Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini?

Sun Apr 21 00:01:18 EDT 2002

--- Patrick Foley <patfoley at csus.edu> wrote:
> Dear Lepsters,
> 
> When I write about the need for more scientific understanding of
> Monarchs, some
> of you tell me that I am being elitest.
> 
> When I call Paul Cherubini on his rude and ill-justified attacks on
> the
> scientific integrity of Lincoln Brower and Paul Ehrlich, some of
> you tell me I
> am being rude and strident.
> 
> When I point out that the world does have environmental problems
> that need
> fixing, and that it is more worthy of a human to work on them than
> to attack
> those who work on them, some of you tell me that I am simply wrong.
> 
> When I point out that Paul Cherubini has been evasive about
> fundamental issues
> of honesty on this and other email lists, what are you telling him?
> 
> I do not want to silence Paul on this list, I want to know who it
> is that I
> spend so much time struggling with. I readily admit that Paul knows
> more about
> Monarchs than I do (although some of what he knows appears to be
> wrong). I
> readily admit that I learn from his observations, and need to
> rethink difficult
> issues due to his criticisms. Does Paul learn anything from this
> list? Even
> after being soundly refuted (as I see it) on some issues he raises
> the same
> points on this and other lists as if no one had every shown that
> his ideas were
> doubtful. I am not asking Paul to recant. I just want these debates
> to get to a
> higher level.
> 
> The reason science (whether conducted by PhD's or not) makes
> progress is that we
> realize when we are wrong, and if there are unsettled issues, we do
> not pretend
> (as I see Paul doing) that they have been settled on his side. A
> good scientist,
> an honest mind, admits doubt. When I teach students about
> speciation, I
> dutifully explain Ernst Mayr's theories, even though I think he is
> wrong about
> several. To do otherwise would be to mislead the students about the
> diversity of
> ideas. In the ongoing debate about nonlocal butterfly releases, I
> recognized
> several of the points my "opponents" made, while searching for a
> consensus. And
> at no time did I suggest that anyone was wrong because they did not
> have a PhD.
> I did suggest a deeper understanding of evolution, ecology and
> epidemiology was
> needed, and that little empirical work directly settled the
> question. When I see
> a similar openness in a person, I recognize a scientist.
> 
> There are settled scientific questions. The Earth is about 4.6
> Billion years
> old. There are about 6 billion people on earth, and the annual
> growth rate is
> about 1.5%, and most of us would like to own ranches and drive
> large trucks up
> and down the green earth until there is no green earth left. This
> is not a
> debating issue. This is the world any honest human can see. And
> something needs
> to be done about it. Whether you are a socialist, a Chicago school
> economist, a
> libertarian biker or an African Bushman, your future is shrinking
> unless you get
> your mind and your heart in gear soon.
> 
> This isn't about me and Paul Cherubini, this is about recognizing
> the problems
> and solving them. If you don't want to help, get out of the way and
> let Brower,
> Ehrlich and the other "doomsayers" deal with the mess we are all
> making. If
> environmentalism makes you feel so guilty that you can't see the
> obvious and you
> can't think straight, grow up. As Clint Eastwood said in the film
> Unforgiven,
> "We've all got it coming, kid."
> 
> Patrick Foley
> patfoley at csus.edu
> 

Excellent Pat,

I think this thread has brought out the inherent differences to
befound on this list. Lepidoptery is so beseiged by such divergent
interests, all being attacked by one faction or another that breeders
like Rene have to feel protective of Paul because he is "supportive"
of them. this does not excuse the attacks on sicentists and their
integrity. Chuck is still in a dream world. If you do not see bogey
men you are blind and naive my friend. I think I expouse no
"conspriacy theories. Any one who sees no concerted effort to do away
with our wild lands and utilize our natural reesources with unbridled
lust is either on the "payroll" or a dam gfool. we need none of these
people trying to stifle science or the excahnge of ideas. 

This guy's Message 

"Joel Lyons (jrlyons at bellsouth.net)
Subject: Re: Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini? 

"This is badly spelled equivocating self
 congratulating by assocation crap."

This shows his stupidty and the spontaneity of an asshole. I have no
ego problem with having worked and known some people whose names are
know to the public. I have paid my dues to society, our military,
science and the environment and still work 18 hours a day. Joel, what
the hell have you done?  If my post offended you why did you not just
delete it keep your mouth shut! What o you do except flame a person
who has neuropathy in his hands. I will meet you anywhere for a
spelling bee and kick your smart-ass arse when you lose! 

And Paul, all you do is start trouble and anybody who can not see
through a good deal of your "data" just fell of the turnup truck. Get
a life. This debate has gone on ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

I am getting tired of some of the apologists for these anti science
idiots. There is a tremendous amoint of fascinating material to be
shared about butterflies and moths without this continual posturing.
I have only tried to satirize the flamers and I have been quiter easy
on on replying to some of the absurdity I read here.

For people who love and work with a group of organisms so dependant
on the preservation and proper management of ecosytems to be so anti
environment is beyond comprehension. I have no predujudice against
any form of fancier. I carry 6 nets in my field vehicle. I have close
focusoing binocs. I will probably rejoin NABA. Breeders right now are
doing the most important work and are at this moment the busiest on
the Miami Blue Butterfly Restoration Project. I think most are great
people annd they are educating a lot of people on leps. while having
some concern about the genetics of releases it is no big deal since
butterflys are short lived. 

Part of the science process is to challenge results when mistakes are
found in the methodology, failure of retesting giving the same
statistical results or contrary data. The forum is peer review.
Otherwise, personal attacks on scientists who make their living on
their integrity and reputation is slanderous and should not be
encouraged by anyone. People who do this should be subject to legal
remedies. To support  this  "crap" as a few of you do and many
staying silent is preposterous. If I was Lincoln Brower I would have
let a civil judge decide this matter years ago. 

Enough. This list is not imporant enough at the present time to
warrant spell checking. I am tired from doing Earth Day for kids the
past 14 hours (oops! More self equivocating). 

Besides, Joel is the only one who has the time to point typos out
anyway.

rjp 

PS: Ron Gatrelle has a hell of a list going!

=====
Bob Parcelles, Jr
Pinellas Park, FL
RJP Associates & Clean Millennium Movement (C2M)
rjparcelles at yahoo.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturepotpourri
"Change your thoughts and you change your world."
- Norman Vincent Peale

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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