Where are the Greens?

[Gordon]

I used to kick around with some NSW Greens when I was fresh out of school because I was and still am a greeny at heart until I got a whiff of their true agenda. Behind closed doors in their unguarded moments, you should hear the spew that comes out of their faces.

They literally want to overthrow the establishment and throw the doors open.

I reckon Dick Smith and a few similar people should start an environment party with it's main charter protecting the environment, and reducing population growth. They'd get 10% of the vote just like that.

[Black Orchid]

I gather the things that are really becoming extinct at a really alarming rate are insects, beetles and bees etc.
I gather this is largely due to the extensive use of insecticides in agriculture.

Not quite, unless you did your gathering at a function of full of Leftist apocalyptics (is there any other type?)
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/04/17/be ... -why-12851

If you were concerned after reading a sentence like “Populations of honeybees have crashed in recent years, and many researchers have pointed the blame at a class of widely used insecticides called neonicotinoids,” you are not alone. That’s how an otherwise excellent article in The Scientist summarizing a recent USDA study on honeybees’ molecular responses to neonicotinoids began.

But you needn't be. The narrative that honeybees, which are actually not even native to North America, Europe or Australia, face mortal danger and will take us down with them has been advanced by environmental groups for years and echoed in media, casual blogs and mainstream science sites. This twist on the news is so pervasive that it’s often accepted without question...

In a program I recently heard discussing this...

I'm guessing it was the taxpayer funded Greens and ALP aligned media arm of eco-catastrophists panic merchants?

And yours if a narrative from the US Department of Agriculture. What would you expect them to say?

Summary:
Honey bees exposed to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, lose some of the beneficial bacteria in their guts and are more susceptible to infection and death from harmful bacteria. Scientists believe this is evidence that glyphosate might be contributing to the decline of honey bees and native bees around the world

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 174506.htm

When the researchers exposed honey bees to glyphosate at levels equivalent to what's been found in crop fields, gardens, and roadsides, it significantly reduced their healthy gut microbiota.

In the experiments, half of the dominant healthy species of gut bacteria in the exposed bees – including Snodgrassella alvi, which help the insect process food and defend against pathogens – were found to be reduced.

A study by researchers from the University of Texas at Austin suggests the world's most widely used weed killer – glyphosate – could be a previously unknown factor behind what's known as colony collapse disorder.

https://www.sciencealert.com/world-s-1- ... to-roundup

Glyphosate has now been linked to cancer in humans. Huge compensation payouts are already happening.

This study highlights how commonly used pesticides, even those marketed as being targeted at specific plants or animals, can unintentionally affect non-target organisms. It also highlights the importance of considering exposure over an extended period of time (>1 day) and the importance of multiple stressors, such as the effect of pesticide and disease. Both are typically overlooked when assessing pesticide safety and both are likely to be important in the wild.

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/exper ... oney-bees/

[IQS.RLOW]

And yours if a narrative from the US Department of Agriculture. What would you expect them to say?

I would expect them to be far better at funding studies and research with larger data sets and conclusive independent studies than any other source you could try and quickly Google in an effort to support your claim, however my link was to the ACSH, a non-trade, non-industry affiliated organisation of scientists, which if you actually read, you would have realised that the links you posted were superfluous and added nothing that wasn't already included in the ACSH link.

Glyphosate has now been linked to cancer in humans. Huge compensation payouts are already happening.

I see you have little understanding of the difference between the standards of evidence required for civil litigation and the science. Seeing as you haven't been able to provide any alternative source of science that is counter to what was already posted, I suggest you explore the link I provided, as it provides plenty of answers to conspirinut claims and flights of fancy. The only thing you have proven here is your desperate need to seek confirmation bias.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/03/28/in ... ncer-13913

Courts do not determine scientific fact

Cases like these that revolve around the question of whether a particular chemical is the cause of cancer or another illness are not science. They rely on lay juries attempting to make sense of complicated and often contradictory medical studies and expert opinions. Science rarely renders absolute ‘verdicts’; it addresses probabilities. It’s been shown time and again that when juries are asked to evaluate studies that conclude ‘substance x is unlikely to cause cancer’, they almost always assume the worst, that because the study did not definitively conclude it ‘does not’ or ‘could not cause cancer’.

But no scientists writing a reputable study would ever use the kind of absolute statements that would put a jury at ease. Hence, when jurors have even slight doubts, they frequently rule against a chemical and its manufacturer, and for an aggrieved (and often fatally ill) plaintiff, even when the evidence is slim or close to nonexistent.

More than a dozen regulatory and research agencies have conducted long-term studies, reviews and assessments to determine whether glyphosate, when used as labeled, increases the risk of certain cancers. They are unanimous in one finding: There is no evidence that glyphosate poses any harm to consumers worried about trace residues in their food. Despite many blogs by anti-biotechnology advocacy groups touting ‘studies’ (usually not very scientific, such as here, most recently) finding glyphosate in beer or cereal at the parts per billion or parts per trillion level, or finding traces of glyphosate in blood or urine, there is no scientific study that suggests those trace residues pose any threat to humans.

More here on the IARC cancer claims.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/08/23/cl ... good-13350