Fair  point summary Christina,  but at least in my case your spinning it a
bit.

First,  I suck at typing and English at times.  I use the wrong too,  miss
your's all the time and many other grammar mistakes.  Part of being ADHD and
dyslexic,  so I won't ever give grief to others for those issues,  so
frankly I admit to sucking at English.

That said,  your post

" This is a very compelling story that I suspect will become incredibly
important over the next years, both for bees and for people."

is 100% a declarative statement.  There is not a question, thought or any
invitation to discussion in it.  As such  I do take the opposite side.  I
think your completely mistake on its importance in the grand scheme.

That said I also think the author of the article should stick to OP ED as
that's what it is.   Corneiala Dean has a  book( I don't recommended it as
its poorly written) It based on how newspaper writers try to write about
Science,  and how hard it is. (she was the Science editor at NYT)   She does
point out fairly well about how bias of the writers screw up good science.
This is a 100% perfect example.  Dr. Ziska has done some interesting work,
but its also very clear by reading it, that its preliminary  and subjective.

So lets talk about that part,  first,  we have no knowledge from the paper
at least,  of the soil types the "original" samples were collected  But the
author did start anew  with the  test  so its sort of covered.    In that he
clearly states that this research applies to "concentration in
non-leguminous plant tissues"   indicating this  may not apply to all
plants.  Some of his other research  shows that.

We also have zero information posted about how proteins in this plant in
particular vary from region to region, season to season I am no expert,  but
we see 2/3 points variation in most grain crops,  so by assumption  I am at
least curious as to how that applies.  In fairness as far as correlation in
the research shows,  that's not a point.  It's a point in how this actually
applies to real world.

Lots talk about how it actually applies.  Quick look shows that to Randys
point  proteins on goldenrod may have dropped 2 points in the last 25 years
from Co2 .  Is that enough to cause the casual observation things are not
what they used to be?   Well to figure that,  we need to know many things.
Since we are talking goldenrod ( recall the non legume statement)  we need
to know what portion of said yards are actually foraging on goldenrod.  Then
we need to try to figure out biomass.  We also know from that same research
that there are more and bigger plants from increased Co2  so now we have
more overall flowers?

So we need to break out the math.  Lets assume for discussion  goldenrod
made up 50%  25 years ago.  At say 14% protein,  now  with more flowers  it
makes up 60% at 12% protein.  Well  now  the real question arises.  What
protein level made up the other 50% before?  Of it was some other plant at
18% protein,  we have a huge loss.  If it was a  plant with say 10%
proteins,  or rust spores at 0%  then we have a net huge gain.  I won't post
an answer because of too many unknowns.


We also need to know how proteins levels really effect the hives health.
Many people incorrectly assume more protein is good.  I don't know in
insects,  but in most domestic livestock,  too much protein is deadly and
the bigger problem.  Scours kills.  Still a huge issue.  For those who don't
know,  hay proteins are generally considered to be low.  On purpose,  its
rouage to balance out a full stomach with too much protein from the grains.
Huge issues for livestock producers to know how much.  So in bees does to
much protein cause issues?  And at what levels??  Over what time periods?
While understanding Randy sees foragers full of pollen  in the fall,  my
understanding is that clear liquids (no ash) is much better for long
winters.  So we also need to factor in what winter are we talking about,  a
CA winter or a NY winter?


So  Based on Randys article and the posting of the original headline more
than a year ago,  some of us have pondered it and discussed it,  and come up
with a different theory.   That theory is that at this point,  it's a very
interesting intellectual discussion,  but it really points out how little we
do know,  and shouldn't be used in any sort of decision making yet.   While
others have come to the conclusion that it's the final nail in the coffin on
global warming.

If its carbon you want to discuss,  then great,  by all means!  Sure shows
and looks like Co2 is rising,  and we are the cause.  No debate there from
me.  But lets get to an interesting discussion,  what do we do about it?
Ahh  now it gets ugly.   If you apply the simple concept of incentives or
economics,  you see a problem,  Increased taxes in fuels  hurts everyone,
but the governments,  which in turn tend to misspend and squander,  leading
to backlash.    Any rules you make  other wise always seem to benefit
scoundrals, and punish the good,  such as my higher utility bill and Al Gore
selling carbon credits.  That never flies.   Try telling someone they cant
watch tv or go out,  because someone else in the world wants to,  and you
see the problem.

I have pondered it a lot.  Randy makes mention of cutting down his
footprint, by stopping migratory beekeeping,  personaly I do some things
also.  I haven't had yard lights or night lights in 30 years.  People here
think I am a cheap Jewish person because my yard is dark.   I only use
reuasable cups and fountain drinks.  Almost never bottled pop. Unfortunatly
despite that small sacrifice I still fly to bee meetings,  and jump in the
truck to run to the C store a lot more than I should.

So lets solve the issue.

No more streetlight/ night lights.   That will shut down around 8% of
utilities
No more  inter contential air travel  that will make another huge dent.
No more carnival cruises,  wow  all that fuel to float around a ocean?
Insane.
Ban on all AC,  really?  12% of our energy because we don't want to sweat??
How insane is that?
No more plastic disposables

5 simple things that will cut Co2.  I would bet some of us would agree,  I
would also bet there is no chance in hell any of them could or would happen.
To many voices on both sides would say no.

Any other ideas??  After all  we need to save the bees!


Charles

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html