"Premature publicity violates a cultural value of most of the scientific community, which is that findings should be subjected to independent review with a "thorough examination by the scientific community" before they are widely publicized.[3] The standard practice is to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This idea has many merits, including that the scientific community has a responsibility to conduct itself in a deliberative, non-attention seeking way; and that its members should be oriented more towards the pursuit of insight than fame. Science by press conference in its most egregious forms can be undertaken on behalf of an individual researcher seeking fame, a corporation seeking to sway public opinion or investor perception, or a political or ideological movement."
Science by press conference - Wikipedia
Among the problems with the WEI/CBD study are
1. The researchers were hired by advocacy groups, and the study lead, ESA PWA, is in a position to profit financially if their conclusions are accepted. Therefore, the researchers were not independent. Part of ESA PWA's business is new habitat creation, which they call for in the study. At times, the report read like a business response to a Request for Proposal.
2. Those doing the alleged peer-review were chosen by WEI and CBD, who made sure to pick sympathetic reviewers. Therefore, there was no independent review.
3. WEI/CBD prematurely and loudly publicized the report before it was subjected to a thorough examination by the scientific community.
4. Adhering to its motto of "Never let the truth get in the way of a good sound bite," WEI has repeatedly made false statements claiming the report was accepted as the primary scientific reference (whatever that means) on Sharp Park by San Francisco Rec and Parks and the Sharp Park Working Group. John Bowie of WEI has even admitted that these statements are not true, yet WEI continues to say it. This is just one in a long series of blatantly false and misleading statements from WEI and CBD that are meant to con the public. Another is the dishonest way they always refer to the future Sharp Park as a "National Park" rather than as what it really would become - merely part of a National Recreation Area along the lines of Mori's Point, Sweeney Ridge, and Milagra Ridge. Hardly anyone uses the National Recreation Areas in Pacifica, so reality isn't too impressive. But the term "National Park" deceptively suggests the new Sharp Park Frog and Snake Preserve will be comparable to Yosemite and Yellowstone - a truly unique park that will attract hordes of big-spending visitors who will fill Pacifica's coffers. For WEI and CBD, the ends justify the means. George Orwell and Frank Luntz would be proud.
On top of that, the study itself was very heavy on speculation, with most conclusions based on estimates built on top of assumptions, mixed in with a bit of guessing and wishful thinking. To paraphrase one oft-repeated explanation of their scientific methodology: " We looked at old pictures and concluded..."
For instance, their attempt to explain away Laguna Salada's name, which is Spanish for "Salty Lagoon," was ridiculous. Their argument was basically to point out that until 1842, Suisun Bay was called "Puerto Dulce" (Sweet Bay or Freshwater Bay,) even though the water wasn't totally fresh. Apparently, that's supposed to prove that Laguna Salada was incorrectly named. Folks, this is a common example of much of the "science" to be found throughout the report.
Posted by Steve Sinai
34 comments:
It was pretty clear from the public comments by Slavin and a couple others that any science is bad science as far as they are concerned. For the record, Slavin had to be asked by the moderator to speak in turn.
It was sad to see that a lot of the public doesn't understand science process, or peer reviews. Point of information for those folks: scientific professionals don't get work if they include bias in the professional communications. It's not just frowned upon, it's completely opposite to what is part of the scientific method. Doing science means keeping bias out.
It was great to see an intelligent, low cost solution that is a win for homeowners and wildlife.
Around third-grade, I learned that science was infallible, that everyone agreed on scientific conclusions, and that if one said something was "science", that was the end of the argument. That's the level most people reach.
It wasn't until graduate school, when a professor offhandedly mentioned that everyone who considers themselves educated should read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," that I began to break out of my overly-simplified, grade-school mindset about science.
I started to realize that the scientific process was very contentious, controversial, constantly evolving, constantly misused, and often produced conclusions that turned out to be wrong. To accept a single study as "fact," for no other reason than someone says it's "scientific," is the height of naivete.
Bias is endemic in science, and is inevitable in a report like this. It's not a study based on hard, quantitative science, where others can repeat experiments and confirm the original results. This study is mostly unverifiable interpretation and speculation.
The reason you need an INDEPENDENT peer-review is to avoid picking reviewers with the same biases as the original researchers. WEI and CBD went out and chose reviewers who had the same biases, which is why the peer-review in this case is worthless. Even then, it's not until you get a rather large consensus of scientists to agree on something that it should come to be accepted.
Plater is shrewd enough to know that most people never got beyond a third-grader's understanding of science. His message is geared toward them, and it's why he keeps playing on their childish misconceptions that if something is tagged as "science," that's the end of the story. The previous anonymous commenter looks to be one that Plater's directing his message to.
