Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini?

Bob Parcelles,Jr. rjparcelles at
Fri Apr 19 23:03:55 EDT 2002


I am sure my reply is expected but I will try to be serious. I find
the comedy of my posts to Paul a healthy way to keep my blood presure
down and refrain from insults. I personaly know Dr. Brower and
respect him as a scientist and a man of integrity. While he is
obviously a champion of monarch's he is not to be compared with some
of Jeff G's advocates such as Robert Pyle, whom I am quite fond of. 
(Although I think breeders are some really fine people.) 

But I am talking about agrenda's. I certainly have many myself. They
are not hidden and are very PROactive. Dr. Brower professes no agenda
but his work and it is for the good of the butterfly and the
environment of course. I have seen some posts from Paul which make me
want to question some of the quantitative data of Brower et al, but
it is  similar to when you see a movie. The areas in which you have
previous knowledge of allow you to see blaring mistakes. For example
lever action rifles during the War of 1812, Monarchs on Willow trees
and Playboy on Sherlock Holmes' coffee table. But look how many
mistakes are made that we might not be aware of because we are not
learned in all areas. Some of us really broadly-educated people have
no fun at all in going to a movie. :) 

I can say this with certainty. Not a week goes by that Paul does not
post material out of context and he certainly tries to manipulate
data, photos and statements. He seems to be a paid PR person. For all
of his interest in Monarchs, he seems to be very quick to deny them
any special treatment or status. Methinks, (love that word) he is up
to his arm pits in pesticide. Watch out Paul. It will get you sooner
or later.

A follower of statistical methods myself, I get nervous when precise
conclusions are drawn. But, when I have questioned various
researchers about that; they have certainly been able to accept
ranges and variances. But the computations are precise. Such is
mathematics. That is why discussion,repeating and retesting and
hypothesis redefinement is so vital a part of the scientific method.
In my fields of ecology, ethology and population dynamics I look to
quantify things so a base may be established for future work. 

When it comes to Monarchs I accept strongly the wintering studies as
exemplified by Brower and Taylor. Mr. Cherubini has yet to convince
me that DR. Brower has an unethical bone in his body. I have stared
at some of Paul's pictures and seen the opposite of what he is
referencing. I am waiting for someone to say look the "Emperor has no
clothes". But, alas, I am not he only one to sucumb to this master of
deception. This cool calm and collected PR specialist, this kindly,
cherubic indiviual, this very focused (obsessively?) anti
environemntalist; He never looses his temper, even with the vicious
flaming he gets from others and myself. Of course he has a spokes man
(?) from Quebec who tries to get in a few licks for him. (Sorry Rene,
I am not trying to break the truce... The devil made me do it.)

Much information has been posted to the contrary against Paul. I
beleive in ombudsmen. But crusaders against the conservation and
protection principles I have been involved with for 50 0f my 56 years
reach the point of nausem very quickly. It is nice for us to be
absorbed in our academic and professional pursuits but to pompously
deny any position of advocacy in a world going to hell in a basket is
just ridiculous. Paul certainly is not the only one on this list to
which that statment applies. But he is the only one who wears it as a
badge of courage. I think our parte's are fun and serve some purpose.
However, there are those who take things too serious (themselves) and
those who need to get on the train. The whistle is blowing and we are
leaving the station. (Valerie, THAT is black humor!)

However, for Paul to be soundly defeated on Eco- L (Ann Erlich among
others) and get right back up swinging on this list is utterly
amazing. It is also a goodcase for analysis. It indicates a good
employer (defined as a fat paycheck). 

Actually Paul and Ron are the personalities of this list. Mark is
trying very hard to rise into a positon of favor but Paul just has
that perseverance. 

I think we need some autobiographical info. Paul are you married or
single? How many divorces?...A bunch, I bet. Your curriculum vitae
would be a really nifty post. But we really want to know what makes
you tick? Who rings your bell? Who yanks your chain? What curls your
toes? It can't just be monarchs. Who is your favorite writer? I know
it is not Paul Erlich or my friend Ed Wilson. Do sad movies make you

Pat you can never win an argument with him. So I would just not
encourage him. It can make one dizzy as it has me the past two days.
I really learned alot at the same time on ron's list while we have
been refighting the browewr wars. 

Many of you treat Paul as an eccentric. That seems very reasionable.
but I am sensing something much more sinister. Just look at the
anti-science being promoted by the establishment as well as even some
knee-jerk pablum puking granola-bar junkies. Paul is contributing to
that type of hysteria much more than even Jeff Glassberg is. 

The really neat thing about the people on this list is how the
various interests compliment the pursuit of knowledge. We have DNA
experts that still do field work. We have ancedotal naturalists with
great writng skils that make you feel that you are right there up
close and personal with the bugs. 

Paul you need to chill it down. We have millions of people dying Paul
Ehrlich work was exagerated but millions of babies do starve in
Africa. We export DDT all over the world. we have millions with
cancer? why? Someone is goiung to pay the piper sooner or later. Read
your American history. We are different. People are racing to de
intensify us. Anti-science and skepticism are achieving their goal.
Sooner or later people will have enough of liars and the people who
have created and encouraged them. Dr. Lincoln Brower is neither.
I have worked for a consultant for govt and privsate industry for
many years. I se h9ow people (and governmnet have tried to influence
results). Until recently, academia was safe from these pressures. Now
it is affecting the funding of all research. 

Paul, the difference is some of just say no!

Bob Parcelles, Jr.
Pinellas Park, FL

--- Patrick Foley <patfoley at> wrote:
> 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.

[[[[Good point Pat. Paul, well-intentioned he may be, tends to do the
same things he accuses others of. His enthusiasm is that of either a
zealot or a paid agent. Can't be both. Maybe paul will disclose his
income statemnets and put this to rest once and for all. Maybe a
little call to IRS  can help. Obviously this is getting very serious!
> 2) Paul Cherubini has not answered my question concerning his
> financial interests in the Monarch business.

[[[I beleive that has been displayed in the past, or at least
accusations and circumstantial evidence. Of course many an execution
has taken place with less evidence. While in VN and Spec War we
terminated many for much less.Hmmm! What could be worse or more
deserving of extreme sanction then a politician,
scientistor(anti-scientist) betraying the public trust?]]]

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

[[[I wonder too! What do you think Neil?]]]
> 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? ***


[[[[I have to be really concerned about his credibility. I am sure of
his motives. See above]]]
> Patrick Foley
> patfoley at

***Bob's Footnote:

 As usual when I start on Paul I cannot but become silly. He is a
likeable kind of guy and he is ...OUR Paul. I just am getting bored
with monarchs. They do not even taste good.

Bob Parcelles, Jr
Pinellas Park, FL
RJP Associates & Clean Millennium Movement (C2M)
rjparcelles at
"Change your thoughts and you change your world."
- Norman Vincent Peale

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list