Cherubini's conspiracy theories

Mon Oct 6 17:48:28 EDT 2003

Is it OK to yell, "MOVIE" in a crowded firehouse???  I have to agree with
Neil 100%.  I haven't heard one credible thing from PC.  Hello, everyone.
I'm Baaaaackkkk...  cb
----- Original Message -----
From: <neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk>
To: <tils-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 4:09 PM
Subject: Cherubini's conspiracy theories


>
> Ron Gatrelle wrote:-
>
> >Don,
>
> > Your post was practical and fair. Sadly, what this long time debate >
comes down to is that some think the Brower et al and Monarch > situation is
mostly to fully plain old fraud. Thus, there is an > annual accusation that
there is an annual fire-in-the-theater cry. > The "fire" never comes to pass
and so the cry goes out the next year > and the next. The funds keep coming
in, the programs go on, and > personal fame swells. The Monarchs? They just
keep keeping on.
>
>
> Ron,
>
> You are grossly in error. I am sorry that we find ourselves at odds but
there is no question but that you are WRONG!
> I regret that yet again I have to tell everyone about Paul Cherubini's
record and I grow weary of doing it. I have to say this but there is no
question about it. You are not examining the data properly but are going on
OPINIONS rather than established facts.
>
> The only thing we know about what Professor Brower said is what Paul
Cherubini says. We differ in what we say about believing Paul. Your mental
pathways let you believe in things on faith and you believe him on faith.
Mine say question everything and I have found by checking what Paul
Cherubini says that Paul Cherubini is dishonest . (I question everything
INCLUDING what Professor Brower says.)
>
> I have been investigating Paul Cherubini's claims for years. They have
repeatedly been found to be false. I have also noticed that you have
followed matters on faith without checking the data. You, for example,
previously accused Prof. Brower of fraud on the basis of a false Cherubini
misquote without looking at the written original. The written original
PROVES your concusion FALSE.
>
> What really causes me to dislike Mr Cherubini is his dishonesty. Over the
years he has been repeatly caught misquoting and misrepresenting facts,
figures etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is shown conclusively to be wrong on
one list and he just goes to another one and repeats the same rubbish. He
has even used false identities to do this.
>
> Two examples amongst dozens. He lied when someone asked for help in saving
the world's rarest butterfly. He falsely accused her of campaigning to raise
funds. I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is false, because I
helped her post the message and I designed the website and there is not ,
and never was, any appeal for funds. We just asked people to write letters.
>
> He posted distorted satelite data to try to claim that there was no real
deforestation in Mexico. He didn't realise that the website he had
appropriated the data from would be located and it would be shown that he
had picked low resolution data because they suited his purpose when the high
reolution data showed a different story. This if it happened in a scientific
journal would probably ensure that he would never be published again. This
is the internet though and any nut can get on.
>
> There is further evidence to back up his lack of credibility. That is his
medical history. I am not saying this to be nasty but the survival of the
monarch roosts in Mexico is an important issue and his credibility is being
discussed. According to Sue Halpern's book Four Wings and a Prayer he
apparently confessed that very similar theories about scientists were
classified -  BY -  HIS  - PSYCHIATRIST- as PARANOID.
>
> A look in the archives of various lists will show people saying that he
was an "Oddball" etc., long before the book was published.
>
> On the Entomo-l List, which is dominated by professional scientists, he is
treated as a laughing stock. His lack of honesty in debate there has
frustrated many people. This first example shows a fellow entomologist
venting his frustration at blatent misrepresentation for political purposes.
The colourful language is his not mine but does accurately reflect many
people's feelings. NOTE Cherubini has been MISREPRESENTING the poster!
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:17:23 -0600 From: Richard Fagerlund
>
> "It is normally hard to trip my trigger but Cherubini managed to do it. I
don't really give a rat's ass about his cockeyed opinions, but he took two
of my messages totally out of context. He appears to have a reading
disorder. I will try to control myself in the future as I dislike being
profane. "
>
> Here another person has noticed clearly what Mr. Cherubini is up to.
>
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:56:27 EDT From: John Mclaughlin
>
> "Paul has made his case - you can accept or reject it, but you will get
nowhere arguing with him or trying to present evidence to refute his claims.
He is not in this to be pursuaded or to in any way deviate from the official
company line. I made earlier analogy to "scientists" and other of his ilk
who, for years, clouded the scientific issues surrounding the obviously
highly addictive and health-affecting habit of smoking tobacco. Paul is cut
from their cloth and is comfortable and skilled at their tactics."
>
> I don't know if I'll convince you you are wrong Ron. The likelihood is
that you will continue to BELIEVE Paul Cherubini by FAITH and that I will
continue to KNOW he is not credible from the FACTS.
>
> He will probably not be cured of his problems and will continue with his
odious postings.
>
> My advice to others is don't believe a word he is saying and don't believe
a word of what I am saying. CHECK IT OUT and then you'll find that I am
correct.
>
> The fact is that in real scientific terms Paul Cherubini's arguments do
not stand up. Let's put the issue simply. Deforestation is a problem in
many many many places. (Or is this just part of a conspiracy?) Monarchs live
in roosts in forests (Is this fact a part of  a conspiracy?) If the trees
are cut down the monarchs will have no where to roost. ( or is what we know
of Monarchs part of the conspiracy?)
>
> Now I don't know about the accuracy of Professor Brower's predictions  but
I have read much his work and it is well researched and his conclusions
follow logically from what is known like any good science.
> Paul Cherubini on the other hand is not credible at all except to what I
would politely call "the credulous".
>
> --
> Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
> "At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
> butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn
> Bog National Nature Reserve.
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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