Hacker News Reader

Comment by pergadad | Hacker News Reader

As a factor it seems believable, as THE factor it seems more likely that there's a big funder looking for a strawman...

Which industry does have an immense and known responsibility for insect deaths? Maybe the industry producing insecticides that are hugely profitable but at risk of global bans?

I'd not at all be surprised if this is an elaborate way to sow legal doubt on the anti-insecticide / organic agriculture efforts.

View on HN

Nowhere in the article do they claim that it's THE factor, just a key factor in combination with "habitat loss, chemical pollution, invasive species, and climate change" (3rd paragraph).

I think that's exactly how contemporary disinformation campaigns work. Say its almost totally pesticides, the win for them is muddling it into 'numerous causes.' There's so much money involved in some of these issues that stakeholders can spend millions (billions if you own fossil fuel reserves) just to move the needle slightly.

Yeah usually 80 percent of any problem is just one factor. In this case that's clearly pesticides and the discussion of more potential causes is a benefit to the producers.

This is exactly how it played out in the popular perception of climate change.

>“We strongly believe artificial light at night – in combination with habitat loss, chemical pollution, invasive species, and climate change – is driving insect declines,” the scientists concluded after assessing more than 150 studies. “We posit here that artificial light at night is another important – but often overlooked – bringer of the insect apocalypse.”

That’s how most of this nonsense works. You just have to sow doubt.

Exactly, remember the mystery of the disappearance of bees? And they finally found out (or rather. admitted) that it was pesticides that were responsible. Same thing here.

Excellent point.

A thought experiment (since we lack hard data) Step A) eliminate all neonicotinoid and systemic plant pesticides

Step B) eliminate all light pollution

What happens to insect populations with either step?

I'd bet that A would do much more to restore the populations.

Any other bets, or better yet, some hard data?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com