>
>
> Simple cause and effect--hard to miss the correlation.
>
>
> Randy Oliver
> Same disclaimers as Bill T


Funny.

As noted, all humor must have truth to be funny. The problem with most
advocacy books is they are just that, trying to prove a point by whatever
means. You can take absolutely valid data and, by changing start or end
points, or determining some data must be dropped (since it does not fit the
hypothesis), or adding in hypothesized data (as was done in a recent
Antarctic warming temperature study) you can prove just about anything.

It is very nice to insist that CCD and pesticides are linked, but there is
just no proof. In fact, there is proof that they are not, based on Jerry's
and Penn State's  findings. So it really gets down to what we want to
believe instead of looking at the facts.

The real humor in this is we are told, on one hand, to throw out any Bayer
Studies as they are biased, but believe an anti-pesticide activist's book
because he is not. What is good for the goose should also be good for the
gander.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************