Anon@219 you're dreaming. Much of science can be understood by simply following the money. Lots and lots of money.
Anonymous
I don’t at all think that all science is bad science; I have written publicly that the hydrology of Sharp Park, and the seawall, deserves more study. But INDEPENDENT study, not an in-house report deliberately slanted to justify an audacious land-grab by a couple of double-talking, ego-driven environmental carpetbaggers, if you know what I mean.
And it’s sad to see that some of the public are still gullible enough to unquestionably believe something because a “scientist” said it. Grow up! Did you note the “scientific professionals”, trying for another land-grab, caught bending the evidence in Drakes Bay last week? Or how about the Center for Biological Diversity faking the photographic evidence in the Chilton Ranch case? The entire campaign to close Sharp Park Golf Course has been marked by a steady stream of distortions, misrepresentations and deliberate, in-your-face lies. And yes, sometimes I do speak out of turn.
Paul Slavin
The earth is flat.
Eintstein is a great scientist. Only those who knew nothing about science would dispute him.
Steve, I appreciate the fact that you did at least read through the report (unlike many who have critiqued it on this site), but you would have a much better informed opinion of the meeting if you had actually attended it. I won't go into the details until I have studied the transcripts, but for now let me just correct your claims about John Bowie's statements.
You have now twice posted that he "has even admitted that these statements are not true, yet he continues to send out statements that include these false claims."
In reality, John Maybury edited his post from before the meeting to the past tense, leading you to incorrectly assume that Mr. Bowie was continuing to repeat them. You made an understandable mistake but now that you have been corrected I trust that you won't continue to repeat it, because I know that kind of thing is important to you!
Ian,
As of this morning, the claim of being "accepted by the SF Rec & Park as the primary scientif reference at Sharp Park" was still on Wild Equity's website. Is there any possible explanation for that?
Yep, you're right, Ian.
Paul Slavin mentioned that WEI still makes that claim on their website. I just checked, and they do. I don't think Plater will ever stop saying it because he knows people will read it and accept it without double-checking. But unless that happens, I consider it an example worth pointing out about the dishonesty surrounding this report.
As of Saturday, April 2 at 7:12 PM, this is on the Wild Equity website:
"In addition, the report has been accepted by San Francisco Parks and Recreation as the primary scientific reference for Sharp Park, making education about their report essential to any one of the Park’s potential futures – restoration, development, or otherwise. In short, understanding the report is essential to any discussion of Pacifica’s future."
You dummies, EnviroMan doesn't answer to you. His truth is not your truth. He's on a holy mission and answers to a much higher power. His bank account.
The Vatican issued a scientific report, peer reviewed by the unbiased Council of Cardinals, proving that the earth is flat. So, it is.
"...proving that the earth is flat."
Interesting how those early humans who walked out of Africa didn't think so.
Ian, I briefly spoke to John Bowie after Thursday's presentation. I suggested that since he admitted the statement he made on Riptide re the report being accepted by SFPR as the primary scientific reference for Sharp Park is untrue, he should go back on Riptide and set it straight. He said he could do that. I guess he could, doesn't mean he would.
The false and/or misleading statements that keep appearing on WEI's website, I am certain will continue as long as Plater feels there are no consequences. I'm also certain that it won't be long before Plater is unveiled and his true agenda and motivation exposed. Its Karma.
Anon @ 10:53 PM, you nailed it.
plater and his crew are no more swayed by science than the council of cardinals. the only "green" they respect is money.
Brent and Jeff are Meanie-Bo-Beanies. They want to take away peoples toys. I don't care what the science says the golf course was there before the EPA, CCC, or the City of Pacifica. This course allows low income folk like me to rent a cool electric cart, bomb around the course slamming alcoholic beverages and smacking the be-jeezus out of small densely packed balls made of hundreds of rubber bands incased in a plastic shell. Nothing Brent or Jeff can say is going to top that, nothing. (Personally I don't play golf so I'm not directly affected but shame on those two lawyers for the trouble they are causing).
Meanie-Bo-Beanies? I see them more like those musical icons MilliVanilli. If their lips are moving they ain't singing.
Ian, I briefly spoke to John Bowie after Thursday's presentation. I suggested that since he admitted the statement he made on Riptide re the report being accepted by SFPR as the primary scientific reference for Sharp Park is untrue, he should go back on Riptide and set it straight. He said he could do that. I guess he could, doesn't mean he would.
Anon and all you need to remember this when you deal with Plater and his ilk. If their lips are moving it means they're lying.
The only true science is astrology.
