Peter, I always appreciate the time you take to cite specific studies and data and I try to read them all.  You mentioned that you can tell what data is hard science and what is not.  Not personally knowing all these researchers like you seem to, it is sometimes hard for me to separate fact from politically driven spin.  How would you suggest I develop some discernment?

Have you read the recent article from ABJ?

http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=5fd2b1aa990e63193af2a573d&id=fe62c70514&e=358ac22ae4
“Beepocalypse” Not: Alarmist Honeybee Claims Collapse Under Scrutiny

Other than a few typos, and in need of general editing, it seemed to be based on solid, reputable sources like Randy Oliver and Marla Spivak, and for the few sources I checked (she listed 101 sources) it seemed like the author represented the original data correctly.

Would you consider information that ABJ publishes to be reliable and well vetted?  It would pass Christina's 20 year test . . . 

I have heard some feedback that this article is just spin and political, but the opponents are not citing supporting studies or evidence for their disagreement (beyond suggesting the author is corrupt based on past affiliations), just disagreeing.  

It seems to me, when relevant and numerous studies by various institutions are referenced, there is credibility in the article.

Your thoughts?

Melinda Stewart
Napa, California
             ***********************************************
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