Extreme Weather And GMO Crops Devastate Monarch Butterfly Migration

Corn, wheat, rice and soybeans are wind pollinated or self pollinating so no need for bees. Semi-luxury crops are pollinated by honeybees (almonds, blueberries, squash, watermelon) and there have been no serious bee shortages and so no yield reductions in any of those crops.

Mr. Cherubini, don't you think in the interest of full disclosure in regard to this subject you should mention what you do for a living?

Is this the old "disparage the messenger" when you can't refute the message debate trick? Another good one is to say: "even video can be edited and faked."

Why not answer the question then? And you proved nothing. You only showed a video of one location entirely dismissing the trends shown through scientific analysis done by people with the credentials to do it in order to support GMOS /Glyphosate while joining this site only to respond in this thread. And employees of Monsanto have done this before here so I think it is a valid question. Do you work for Monsanto or an ag chemical company? It seems like a very easy question for anyone who doesn't to just answer no to.

Edit:

Btw, Mr. Cherubini, is this you?

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Sci/sci.bio.entomology.lepidoptera/2006-...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/leps-l/message/8986
"Jeffrey A. Caldwell wrote:

> What sort of pesticides do you sell, and
> to what clientele? I think it would be interesting to know a little about
> your academic background as well.

I represent the product line of a small, family owned,
ag chemical distributor and sell (and often help initially apply)
a wide variety of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides to both
end users and other ag chem dealers. End users include some
farmers, but mainly post harvest interests such as food processing plants,
food storage warehouses, seed companies, greenhouses,
grain elevators, etc. I've also had experience as a licensed
ag pest control adviser selling pesticides to growers - the
materials that go on the growing crop. Finally, I once worked
in the urban pest control scene, both as an applicator
and salesman selling to exterminators, mosquito
abatement districts, golf courses, that sort of thing.

My BS degree is in entomology.

Paul Cherubini"

Thanks for answering the question via the Internet and proving that profit is indeed behind your presence here and the misinformation you spread. And isn't it amazing how we here weren't the only ones who felt the need to question you? I hope you and your new friend who supported you here because of a grudge and who is just like you in posting misinformation will be very happy together.

God, do you just sit in your lonely dark hovel with drool coming down your chin staring at your computer screen waiting for me to give your day meaning? Go crawl back under your rock. There I gave you attention. Have a nice day.

Why would it "disparage the messenger" to cite the source?
When I discuss architecture or comment on the built environment I include the fact that I'm an architect.
It's standard ethical behavior to cite the source of your expertise when trying to influence a public discussion.
Folks hide something when they have something they wish to keep hidden.

Jan, the reason I posted the 2010 and 2011 videos above that were taken in the heart of the GMO crop growing areas is to show you monarchs are still spectacularly abundant there. Numbers were low in 2012 due to a major drought, but numbers will be high again this coming summer. So next August I will be filming thousands of monarchs there again.

Frankly, the idea of "overpopulation" is a myth... perpetuated by eugenicists, nazis, and megalomaniacs because they're just plain lazy, stupid and uncreative.

If you put every human on the planet shoulder to shoulder, and in a big group... they would only take up a space about the size of Los Angeles (or so I've read). The real issue is waste and greed. Those are the two driving factors destroying the environment and wiping out animals (including people). If there was no financial incentive to cut down rain forests it wouldn't happen. And... to take this a bit further (as documented most recently in "Confessions of an economic hitman") countries with rain forests and other valuable natural resources are forced into dismantling them for profit because of their financial enslavement to first world countries who use a number of tactics to force them into debt that they cannot repay, then demand cheap goods... among other things.

People don't need to die. They just need to stop treating others like things... or treating the planet like a resource to be used up. We're fucking up, that's all it is.

Well said. The elite mismanage and hoard resources, then blame artificially created scarcity on overpopulation. Looking down from the top of the pyramid there is always too many people for their liking making them uneasy.

Try standing shoulder to shoulder in Calcutta, or Cairo, or any city in the polluted hell of China.
Imagining overpopulation is a myth requires a staggering amount of obliviousness.

Absolving the average human from the full scale participation in the devastation of the planet--which I have personally witnessed in most every human environment on globe--is truly deluded self-serving nonsense. ("Oh, it just those other guys--you know, the greedy ones!")

Most humans on the planet can't even afford the "cheap goods" you imagine to be the problem.

The problem is each person being oblivious to his or her impact on the earth.
Yet, one always magically excuses oneself from being the problem.

Imagine any other species covering the earth and doing the damage humans have done so far. Naturally, you imagine we just need a better system--the one you've come up with of course.
Completely ridiculous.

