How is this anything close to a conspiracy theory ? Do you actually know what the term means ?
Let me recap my position just to be clear : The article is not a trustworthy ( ie unbiased ) source of information on this matter, because it is written by somebody with obvious conflicts of interest on the subject ( because she is the director of a lobby group financed by companies ( the oil/chemical industry ) that have an interest in selling the product she defends ), and ( because she is a climate-science denier ) with either a poor understanding of science or a completely dishonest stance on it.
How is this a conspiracy theory ? Lobbying is a public thing, everything I've stated here can be easily verified online, they do not hide it. Lobbying is actually regulated by the law in most places. There is no conspiracy here, there is companies protecting their interests, without hiding that's what they are doing ( if you care to actually look up who is writing and what they do ).
Conspiracy theory implies both illegality
, and secret
, neither of which are present here, and I did not say they were. This is not a conspiracy, it's a conflict of interest, and it's biased journalism. This is a common and well known practice. These companies actually disclose how much money they spend on this ( in places where the law demands they do ), and do not hide what the money is for ...
About this thing you said : « If you want more pesticide use, then ban neonics. », this is a false-dichotomy fallacy. This is not a situation with only two possible solutions : "ban neonics/increase pesticide use" and "allow neonics/reduce pesticide use". The few others that pop into my mind : organic ( you make it clear what you think of that ), reduced production ( which is always a solution if neither of your propositions are sustainable ), developing new technologies ( which maintaining the status-quo slows down ) ... I'm sure others could be mentioned : definitely not a dichotomy.
This is also a false dichotomy in the sense that the two options are not «banning» and «not banning» : increased regulations, reduced use, different methods of use, localized/rotating use, or mixing use with other techniques, are all intermediary solutions that do not require a complete ban, while at the same time providing at least partial protection to the ecosystem.
It's also an appeal to consequences fallacy : Whether or not banning neonics would result in increased traditional pesticides use, has no bearing on whether or not they are dangerous by themselves, which was the subject.
You also say "Bees suffer from varoa mites and other pests", thus implying ( if I understand you correctly ) that neonics are not responsible for the problems. This is in contradiction with the current scientific concensus, which says that it's a combination of factors that is responsible for the problem, and both varoa mites and neonics are such factors. To explain it simply : bees would be better able to resist the problems varoa mites cause if they were not disturbed by neonics, and they would be better able to resist the problems neonics cause if they were not disturbed by varoa mites.