visit to the Monarch reserves
patfoley at csus.edu
Mon Mar 10 20:50:21 EST 2003
Paul and all,
I agree that Paul provides some interesting criticisms and insights. I have
learned from them. But is it more important to have the courage of your
convictions or the courage to challenge your convictions? I'd like to see more
quantitative data. From anybody.
patfoley at csus.edu
Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Cherubini" <monarch at saber.net>
> 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:
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
More information about the Leps-l