iqaluit before you start spouting off about how all those examples are temperate. And FYI, even during the ice ages, there was plenty of tropical land not buried in snow. I think you'd be surprised at just how adaptable the human race is to new climates. The carboniferous would be no problem for us to adapt to. Big insects? Big deal. We've survived bears, wolves, tigers, lions, alligators, and more.

we have no guarantee we can survive in any climate other than the one we evolved in
Seriously? We have cultures living above the arctic circle, in the dense jungles of the rain forests, in the Sahara desert, at extreme altitudes in the Himalayas. In fact, we've demonstrated pretty well that we can survive in every climate that exists.

That would be far too logical of a solution...government regulations don't work like that.

Except that he is a creationist. He is claiming God created and guides evolution. Why would you say that he's not a creationist? He clearly states that our origins and evolution itself REQUIRE a divine creator. Is it because he isn't insisting on the world being 6000 years old? Was that the only flaw in the creationist theory? The original poster I replied to tried to compare skeptic beliefs to religious beliefs, but the guy he's supporting clearly isn't all that strong of a "grounded in science" facts guy, is he?

Okay, I get itthe pope is right, because he's pitching in his support for climate changedespite the fact that he's a creationist, so anyone defending him gets modded up, and anyone pointing out that he's more about belief than he is about science gets modded downso let's throw you SJW's a curve ball then. The pope is against gay marriage: http://www.breitbart.com/natio... So is he right or wrong on this one?

And in the end, the "solution" to climate change will be.taxes. And CO2 will continue to rise, and the planet will continue to not die. And the foolish citizens will continue to pay more and more for less and less, while Republicans and Democrats fundraise, live lavishly on taxpayer funded expense accounts, take bribes from lobbyists and foreign interests, hire friends and family, steer government contracts to organizations that will continue to line the politicians' pockets.

I know the Catholic Church's stance on evolution and creation. Francis himself has said "evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve". So yeah, evolution exists, but we were all created before we evolved.

If you think there's any difference between the Republicans and Democrats and the amount of disinformation they spew, then you're clearly brainwashed by one of them...