Obviously, the knee jerk reaction to this article is to be "wait, that doesn't sound like anything I've been taught about ecology!". Hence, the point...

I am a scientist by the way.

Congratulations. You can give examples, but is your research in this exact field? Are you on the forefront of this research? Do you know the most recent published papers? Have you published any reviews? It's like an engineer telling a pure mathematician that "they've seen some math, and have some examples as to why they might be wrong about complex integration" but don't understand that the Mathematician is working with quarterions and you no longer get communativity.

I'm saying I trust an article by Nature far more than a guy who is some generic form of scientist can come up with "a couple examples". As if they haven't considered your counterexamples, and their models ignore history. Even though its their fucking field and main research. It's really amusing that some scientists, because they have partial knowledge, can inhibit forward thinking in other fields. Have you published on any topics on the ecology of mosquitoes?

the impossibility of accurately predicting the effects of something like mosquitoes no longer existing

I'm a statistician, with a background in computational Physics. Yay me. Whoop-de-fucking do. Look at my big fucking cock, I must know everything there is to know about statistics, because well, I know an example or two in a lot of areas. I don't swing my big Statistics dick around when the Statisticians or Mathematicians start doing crazy shit. I read and I learn something new that may counter my previous knowledge. I trust scientists studying these types of models, based on evidence they already have, to make good suggestions.

For example, I'm not going to read articles you've published and shit all over the statistics. I simply don't expect you to use modern statistics, because you probably don't need some asshole (trust me on that analysis of myself) being a cunt when he's not even in your field. Your stats, albeit elementary compared to the forefront of statistics, are very sufficient for the task. I don't know your field, I don't know what flies.

This problem of the mosquitoes is probably a lot more subtle than you realize. Also, making errors in science is a necessary evil. So what if they're wrong after murdering all the mosquitoes? The ecology of the world, as it has from many extinctions, will survive. Any one CAN be wrong, it's kind of an open ended, useless statement.

And no, I won't be reading your response. It's probably as baseless as your personal attack on my character.