Monarchs and Monoculture in southern Michigan

[Jim Taylor]

Folks, I know this will bring down the wrath of Wales, but has anyone ever 
seen Jones contribute a positive post?

Jim Taylor
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neil Jones" <neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk>
To: <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Monarchs and Monoculture in southern Michigan


> On Saturday 27 August 2005 11:03, Kenelm W Philip wrote:
>> Neil responded to my query with:
>> > The data cannot be relied upon to provide the results you are looking
>> > for because there aren't enough of them.
>>
>> First, I have no ax to grind here--and am not looking for any results.
>> I was merely asking how Neil's comment about tag recovery being
>> determined by local weather at the overwintering sites had any
>> relevance to the problem at hand, which concerned the ratio of eastern
>> to mid- western tags. That question he did not answer.
>
> Actually Paul Cherubini's earlier posting made no mention of the ratios.
> We cannot make any firm conclusions as I said. I can think of a number of
> reasons of why monarchs from different places could produce distorted 
> results
> in both directions but I would just be speculating. I prefer to stick to 
> what
> I can prove.
>
> Of course I saw the ratios when I looked at the origninal data. I just 
> ignored
> them because they were obviously irrelevant. I just couldn't imagine 
> anyone
> trying to form conclusions on such an obviously dodgy basis.
> Of course I underestimated his scientific depravity. He did go and use 
> them.
> Only someone as hell bent on deception as he is would do that.
>
>
> I hold to the point that one can only accept that something is correct 
> when
> the evidence shows that. He has a  long history of posting dodgy data.
>
>> I agree that the numbers Paul found and reported are small, and make
>> firm conclusions about trends hard to support.
>
> So we agree on the central  point.
>
> It is obvious that they are hard to support. His data always are. This is 
> his
> modus operandi. He dredges up some dubious set of data and then blows them
> into a huge conspiracy theory. What you seem to have missed is the
> significance attack on Dr Taylor and Monarch Watch in the beginning.  It 
> is
> the part of a _political_ agenda that he constantly promotes by dishonest
> means. We all have ourviews and position and I have always,Ken , respected
> your honesty in putting yours forward. I can, however have no faith in
> anything said by Paul Cherubini.
>
> The moment I see anything by him now my first reaction is what scientific
> truth is he setting out to pervert now. It isn't as if these are honest
> mistakes. Something gets comprehensively debunked  on one list and a few 
> days
> later you see the same daft ideas somewhere else.  One gets the distinct
> impression that he would swear that the Pope  was Jewish if he thought it
> would advance his political aims. :-)
>
> It isn't his politics so much as his dishonesty. If he was using the same
> tactics to agree with me I would be telling him to shut up.
>
>> There are, however,
>> clearly more midwestern than eastern recoveries (subject to change
>> when all the data are in).
>
>
> Yes, but figures are too small to show any effect which would be caused by 
> GM
> crops to any provable degree EITHER WAY. Except when you use Paul 
> Cherubini's
> "Creative Science".
>
>> As to whether GM crops are harmful or harmless to butterflies (or to
>> other organisms--they are certainly as hard on weeds as they are
>> designed to be!)--that depends on the specific organism, and also
>> requires one to take a long view of the situation.
>
> <snip>
> As to the long view the picture of pre-columbian America is too confused 
> to
> make definate conclusions. Yes, of course it depends on the organism but
> first of all you accept that it works on the weeds. The weeds are 
> destroyed.
> But look at this rhetorical question. You are conducting an experiment to 
> find
> the effects of herbicide use on populations of general lepidoptera which 
> feed
> on the weeds. You spray herbicide on the weeds. The weeds die. What do you
> expect to happen to the lepidoptera that feed on these weeds?
>
> If Roundup Ready Soybeans are being cultivated as they are supposed to the
> weeds are supposed to disappear.Anything that feeds on those weeds must be
> affected.  Now of course one needs to study precisely what the changes are 
> in
> order to get figures, but what one cannot do is use the dodgy data that 
> Paul
> Cherubini puts forward to say there is no effect. Let alone build it into 
> the
> massive conspiracy that he claims.
>
> I know what it is:-) They spray the crops with special "Black Helicopters" 
> :-)
>
>> > You know Ken up there in Alaska you don't seem to understand what
>> > modern agriculture is doing to butterfly populations.
>>
>> Well, although that kind of thing is not a major problem in Alaska, I
>> _do_ read, and have visited the lower 48 states a number of times
>> since I moved to Fairbanks. I recall reading about the effect that loss
>> of the hedgerows had on English butterflies, for example...
>
> It isn't just the hedgerows. While of course there are still places to see
> butterflies they are becoming fewer all the time. Particularly with any
> species that has specialised habitat requirements.
>
>> Ken Philip
>
> --
> Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 
>
>   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