Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini?

[Patrick Foley]

Jim and Rene,

Perhaps you are in political agreement with Paul, which I probably am not. But
whatever your politics, you must admit that Paul constantly attacks Paul
Ehrlich, Lincoln Brower and other scientists, that Paul never budges on any
issue, and that Paul is evasive about his motives. What I also notice is that he
has started to make similar noises on the professional ecologists' list ECOLOG-L
in a style that looks to me like a lobbyist or PR man. I am very likely wrong,
but I want it cleared up.

Don't you want to know if you are being spun? Or would you just prefer to have
your own ideas reflected. I can live with Paul's strident attacks, but I want to
know where they are coming from? Don't you want to know whether my insistent
disagreements with Paul are being paid for by a communist-environmentalist
consiracy?

In answer to your possible question, I am a moderate Democrat with slightly
hawkish tendencies who believes we should socialize medicine but leave most of
the rest of the free-market as alone as possible. I am paid to teach biology to
students at CSUS, and I have been given no political or environmental agenda by
the head of my department or anyone else. The only contract money I have
received in the past five years has been as a consultant on extinction issues by
Southern Edison and by NOAA, and neither sums were enough to buy a vote much
less a PR man. I work (gratis) with my wife on the epidemiology of tick-borne
disease. Ten years ago I worked half-time as a scientist (not a lobbyist or PR
man) for the California Forestry Association studying Northern Spotted Owl
population dynamics. My 1986 PhD at UCDavis was on the theory of population
genetics in small populations, but most of my research work since then has been
ecology or epidemiology. I have no prejudice against government or business, but
my eyes are open, I do vote, do know what a lobbyist does, do know what the
Wise-Use movement is. I have surely been biased, as most biologists have,
towards an environmentalist view, by doing research on the natural world, thus
seeing what is really happening to it. I object to evasion and to obliviousness.

Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu

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