Butterfly scandal?

[Paul Cherubini]

Neil Jones wrote:

> 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.

Neil, if one views current and historical photos of the Monarch Butterfly
reserve area in Mexico from either space satellites or the ground one
doesn't see much loss of tree cover over the past 30 years.
Example:

El Rosario Sanctuary from space:
http://www.saber.net/~monarch/SatellCampanario2000.jpeg
http://www.saber.net/~monarch/SattCampanario1973.jpeg

El Rosario Sanctuary from the ground:
http://www.saber.net/~monarch/2001.jpeg
http://www.saber.net/~monarch/1990.jpeg

Compare these photos to the dramatic claim about a 44% loss in tree
cover being made in the popular press such as:

http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/03/20/front_page/MONARCH20.htm
"Yet he [Lincoln Brower] found, in a study for the
World Wildlife Fund, that the tree cover in the reserve area was shrinking,
declining 44 percent from 1971 to 1999."

Further, the sensational news articles fail to mention monarchs
find abundant water and nectar in areas where the forest has been cleared
below the reserves to make room for farmland:

http://www.saber.net/~monarch/small2.jpeg

Paul Cherubini, Placerville, Calif.

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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