I'm in agreement with George's point.  Adaptation doesn't mean a return to
the "norm."

My colonies also "adapt" when gathering poor-quality pollen, by shutting
down broodrearing, despite the pollen sometimes being abundant.  That
*adaptation* depresses the profitability of my beekeeping business.



Re the goldenrod pollen, Charlie, it wasn't just two points reduction in
protein--it was an apparent 30% reduction in my lifetime (I agree that I'd
like to see this confirmed).  That's a HUGE nutritional impact!  It's like
the difference between building colonies for going into winter on
low-protein pollen rather than high-protein pollen.



I'm also a bit surprised at your hopeless attitude about our ability to
decrease CO2 reductions.  If you haven't yet viewed the incredibly
important film *Merchants of Doubt*, may I suggest that you (and the rest
of Bee L readers) do so.



I also have issues with your arguments referring only to the ability of
American *Homo sapiens* to adapt.  There are many other humans, and many
other species on this planet that are having a hard time adapting to the
current rapid pace of warming.



And this brings me to the Precautionary Principle (which, BTW, I feel is
applied far too often by European activists).  The PP should only be
applied when the result of the possibly preventable impact would be
irreversible or extremely damaging.



Let me give you an example.  Some may wish to apply the PP to nuclear
confrontation with North Korea.  But what would the long-term result be if
we didn't?  Yes, in 50 years, there would be a thin layer of radioactive
dust in sediments worldwide; but the newly-cratered Korean peninsula would
be largely biologically and environmentally healed (as is Hiroshima
today).  Thus, the effect of such a nuclear conflagration would be largely
quickly reversible and perhaps not even result in the loss of a single
species.



On the other hand, by the time we reverse the effects of increased CO2 in
the atmosphere due to our burning of fossil fuels, we will have changed the
Earth's climate to the extent that we'd caused the irreversible extinction
of many plant and animal species, completely drowned many islands and
low-lying continental areas, displaced millions of people, melted all our
glaciers, and turned huge areas of our planet into desert.



Thus, in this case, I would indeed apply the Precautionary Principle,
rather than throwing up our hands and claiming that we can't realistically
do something about seriously reducing our consumption of fossil fuels.  In
fact, if you look at the actual numbers worldwide, serious progress is
being made in the automotive and electricity sectors.  And with a carbon
tax (offset by an equal reduction in income tax), I see no reason that the
market could not exert a strong force for rapid change.



But it won't happen so long as the deniers, apologists, and merchants of
doubt continue to tell us that it's not possible.
--
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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