I was actually wondering if that comment was about overpopulation or that the poster thought those who perpetrated this need to die. But I guess we won't know for sure what was meant now. And I tend to agree with you. It is not population in and of itself that determines our fate, it is what that population does in regards to the systems it employs and its moral character. We could have 10 billion people on this planet but if we used our resources sustainably we could survive. Money and greed will be our downfall, not population in and of itself and that greed is now actually determining the fate of the monarch butterfly. We aren't the only population on this planet and that is a revelation we better have soon.

I can't imagine why you would try and invoke Bill Gates in your anti-family planning argument. This is from the Gates Foundation website on Family Planning:

"Voluntary family planning is one of the great public health advances of the past century. Enabling women to make informed decisions about whether and when to have children reduces maternal and newborn deaths. It also results in fewer unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions, increases opportunities for women, and leads to healthier families and communities. Family planning is a smart, sensible, and vital component of global health and development.

However, more than 220 million women in developing countries who don’t want to get pregnant lack access to effective methods of contraception and voluntary family planning information and services. Less than 20 percent of women in Sub-Saharan Africa and barely one-third of women in South Asia use modern contraceptives. In 2012, an estimated 80 million women in developing countries had an unintended pregnancy and at least one in four resorted to an unsafe abortion.

Significant challenges stand in the way of making contraceptives more widely available and accessible, including the high cost of quality mid- to long-acting contraceptives, unpredictable donor funding, cultural and knowledge barriers, and lack of coordination in procurement processes.

Increasing access to contraceptives and family planning information and services will result in fewer women and girls dying in pregnancy and childbirth, fewer unintended pregnancies, fewer abortions, and fewer infant deaths."

I should add that I agree the future is bright for those who have a firm hold control resources and technology but I'd like to point out, not so much for millions of others.

Even the most affluent of us may find the view from our golden sedan chairs a bit off-putting as we are carried about the poisoned surface of the planet.

I don't recall making an anti-family planning argument. I've always been anti-eugenics both hardcore and the more recent softcore, but if people want to use contraceptives I have no issue with that. It's forced sterilization added into food and water and otherwise injected into the body all unknowingly to the receiver, that I have an issue with.

The extreme obsession with population reduction that floats around in some circles and the less than ethical measures taken to implement an unhealthy and obsessive agenda is what's wrong.

It's fatalistic and intellectually lazy to say "I am unable or unwilling to deal with the world's problems so let's just cull the population and coup ourselves up in a gated community."

The book gives support, based on recent technological innovations, (communication technology such as cellphones even the poorest among us on welfare has access to them) for its arguments.The book makes a very persuasive case for why there is plenty of room for optimism, but makes an even better case for why we don't need to succumb to fatalistic neo-Malthusian fears.

In U.S. in many jurisdictions there is an unorthodox way to solve many environmental problems that really hasn't yet been utilized. An existing legal framework exists for property rights, causes of actions at common law for trespass and private nuisance. In some jurisdictions an action for trespass stood and an injunction was granted for the accumulation of chemicals particles in a land owners soil from a nearby factory.

The commonlaw can and in some jurisdictions has been expanded to include these situations.

What's needed is for those willing and able to give money, to start and fund a public interest legal group with just the objective of bringing these private types of cases for poorer landowners or renters who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it. The environment would get cleaned a lot faster that way than waiting on the EPA.

Seems like a very sound idea. I think the most effective NGO's use existing law to challenge environmental pollution. It takes money and time and tenacity but it does work.

It's a two punch attack. Combine the legal attack strategy of expanding the commonlaw for nuisance and trespass

With this project from Public LaboratoryOpen Technology and Science (PLOTS) on kickstarter to make Spectrometers Affordable for the everyday citizen.

http://mashable.com/2012/09/03/public-labs-diy-spectrometer/

If spectrometers are brought to the mass consumer level, (Like iphone levels) every day individuals would have full awareness in virtually real time of what's in their soil, water, household products, and air and they'd want to sue to stop it because nobody enjoys being poisoned.

Again, a good idea (assuming, of course, a bit of training goes with that to credibly certify results).

It would take some time and some test cases to get evidence generated by citizen Spectrometers acceptable in the Court room (as it does with all new technology,) but it's something I fully foresee as possible and would result in very positive societal and environmental change.

I actually planted some two years ago to support the monarch migration in my area on the requests of a scientist or two... and damn if that plant isn't a weed. Once a couple got established, it just gets all over the place. One tough little plant, that is!

Yes it is. Why they choose it to lay their eggs on. We need to be more aware of the species around us that depend on what we consider to be just weeds. Our zeal to poison and kill anything that doesn't meet with our needs is killing our biodiversity and in the end the web of life that leads to us.