> Anthropogenic stressors include the neonicotinoid class of 
> crop-protecting agents, have been implicated in the population 
> declines of pollinating insects, 

While you and I certainly would take strong exception to the use of the term "implicated", you have to cut them some slack, as they are describing the situation in the EU and UK, where the rules of evidence for these things are different, and the precautionary principle holds sway.  I don't think that it gives any basis for claiming that the authors "begin with the notion that they are going to find a problem that neonics cause."

> Since they [Johnson, et al] do not find the murder weapon [CCD], their paper is ignored while "studies" such as this get all the headlines.

Headlines are not a form of peer review or critique. They are a marketing tool to sell newspapers.  An accurate headline about any aspect of science would surprise me.  

Enough about the authors and presumptions about their intentions. No comments on the results?  The methods?  

             ***********************************************
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