It's dodgy because [1] the author is claiming that the number of colonies of domesticated bees is higher (not the number of bees), [2] the author ignores non-

It's dodgy because [1] the author is claiming that the number of colonies of domesticated bees is higher (not the number of bees), [2] the author ignores non-domesticated bees and thus misses a significant economic contributor that matters for agricultural pollination, if not honey. It's particularly dodgy because you're an example of a reader who came away thinking, "But there's more bees so that's good!" That's a false conclusion, the blame for which I lay partly at the feet of this author.