> >The issues are intertwined, and not by me.
>

Everything in nature is intertwined.   My point was, that we can discuss the
effects of increasing CO2 without being distracted by the debate as to the
causes of the climate change that we are observing.  Not trying to pick a
fight, just trying to clarify.

>
> I'm interested to know how much change in plants has been documented and
> how robust the research was.  A lot of the GW 'research' has been debunked.
>

You can read the papers yourself and make up your own mind.  Seemed robust
to me.  Again, those papers had nothing to do with GW.

> After all, beekeepers usually say that nothing makes a hive look better
than a good honey flow.

How many beekeepers look carefully at the brood nest immediately after a
very strong honey flow?  I rarely do, since it involves lifting off all the
supers.  And when I have, the brood nest is usually completely plugged out,
with almost no young larvae.

I will definitely agree that nothing makes a hive look better than a
moderate honey flow, but that's not what I was talking about.


> >OK, thanks, but that does not answer the question.
>

Sorry.   It appears that bees starve as the result of a severe nosema
infection.  It makes them more hungry (as judged by the proboscis extension
reflex), as Chris Mayak's recent paper found.  Makes me wonder if that is
why Bob and others observe nosema infected bees drowning in feeders.

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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L