"Since the original research is behind a paywall and many if not most Bee-L readers can't access it"

As a  subscriber it is not behind a paywall for me.  I found the original article and the review you cited to have the same facts exactly althou the only way to get all the data in the article is to go to the non paper electronic data deposits.  I would say the authors over interpreted the meaningfulness of their results and the review was a more accurate statement  of the findings.

Some people simply enjoy watching others twitch with unhappyness when presented with facts those people do not understand nor like.  I imagine this is a big reason Entine draws arrows. For example he has clearly pointed out that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below 50,000 feet above sea level has zero impact on green house warming for all the obvious reasons.  For those ignorant about the topic this comes as a big shock.  Of course this is exactly what the puter models say that are proposed by the leading  AWG advocates.  When you simply take the model results as religion and do not ever bother to dig into what is in the model such ideas can be disturbing.  Just like the idea that neonics likely are about number 25 or perhaps lower on the list of leading problems bee keepers face today.

Dick

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