> When we actually get to examine the underlying data behind much of that
'science', we often wonder how any meaningful signal could be found in the
noise, and how such a small sample observed under limited conditions could
be extrapolated to suggest a generality.

Allen, here you have hit the nail on the head!  The one single problem that
I see with most bee research is simply too small a number of colonies in the
trial to deal with the inherent wide variability between colonies.

A trial with a small "n" can detect major effects, but is less valuable at
detecting more subtle effects.

In any case, this is hardly the damnation of the scientific method--it
simply addresses the limitiations of small trials.

Re CO2 following warming--I believe that the CO2 concentration of the oceans
is currently rising to alarming levels.  This is just the opposite of what
we would expect if the oceans were outgassing due to warming.

However, the clincher to me is to look at the carbon isotope levels.  If
increasing CO2 levels are indeed anthropogenic, then there should be a lower
C14 level in the atmosphere, since the carbon would have come from fossil
fuels.  If increasing CO2 is due to simple ocean outgassing, then the C14
would be higher, since the dissolved CO2 would have been from more recent
origins.  I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the isotope ratios
indicate that rising CO2 levels are likely anthropogenic.

Randy Oliver

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