Monarch Migration Predicted to be Extinct within 16 years

Stanley A. Gorodenski stan_gorodenski at
Tue Oct 7 23:03:08 EDT 2003

I think, correct me if I am wrong (of course you will), what you are 
saying is that you (maybe), Paul Cherubini, and some others know for a 
_fact_ that Brower is engaged in a fraud to obtain donations for his 
research or living (maybe to buy a new Hummer). Either because the rest 
of us do not have all the information the Brower criticizers have, or 
because we are not perceptive enough, it is then okay to take a Brower 
statement and overstate, misquote, and misrepresent it. After all, you 
(i.e., the Brower criticizers, not necessarily you personally) know what 
Brower is really attempting to do - correct? Some may be willing to have 
someone else do their thinking for them, but not me. Give me the facts, 
not misquotes, misrepresentations or overstatements, and I will come to 
my own conclusion. I do not know Brower and have no idea if he is 
engaged in a fraud, but when I read interpretations not supported by the 
actual statement it makes me think his criticizers are the ones engaged 
in the a fraud.

Ron Gatrelle wrote:

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" <stan_gorodenski at>
>Subject: Re: Monarch Migration Predicted to be Extinct within 16 years
>>Patrick already made some of the points I would have made had he not
>>beat me to the post. I just want to add to it by stating that I think
>>you are misrepresenting Brower's statement. He said, as you showed in
>>the link to your web site, "...will probably be destroyed within 10 to
>>20 years". I do not read this to be a forecast that it _will_ become
>>extinct in 2000. Further, as Patrick pointed out, did he blunder or
>>warn? I do not think his statement, which was couched in such uncertain
>>terms (using the word "probably" and giving a 10 year range of when the
>>event _might_ occur), to be of such a nature that it can be called a
>Sorry.  My primary profession at this point in my life is as a preacher -
>my former career was in dental (lots or crooks there too).  At least 50% of
>the preachers I know I don't like as they are experts at manipulating
>people.  Preachers, politicians, lawyers and enviro-science all fall in the
>same pot.   Two elements are endemic.  1) insinuation and 2) deniability.
>(Yes, there are lots of good apples in all those fields, but their very
>functionality genders deceit [sic] lying.)
>IF you don't pay your tithes you MIGHT get struck dead.  And IF you are 10
>years delinquent in your tithe paying it MIGHT not be a bad idea to get
>caught up.  Parishioner goes out and sells his home, empties his savings
>and writes a check to the church or preacher.   When the parishioner wises
>up and takes the preacher to court for "telling" him  liquidate everything,
>the preacher pulls out the deniability card of if, might, coulda, shoulda,
>woulda, and say he never said anything one on one to the Mr. Sap.
>IF you don't get braces for your daughter she MIGHT hate you when she grows
>As I said, sorry.  I'd rather some one just say it - and be wrong.  But the
>continual little life boat phrases and back door exits lead this synic to
>smell fraud - and the outrageous a mounts of funding are the cherry on the
>cheese cake for me.
>IS this leps/conservation related?   You bet.   There are plenty of real
>species in real danger of extinction and billion$ of funds are needed.  IF
>_ fraud exists here ( see I can do it too ), and it is eventually found
>out - even if after Brower et all are long dead,  the situation will become
>a poster child for the anti-environmental lobby to cast doubt on every
>valid need and program after it.   THAT is my main concern.   IF any field
>chooses to remain blind to the possibility of fraud within its own ranks
>and thus does not police itself - government or someone else will.  Brower
>need to be held _accountable_ not excused year after year, failed
>prognostication after failed warning. ( All the while building one of the
>highest profile "conservatoin" situations of our tme.)The people who
>"believe" Paul don't really do so, he just says, hey look at that.   We
>(and there are many of us) look and see and don't like what WE see.


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list