The death of bees puts the world in danger

[Moindreffor]

So, Janic you did not go far enough in your research and you therefore glued-on a stupidity, said by a researcher but a nice bullshit all the same,

to indicate an information, it is effectively not to go far, since it is not made for that! To know if it is stupid, it is to the character concerned that the question should be asked, not to me. Now if there are researchers who do not say bullshit, it is unlikely to be according to your subjective criteria, otherwise there will hardly be any credible people left in this area.

so stick it on without thinking for you this is your solution, this is all the difference, knowing how to take a step back in front of the information that we give you, the current world and especially the info, is no longer investigative journalism, but buzz journalism, it's up to everyone to have the knowledge to sort through or look beyond the tip of their nose before sticking on

you often talk about fake news, well there, you were in spite of yourself part of those who disseminated one because you took for cash the words of this researcher, and that is why when I defend certain points of view , I defend them on my own knowledge, in particular as a chemist, and a little biochemist, and yes some researchers say bullshit to support their theories or to make the buzz (voluntarily or involuntarily because they also do not take the time to check the info or to deepen)

so as Chafoin says, it is not all black and white this affair, but there must be a little of both, the intensive use of pesticides may have at a time decimated bees so much that peasants have embark on fertilization by hand, and seeing that it could open up new possibilities for them (cross-pollination, better quality harvest ...) they continued by exploiting this new farming method, but it is not presented as this by this researcher

[izentrop]

it is not presented like this by this researcher

Or by the documentary filmmaker therefore the main goal is the respect of a common thread, rarely that of the truth.
Sometimes the sentences spoken are taken out of context and no longer correspond to the meaning of the initial speech. Some say so when asked after the fact.
You can deduce whatever you want from it, but not the strict truth.

Elise Lucet has a knack for making this kind of documentary.
Between the fake news of the internet and this kind of fiction, some do not see further and create another truth. The worst is when they think they are preachers and bomb the forums erroneous or deliberately false information.

[Moindreffor]

it is not presented like this by this researcher

Or by the documentary filmmaker therefore the main goal is the respect of a common thread, rarely that of the truth.
Sometimes the sentences spoken are taken out of context and no longer correspond to the meaning of the initial speech. Some say so when asked after the fact.
You can deduce whatever you want from it, but not the strict truth.

Elise Lucet has a knack for making this kind of documentary.
Between the fake news of the internet and this kind of fiction, some do not see further and create another truth. The worst is when they think they are preachers and bomb the forums erroneous or deliberately false information.

there it is the researcher who says it to support his statements, so it is he who chooses to take in this matter of pollination by hand only the part which interests him to do catastrophism, it is a way not very "honest" to practice, he will always be able to retort that he made a shortcut if we went looking for him on that (bad faith, quite relative )
but yes it is a new journalistic technique or of scientific diffusion, when I started the research my work was to find what was missing as info in the theses of the other researchers to lead to the results presented, therefore to redo their work and find the 'tip, so don't say everything is not new, but from the net, not only we do not say everything, but in addition we can manipulate opinion by being in bad faith, by keeping only the part that interests us on this or that subject and advancing its academic title, pass it off as the strict truth

what many do not know is that a researcher must publish to exist, that looking for it takes time and that finding it does not happen every day, and especially the ego is not to be neglected, so some make choices, after if we do not take enough distance, well as you say we can paste false truths, but who blame those who take their word for it, or those who for their crust flirt with the yellow line

me my info on bees I will get them from a school apiary, from beekeeping trainers, in the field, where it is reliable

[Janic]

so stick it on without thinking for you this is your solution, this is all the difference, knowing how to take a step back in front of the information that we give you, the current world and especially the info, is no longer investigative journalism, but buzz journalism, it's up to everyone to have the knowledge to sort through or look beyond the tip of their nose before sticking on

As a copy-pasted propagator, you're not late!
When a person is interviewed, he only gives his opinion, not that of his entire corporation, in this case INRA, which does not represent a fakenews, nor is it a truth. 'is a bit short to develop a whole career devoted to this subject.

you often talk about fake news, well there, you were in spite of yourself part of those who disseminated one because you took for cash the words of this researcher,

As a nullissime reflection, it's won! I do not take more part so that against, a report is not necessarily a membership, still it would be necessary to have the skills and capacities, which is neither my case, nor seems to hold it! )

and that is why when I defend certain points of view, I defend them on my own knowledge, [*] in particular as a chemist, and a little as a biochemist

Except that you're not a biologist, which creates a gap between the two.

, and yes some researchers say bullshit to support their theories or to make the buzz (voluntarily or involuntarily because they also do not take the time to check the info or to deepen)

like you!

[*] coming from cosmic teapot?

