Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini?

Patrick Foley patfoley at
Fri Apr 19 20:52:26 EDT 2002

Dear Lepsters,

Am I the only one who has noticed that

1) Paul Cherubini has accused me of embracing dishonest science although I am
clearly on record against scientific error while recognizing that error is part of
the business of science. Somehow Paul thinks that when Paul Ehrlich predicts the
future, all environmentalists should feel responsible if he is wrong. There is a
difference between scientific research and speculative prophecy. Most of us
understand this. Paul pretends not to.

2) Paul Cherubini has not answered my question concerning his financial interests
in the Monarch business.

3) Paul Cherubini has yet to answer the claims that he takes on false email
identities for lobbying purposes.

I want to make it clear that while I disagree with many things Paul says, he
certainly knows a lot about Monarchs. But I cannot trust anything he says until he
answers these questions. Can you?

Patrick Foley
patfoley at

Paul Cherubini wrote:

> Pat wrote:
> > Jim, I also am dubious about Brower's figures, but I can't
> > find out how he calculated them except hearsay.
> > Does anyone have a pointer to a Brower paper which clears this up.
> Pat, here is the paper that Brower is preparing:
> > It is well established that many corporations have lied,
> > cheated and stolen using bogus science. Consider the tobacco industry
> > alone, but there are plenty of examples. Academic fraud occurs but is
> > relatively rare.  Any honest person who has worked for
> > industry (as I have) knows how much pressure there is to fudge.
> > Are you disagreeing with me from principle or are you being paid to do
> > so?
> Pat, I guess we disagree about what constitutes academic dishonesty. When
> a scientist slants or distorts data or the interpretation of data in a way that
> overstates a human health or environmental concern, I consider it academic
> dishonesty. However, you apparently feel that if a scientist slants or distorts
> in order to draw attention to an environmental concern, then it should be
> considered merely exaggerating or overstating the concern.
> For example, in regard to Paul Ehrlich's predictions of ecosystem
> collapse and global famine during the 80's and 90's you wrote:
> "Paul Ehrlich does exaggerate, but almost all of the dangers he identifies are
> real, do need attention, and have gotten attention precisely because of
> doomsayers like him."
> Ehrlich: (considered merely exaggerating)
>  -  "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and
>   1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite
>   of any crash programs embarked upon now. . America's vast
>   agricultural surpluses are gone."
> -  America in 1984 would have food shortages so severe that steak
>   would be $12 a pound, the U.S. unemployment rate would be 27
>   percent, and India would be an anarchy because of nationwide
>   food riots.
> -  "a minimum of ten million people, most of them children,
>   will starve to death during each year of the 1970s. But this is a
>   mere handful compared to the numbers that will be starving
>   before the end of the century"
>  -  "Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity .
>   in which the accessible supplies of 13 key minerals will be
>   facing depletion."
> Tobacco executive (considered lying or using bogus science)
> - "I do not believe that nicotine is addictive"
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list