Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini?

[Nigel Venters]

Well that's the answer for us all then...with your background you can tell
us about everything...we accept it and we can forget any more questions or
research...why bother?
Nigel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Foley" <patfoley at csus.edu>
To: "Jim Taylor" <drivingiron at earthlink.net>
Cc: <monarch at saber.net>; "Leps-l" <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini?


> 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
>
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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