[Moindreffor]

so stick it on without thinking for you this is your solution, this is all the difference, knowing how to take a step back in front of the information that we give you, the current world and especially the info, is no longer investigative journalism, but buzz journalism, it's up to everyone to have the knowledge to sort through or look beyond the tip of their nose before sticking on

As a copy-pasted propagator, you're not late!
When a person is interviewed, he only gives his opinion, not that of his entire corporation, in this case INRA, which does not represent a fakenews, nor is it a truth. 'is a bit short to develop a whole career devoted to this subject.

you often talk about fake news, well there, you were in spite of yourself part of those who disseminated one because you took for cash the words of this researcher,

As a nullissime reflection, it's won! I do not take more part so that against, a report is not necessarily a membership, still it would be necessary to have the skills and capacities, which is neither my case, nor seems to hold it! )

and that is why when I defend certain points of view, I defend them on my own knowledge, in particular as a chemist, and a little as a biochemist

Except that you're not a biologist, which creates a gap between the two.

,and yes some researchers say bullshit to support their theories or to create the buzz (voluntarily or unintentionally because they also do not take the time to check the info or to dig deeper)

like you!

uh, it was not you who swung the link without checking

well, you were caught in the jam jar and you are trying to plead not guilty again
I never copy and paste except there to show you that what you presented was not the strict truth
and I then qualified my remarks, as did be-chafoin, it is neither all white, nor all black in this affair

after your rhetoric doesn't interest me at all, if you don't know how to share things, that's your problem

next time, be more careful when you drop an info, we will take you more seriously, it took me 10s with google to find the article and a few minutes to read it, I assumed that for once I was going to believe you and I looked for additional information and no luck, in the article it is much more nuanced ...

Like what, you shouldn't believe that I want you personally, just that there, well you were a little too quickly in work to swing this link, you could have searched a little more, that's all I tell

[Janic]

uh, it was not you who swung the link without checking

I do not have to seek to verify, any more than all the information which passes on the media of all kinds. To indicate is not to dogmatize!

I never copy and paste

ouarffff! it's the best of the year!

except there to show you that what you presented was not the strict truth

this guy is blocked! There is no truth or not, but information, nothing more!

after your rhetoric doesn't interest me at all, if you don't know how to put things right, that's your problem

re-ouarfff!

next time, be more careful when you drop an info, we will take you more seriously, it took me 10s with google to find the article and a few minutes to read it, I assumed that for once I was going to believe you and I looked for additional information and no luck, in the article it is much more nuanced ...

re-re-ouarfff! You are trying to convince yourself not to say repeated nonsense, once again!

Like what, you shouldn't believe that I want you personally, just that there, well you were a little too quickly in work to swing this link, you could have searched a little more, that's all I tell

re-re-re ouarfff!

[Moindreffor]

I do not have to seek to verify, any more than all the information which passes on the media of all kinds. To indicate is not to dogmatize!

well if you do not try to check the information that you balance, you are useless and do not intervene on forums, because we absolutely don't need that, we won't waste our time reading you anymore

[Janic]

well if you do not try to check the information that you balance, you are useless and do not intervene on forums, because we absolutely don't need that, we won't waste our time reading you anymore

because on top of that you think you are the spokesperson for the speakers! and the censor! and the moderator and why not for the boss of the site. On the other hand you are right, do not waste your time by not checking the information that you balance on certain subjects that you have absolutely no control over.

[GuyGadebois]

https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2014/04/23/dans-les-vergers-du-sichuan-les-hommes-font-le-travail-des-abeilles_4405686_3244.html

if we stop at the words of this researcher, we make a big dumpling and yes he says bullshit,
in the article above it is explained that
1) it is not a region of China, but rather some villages in a region of China
2) farmers use this technique to ensure harvests and especially to cross varieties of apples
3) that they voluntarily overdose in phyto, precisely so that it is they who manage the pollination and ensure the harvest with no insects which put it at risk thereafter
4) they have been doing this for over 30 years, so nothing to do with the recent disappearance of insects

as proof of the presence of bees in the region, the husband of one of the women who pollinates by hand is a beekeeper *

So, Janic you did not go far enough in your research and you therefore glued-on a stupidity, said by a researcher but a nice bullshit all the same,

it's good to want to make the buzz with such info, should we know the background especially for someone who presents himself as a specialist in the disappearance of insects (the researcher )

* Indeed:
The irony of the situation does not escape Zhen Xiuqiong, the farmer perched on her branch: her husband is a beekeeper. If he rents his bees well to certain orchards in the region, it is out of the question to let them forage in the trees that occupy his wife so much, because she has a heavy hand on insecticides. "If his bees pollinated here, they would die," said Ms. Zhen.

https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/ ... _3244.html