Thanks for the citations...honestly, I did a search before asking for a citation and didn't find anything overly relevant. However even the reports you reference don't really provide more than 8 years of data that do not specify what would be considered 'normal' losses in a mild or an average over-winter, without influence from insecticides and/or invasive parasites. I would also suggest that resistance to parasites could potentially be impacted by insecticides. Rarely in ecology is the health of a species determined by just a single environmental factor.
The days of the mom&pop run farms is over. A large percentage of the North American food supply is controlled by corporations. You can't lay that at the feet of GMOs or claim that if GMOs went away then so would the corporations. As far as reduced biodiversity, agricultural sustainability and overuse of pesticides go, these risks are all still there if GMOs go away AND some GMO 'products' have no risks related to any of these. Likewise, many invasive species are more harmful than GMO's; try zebra muscles, purple loosetrife, sparrows, domestic cats.... With that said, I do think corporations, and independent mad scientists, should be accountable for what they release on the world. Anything created to increase the use of a pesticide is not in the Earth's best interest. Anything created that can out-compete and eliminate natural species should be highly regulated with the potential for fines large enough to reverse damage done.
Citation needed on your claim that honeybees are doing fine in the Canadian prairies.
The problem with general opposition to GMO food is that it's a slightly milder form of the objection some people have to 'chemicals'. Saying all are harmful is as stupid as saying all are perfectly beneficial.
Not to mention things like disproportionate focus on CO2 emission sources that, even if eliminated, would have a negligible effect on overall world emissions (such as Alberta oil[tar]sands). Why? Because they're high profile, polarizing targets that net them more donations than going after high impact targets.
So you try to discredit my scale by substituting in an arbitrary scale of your own? You are also trying to imply that old = ancient, suggesting that you have a penchant for hyperbole. As I stated, XP is still very much alive and kicking, with phase out being forced by Microsoft through a cutoff of support more than it becoming obsolete in the business world. Contrast that with DOS, Windows 3.1, NT and 95. Those I would say are potentially ancient, and only persist to run legacy software with no modern alternative (common in laboratories with older gas chromatographs for example).
In my world, a sun dial is ancient, clocks are old. A litter is ancient, a Model-T is legacy, a 88 Honda Civic is old. When using ancient to describe objections, to me it means no longer in use and no longer relevant. Legacy means, it still is functional and has use, but is far from current and is costly to keep running or maintain. Old means just that... not new. In the world of many younger people it's 'Oh crap, they released a new iPhone, the one in my hand is now ancient.'.
Did you really just call XP 'ancient software'? Are you twelve? Calling an operating system that persists on a significant percentage of computers to this day 'ancient' is ridiculous, I don't think it even qualifies for the term 'legacy' yet.
As naive as anyone who thinks that any of the other parties would have come to a different decision. I'll save my criticism of the Cons for the erosion of charter rights and environmental stewardship.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, otherwise I'd have posted 'Woosh!'. I'm more commenting on how the followup joke was inevitable.
I knew this one was coming. I almost spelled it "N-O", but thought the result would have been the same.
Cities flooded by NO exhaust? Wouldn't that be gas!
I think the cautionary tale comes from applying what we've learned from GMO in other sectors. Try this on for size: So your parents were told there was a 50% chance of producing offspring with a debilitating genetic disease. A Chinese based company offers a service where they perform an in vitro fertilization with genetic modification to reduce the chance the disease manifests to 0%. Your parents go ahead with the procedure and, voila, you're born to a disease free, healthy life; that is until you decide to procreate. At that point, the Chinese company steps in and says they own the genetic modification you would be passing on to your potential children. They demand a licensing fee, or threaten legal action.
"I do not despise those who can't comprehend the things that I can, no matter how they try. I mean, why should I?" I agree with this statement. What I find difficult to stomach is people who refuse to question things with the intelligence they were born with.
My neighbours named their dog Karma. What an awesome name for a female dog.