Call me skeptical too. The essay concludes by highlighting a meta-analysis the author considers comprehensive, and the best that can be said is that insect popu

Call me skeptical too. The essay concludes by highlighting a meta-analysis the author considers comprehensive, and the best that can be said is that insect population decline isn't as bad as was previously reported, only a "3 to 6 fold decline". Pyrrhic rhetorical victory it seems. Also the author makes a big point of variability in declines across species, as if it's ok to wipe out some classes of insects if others increase. The message I got is that insects like butterflies are vanishing, but crop pests like locusts are increasing. Am I supposed to be reassured by these types of arguments? I appreciate good skepticism for the sake of rigorous thinking but this essay maybe had the opposite of its intended effect on me.