Several
media outlets -- namely National Public Radio -- are touting a tall
tale that climate change is decimating bee populations throughout North
America. The (false) alarm is based on a
February 7 study published by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS). The study, however, is deeply flawed and does
not change the very low likelihood of climate change seriously impacting bee
populations.
After
examining the study, titled “Climate change contributes to widespread declines
among bumble bees across continents” -- one immediately notices that there is a
key issue missing that is not discussed in the paper at all: Colony Collapse
Disorder (CCD). In non-scientific jargon, CCD occurs when entire hives suddenly
experience population crashes. CCD has been called the honeybee’s biggest enemy by scientific
researchers.
The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says:
“There
have been many theories about the cause of CCD, but the researchers who are
leading the effort to find out why are now focused on these factors:
- Increased losses due to the invasive varroa mite (a
pest of honeybees).
- New or emerging diseases such as Israeli Acute
Paralysis virus and the gut parasite Nosema.
- Pesticide poisoning through exposure to pesticides
applied to crops or for in-hive insect or mite control.
- Stress bees experience due to management practices such
as transportation to multiple locations across the country for providing
pollination services.
- Changes to the habitat where bees forage.
- Inadequate forage/poor nutrition.
- Potential immune-suppressing stress on bees caused by
one or a combination of factors identified above.”
Needless
to say, the many causes of CCD identified above don’t get a single mention in
this new study, which cites climate change as the overwhelming “cause” of
declining bee populations.
The
study’s methods are quite dubious. In effect, they took a trove of bee population
data, tossed out a bunch of facts and figures they didn’t like, put it into the
world’s most complex gridded climate model, compared data, and somehow claimed
correlation with climate change.
Here
is an example of their questionable methodology. The authors noted that if
their limited examination of parts of a 3,600-square-mile area found some types
of bees -- but not a particular species of bee they were looking for -- then
the bee does not exist in the 3,600-square-mile area. That is a huge leap in (faulty)
logic. In 3,600 square miles, it would be quite likely to identify one, or
three, or even five types of bees while not identifying another type that is
only present in a smaller segment of those 3,600 square miles.
Such
methodology is troublesome. In much of their analysis, the authors are not
really dealing with actual observations. They start with those, but
then they create a model that gives them “occupancy probability” -- or educated
guesses based on their limited actual observations. Instead of looking at the
effects of a changing climate on actual bee numbers, they speculate about the
effects of a changing climate on “occupancy probability.”
Then,
there is this interesting statement:
“Occupancy,
extirpation, and colonization. Consistent with measured declines in
occupancy (Figure 2), observed distributions declined on average by 54% (±3.4%
SE) in North America and 18% (±7.2% SE) in Europe relative to the baseline
period (Figure S6A).”
Yet
the researchers fail to explain why bee populations more than halved in North
America, while European bee populations dipped only one-third as much as North
America. They don’t even try to explain why global warming doesn’t impact bees
the same way globally.
It is
difficult to understand how this study passed the peer review process. This is
especially so, considering scientists who study species extinctions are not at
all concerned when it comes to the studied bees.
The
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has published the IUCN
Red List on the European bumblebee that was tracked in the study. The
IUCN Red List categorizes the European bumblebee as “Least Concern.” That is
the absolute lowest level of concern that the Red List contains. For the
American version of the same bee, IUCN
says “Data deficient” -- meaning they don’t have enough data to even
assign a concern level. You’d think if populations were collapsing due to
climate change, researchers would be feverishly counting bee populations. But
they aren’t, and that speaks volumes.
This
overhyped climate-blaming study seems merely an exercise in numerology and
“climate click-baiting.” Neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor
the International Union for Conservation of Nature believe a climate-caused bee
crisis is on the horizon.
It
appears AAAS got stung after publishing this deeply flawed study.
Anthony
Watts (AWatts@heartland.org) is
senior fellow at The Heartland Institute. He is a former broadcast
meteorologist and operates the world’s most-viewed climate website,
WattsUpWithThat.com. He is also a member of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
