Do Monarchs need Pat Foley

[RENE BOUTIN]

I agree
                                       Thank you Jim Taylor

Jim Taylor wrote:

> List + Pat:
>
> I, for one, find Paul to be a calm and reasoning voice midst large
> quantities of smoke and mirrors. He is almost always under attack -
> frequently strident - and he keeps his cool.
>
> Jim Taylor
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Foley" <patfoley at csus.edu>
> To: <monarch at saber.net>
> Cc: "Leps-l" <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:52 PM
> Subject: Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini?
>
> > 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 csus.edu
> >
> > 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:
> > > http://www.saber.net/~monarch/kustbrower.JPG
> > >
> > > > 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:
> > >
> > >    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> >    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
> >
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rboutin.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: Card for RENE BOUTIN
Url : http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020420/81b55463/attachment.vcf