Butterfly scandal?

[Neil Jones]

In article <001001c0b0b8$15ae7640$9b0f1218 at gscrk1.sc.home.com>
           gatrelle at tils-ttr.org "Ron Gatrelle" writes:

> To all,
>     Actually, I find Paul's posts very interesting. If he is skewing his
> data, photos, etc., at least he is doing it in a believable manner with
> outside evidence.

His posts are only believable because he twists the data. You don't seem
to have realised that he was caught out badly with the satelite data.


 In other words he tries to make a case based on "facts"
> and in an unemotional, non-knee jerk or flamboyant manner. Neil does the
> same in an opposite dirrection.

This does not fit the facts. Mr Cherubini was caught out plain and
simple. He had two sets of data one LESS ACCURATE and one MORE ACCURATE.
He presented the LESS ACCURATE data because this suited the POLITICAL line.
He did NOT TELL us about the data source.
When I presented my version . I presented the source of the data so that
people could judge for themselves.

I try never to post anything which is inaccurate. Everyone has their biases
but some people do not care about the accuracy just its POLITICAL effect.
This is bad for science.

>     Now, since Paul seems to have few supporters in his corner on this
> venue, I can only express my observation on his detractors. They (with the
> exception of few) seem to often only come across as nothing more than
> cheerleaders on the sidelines who have no real information at all - they
> can only yell slurs or personal insults - air ball, air ball, your momma,
> your momma. Or the same teasing all of us non athletic types who did well
> in school got from the High School jocks and (currently employed in ditch
> digging or working at Hooters) "in crowd".

He behaves POLITICALLY so he gets treated that way. You have seen ridiculing
responses from Europe recently. This is because Europe doesn't have
what we see as the perverse side of American political culture.
We do not have the "wise use" anti-conservation movement the dogma of which 
Mr Cherubini promotes. We do not have the militia movment, the John Birch
Society or  tobacco funded junk (i.e. bent) science web sites. We do not have
Black Helicopter theorists or New World Order paranoia about the United Nations.

Being frank about it, these things are all lumped together under the headline
of "nutty yanks". Yes, it is a stereotype and stereotypes may not be fair
or accurate, but when someone acts like an over the top example of a
stereotype people think it is funny.  It is really hard to respond to 
this stuff without reflecting those feelings. Funny stereotypes are the
mainstay of many of the best comedy writers.

>     I certainly have no vested interest in any aspect of the "Monarch
> debate." I was totally unaware there was such a big controversy at all up
> till about three or four months ago. I think I came into this pretty
> neutral and thus well qualified for jury duty.

I am begining to wonder if you really understand politics.
Let me say that you are absolutely entitled to your views and
 I am a free speech advocate. However somethings have, in all honesty, to
be pointed out.

 You claim to be sincerely interested in conservation yet you have continually
repeated claims and dogma which clearly come from the anti-conservation camp.
The  most over the top being the one about the Endangered 
Species Act being unconstitutional. Frankly this is classic "wise use"
dogma. 

In essence this isn't a debate about monarchs at all. It is a political debate.
Putting it simply I am an advocate of conservation and Mr Cherubini is an advocate
for the corporate interests of the "wise use" anti-conservation movement.

Mr Cherubini is following the lines of the "wise use" movment's guru, Ron
Arnold.

Ron Arnold is famed for saying,

 "Facts don't really matter, in politics perception is the reality".

AND 

"Our goal is to destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement. We want
people to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, ABSOLUTELY."
(My emphasis)  

Since you have clearly shown a bias to the "wise use" camp how can you possibly be 
neutral?

>     Frankly, the recent flurry of posts on the crisis in Mexico looked
> awfully disjunct, unreasonable, improbable, and contradictory without Paul
> having said a word or posted one picture or reference. In other words
> "they" were discredited by their own words. The following is my progressive
> view on the reported events.
>     First. "They" said there was a horrible storm of 100 mph winds and
> torrid
> thunderstorms. (The eye of hurricane Hugo came over my home - I have been
> in 100 mph winds. It is devastating - especially to 30 - 80 year old pine
> trees which snap like tooth picks.) "They" said the Monarch colony was
> devastated by this storm.  Having been in such a storm - I believed this
> report and agreed that it would put tremendous negative pressure on the
> Monarchs and there overwintering habitat.
>     Second. Within just a day or so "they" posted that rogue loggers had
> ravaged the area AND sprayed millions of Monarchs with insecticide.

I think your analysis is wrong. The logging is a CONTINUOUS problem.
Where is your EVIDENCE that "They" said any of this in the way you describe.
I myself would have checked for pesticides by chemical analysis first.
AND what is more this is what the monarch  scientists on the
conservation side were calling for.

< snipped>

>     Third, was the wild conspiritorial account of how the trees were
> logged, buterflies killed, and cover up implimented.


Let's have some EVIDENCE please. I have not seen any of these conspiratorial
claims.

>     These are just my observations and thoughts on what has been posted. My
> conclusion is that there really was a devastating storm and it is a real
> problem. The other is not a hoax or scandal - it is fraud - a crime. I am
> an environmetalist.

Frankly you do not come over as one. You come over as someone who has been
swayed to support the  "wise use" anti-conservation movement. One of their
tactics has been to confuse the issue by pretending to be about conservation.
Their name is one such tactic. There are many phoney grassroots
organisations set up with names sounding as if they are conservationists when
they are really just industry front organisations.

IF you are truely interested in conservation then for goodness sake think about
the accuracy of your sources of information. Don't listen to the
people who "bear false witness". IF you don't support Ron Arnold's "Wise use"
tactics then DON'T support his dogma.  IF you do then state so honestly
so that we can all see it. Please don't support this "Dumbed Down" science.


 I, along with the vast majority of other
> environmentalists, do not approve of the people (criminals) out there that
> do things like put spikes in trees to injure or kill loggers, or freely
> employing lying - end justifies the means - under the bogus guise of being
> friends of the environment.

I agree with you that spiking trees is wrong. I have always spoken out against
crooks. However, when, it seems, someone is caught "lying -ends justifies the means" on the "Wise Use" 
side I get the impression you say "I like his posts". 


 There are liars and crooks in every level of
> life. No occupation or endevor is so blessed to be occupied by only saints.
> One last point. Motive. Some people stoop to dishonest or radical bahaviour
> because they misguidedly, but sincelrly, just believe in a cause. However
> most who stoop below the law are motivated by money. There are millions of
> reasons (dollars) to tempt any number of people to loose their intregrety
> relative to the "Monarch crisis."

I really don't think you understand. People don't do it for the money
they do it for science or for the butterflies. Money is not a particular
motivator for many people. It certainly isn't for me. My work as a 
conservationist costs me a small fortune and I don't seek any financial
recompense. I do this because I have always been fascinated by the way
the world works and I don't want to see the scientific wonders of nature
destroyed. 


>     Let me also say this. I do not think the majority of those who are
> involved with the Monarch are crooks. But one or two bad apples will spoil
> the
> whole bunch. "They" need to keep the nuts and fanatics out or they will
> bring down a legitimate work. I don't doubt there is illegal logging. I can
> also see the locals wanting to poison Monarchs especially since it was
> brought out that some % of the locals have seen the Monarch's arrival ( for
> centuries?) as an omen of bad luck or a "plague."


 I just think the truth is
> that the presented logging and poision propaganda was an intentional lie.

You THINK so, but I can see no EVIDENCE based reasoning. Just one based
on your own political biases.

> Ron


-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl