> You observed the background cycles of insect population variation.
They openly described their statement as an anecdote.
Meanwhile, you're making a pretty conclusive statement here, without any apparent evidence for it. How do you know their observed reduction in insect population is "background cycle" and not the global reductions scientists have been empirically observing?
Just for the record, I also asked several locals if they noticed fewer insects. They all said yes, that the change had been dramatic over the last few years.
Because no person can conclusively observe statistical effects, of this kind, in this way.
It's really hard to conclude "the insect population is dropping" by being one person in one environment once. Even by being multiple people, even over time.
That's why science exists. And it's really difficult (eg., cf., the replication crisis).
They openly described their statement as an anecdote.
Meanwhile, you're making a pretty conclusive statement here, without any apparent evidence for it. How do you know their observed reduction in insect population is "background cycle" and not the global reductions scientists have been empirically observing?