The author paints a straw man that he then rails against. He claims that those who are gravely concerned about reports of declining insect populations are hysterics, describing them and their reporting as "churning out alarming stories", "framed in catastrophic terms", "near-inevitable and imminent ecological collapse", "the crisis narrative", "crisis promoters", "the recent hyper-focus", "the crisis narrative", "the inflammatory rhetoric", etc.

Furthermore, he uses weasel words to cast aspersions onto those he disagrees with, while he praises those he agrees with. He calls those who conducts the research that the 2017 study was based on "an obscure German entomological society". But this society was founded in 1905 and has its own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomologischer_Verein_Krefeld So probably not that obscure by German entomological society standards.

He calls Manu Saunders, whose opinions he relies on, "a prominent entomologist, and recipient of the Office of Environment & Heritage/Ecological Society of Australia Award for Outstanding Science Outreach." But Dave Goulson, who the author dislikes, is described as follows:

> Dave Goulson has a controversial reputation in the science community. As the GLP has previously reported, he is an admitted scientist-for-hire, who has produced research with a promised, predetermined conclusion for activist organizations. His views—which date back a decade now and are apparently impervious to new evidence—have not changed; he vehemently attacks the use of advanced technology in farming, including genetic engineering and targeted synthetic chemicals, and has specifically targeted the class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids while ignoring the ecological impact of organic pesticides. As he told the Guardian when his controversial 2017 study was published, “[The insect deaths could be caused by] exposure to chemical pesticides,” even though the study sampled populations from nature reserves and its purpose wasn’t to detect causes of declines.

This is the study the author refers to: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-017-9240-x Why this study is "controversial" is beyond me.

The author namedrops a meta study which he thinks is good science:

> A 2020 study from German researchers led by Dr. Roel van Klink represented the largest and most definitive study on global insect populations at the time of its publication. Their meta-analysis of 166 studies found that insects are declining much (three- to six-fold) less rapidly than previously reported, and freshwater insects are actually increasing. Other major findings included:

The first sentences of the meta study's abstract read:

> A worldwide compilation of long-term insect abundance studies shows that the number of land-dwelling insects is in decline. On average, there is a global decrease of 0.92% per year, which translates to approximately 24% over 30 years.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/845864

A 24% decrease in world-wide insect life over 30 years seems quite worrisome to me....

In the last 30 years temperatures have risen in most parts of the world, but notably not in the continental US. This could perhaps explain why no declines in insect life has yet been observed there.