visit to the Monarch reserves (long)

Ron Gatrelle gatrelle at
Mon Mar 10 14:27:55 EST 2003

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Cherubini" <monarch at>
Subject: Re: visit to the Monarch reserves (long)

> Jim Mason wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > Get a life.
> Jim, believe it or not, people do write me occassionally off list
> with comments like:
> "I frequently find your posts particularly "balancing" to the
> regular environmental doom and gloom."
> Paul Cherubini

Over the last few years on this list I have found Paul's comments very
useful.  I know nothing of the situation in Mexico other than what I hear
or read.   I have no predisposition to "believe" either way.  But I do know
that there is just as much (or more) fraud in "science" and "environmental"
segments of society as any other.   There is no "pure" endeavor where the
participations are inherently "saints".  My current profession is as an
ordained minister and pastor (last 25 years).  If there is anything I have
observed, it is that there is no walk of life or any educational level
where liars and cheats do not exist.  Some are just more educated and thus
better liars and crooks.

Paul's voice is the only one I hear that even remotely challenges the data
of the Monarch overwintering - calls it to some accountability.   I don't
care about Paul's personal life or what he does for a living.  I do find
that what he _predicts_ is what occurs - a cycle of annual doom and gloom
that somehow never comes to pass.  All I see Paul doing is telling us to
watch and see if such and such does not happen.   What _I _have seen is
that the "other side" follows the exact patter he presents.   He didn't
make the pattern - he just pointed it out.  One can not cry the sky is
falling year after year, decade after decade and it never happen and
continue to have flawless credibility.  One can not set dates of demise and
never have them come to pass and continue to have credibility.  Someone who
thinks there can be no Jim Jones in "science" needs to get a grip - not
just a life.  Or, are the tobacco "scientists" the only frauds?

It is interesting that I just finished reading a post by Kurt Johnson on
the topic of peer review going on over on the TILS-leps-talk list serve.
In this he points out verious historical flaws and outright fraud.  He
makes this statement re a person who recently got out of a job as editior
of a major publication.  "He said particularly that he had
seen fraudulent material introduced into the review process to "shoot
people down" and this created the very bad situation of the editor "being
in the middle" of very vitriolic accusations between people. "

Millions of dollars and hero publicity are involved with the Monarch /
Mexico situation.   I am not saying the participants are frauds at all.  I
am saying that freedoms of speech and press - having an adversary - are not
only healthy but absolutely necessary to keep the baser part of our
humanity from being tempted and then doing the one negative thing that
comes naturally - lie.   I didn't have sex with that woman.

We are all adults here with our own brains.  Thus, I feel I can assess the
stuff put out by Paul and the stuff put out by Neil and weight the two
positions myself.   Yes, I may well come to an incorrect conclusion.  But
so might anyone else.   One perspective I do have is that Paul doesn't do
this because it makes him popular or rich.  That possibility does exist for
the other side.

Ron Gatrelle

PS  It would be easy to post this "privately" to Paul.   But I don't work
like that.  If someone wants to jump to false conclusion and accuse me of
stuff like being part of the wise use movement or any other carp that is
their ignorant prerogative.   Something else I have found in life is that
far more people can dish it out than can take it.   I also find that folks
like to express their opinions when they know in advance that he majority
of the audience agrees with them.


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list