There has been a lot of misinformed speculation about the peer-review process for this report, so I asked the presenters about it. Here is the transcript:
Ian: There’s also been some talk about the legitimacy of the peer review process... that you hand picked your buddies to review it and that it was not a true review process, could you explain how it took place?
Peter Baye: I can talk a little about that, I’ve worked on a number of coastal lagoon projects either as a peer reviewer or as an author of the plan and there is a limited body of scientific expertise on the California coast that is assembled. For example, the GGNRA, they did a lagoon restoration project at Muir Beach - Redwood Creek, they assembled all the technical advisory capacity they could garner. There are technical advisory groups that were done for Laguna Creek Lagoon for California State Parks, Dawn Reis was one of my peer-reviewers on that project. So what we did with the peer-review for this group is we picked from peer-reviewers who have already participated as peer-reviewers for State Parks projects and National Park Service projects. So in term of hand picking, the hands have already picked them, and it’s the same people and the same pool of expertise that is used for all the Federal and State Lagoon restoration projects up and down the coast. I think we got some really eminent people, Jerry Smith, from Santa Cruz State University, who has probably been researching coastal lagoons and red-legged frogs longer than anybody else, we got Robbie Rosinger from the San Francisco Estuary Institute, probably the leading historical ecological expert in the region...Carlos Davidson, international expert on toxicology for frogs and population declines of frogs...US geological survey experts...
Bob Battalio: Let me address this, you know as professionals one of the things you have is your reputation, and people who do professional reviews provide their professional opinions and they don’t compromise that because that’s their entire livelihood and their reputation more than anything. So the peer review was real and solid and it was useful.
nice softball butler. reminds me of the city council meetings where vreeland asks a prepared question to the city attorney. why certainly, i would love to explain why we aren't a bunch of liars and crooks!!
A peer review by other, like minded people is not a true, scientific peer review. This is why environmental science keeps getting a bad reputation for sloppy work. Just look at what happened with the oyster farms in Pt. Reyes. Turns out the Park Service lied and the peer reviewers lied too.Only when the Park Service report was put through a real peer review did the scientific assumptions come up wrong. This is endemic in the environmental science field.
So, go back and have a true peer review, with qualified environmental scientists and then I'll consider what Plater is pushing.
Ian, these findings of Baye and Battalio lead to biased, untenable conclusions: destruction of an existing golf course, probably the neighborhood and our highway through town. It doesn't work for me and others, humans and other mammals have rights too.
Notwithstanding, if the red legged frogs or this variety of SF garter snake move into my backyard they will simply have to co-exist or move out. Endangered or threatened? Same hospitality from this human.
Although Pacifica has certain characteristics of being an outback, it is a city, just as the urban Sharp Park golf course is a recreation area within a city, and is not an undeveloped patch of land located in a remote area, a national park or a state park.
The San Francisco authorized independent Swain study offers reasonable, habitat compliant golf course solutions; whereas, the CBD/WE study offers destruction of the golf course, threat to the neighborhood, the city, even the highway, and chaos.
Some of us therefore question what people who support such alternative conclusions are thinking? "More room for the RLF and SFGS to roam", really, at sacrifice of us all. "The RLF and SFGS are endangered/threatened", no reason to destroy our society as a result. "The ocean is rising", we are alive today, no reason to plan 100 years ahead today (eventually there may be a technology fix). "We need another Park", huh, more unproductive "open space" in this 50% open space city? Remember this city has an income revenue problem, we need to fix that.
So what we did with the peer-review for this group is we picked from peer-reviewers who have already participated as peer-reviewers for State Parks projects and National Park Service projects. So in term of hand picking, the hands have already picked them, and it’s the same people and the same pool of expertise that is used for all the Federal and State Lagoon restoration projects up and down the coast
in other words, they only picked people who had the same agenda and have been pushing that agenda for 20+ years
Anon (10:44am), that's correct the CBD/WE study "garbage in, garbage out" won't win the Nobel prize for urban eco-scientific discovery. As you said, 20+ years or more of the same, eventually we all "get it", but oops, almost too late.
And the march of the enviros along the California coast will continue until much of it has been made off-limits to people. It's not good enough for them to protect the environment, they want to restore it to whatever they think it was 300 years ago. To do that they will lie each other up to fool a gullible, often oblivious public. Look around, they usually prevail because afterall, they're the experts. They also have the federal government firmly on their side. And the enviro movement has become its own economic engine attracting all kinds of parasites like Plater and the rest. It's not just a passion, it's a paycheck.
Why didn't they ask Karen Swaim to peer-review it? Not a part of the clique?
Scientific methodology with preconceived answers works every time.
they didn't cheery pick their peers any more than ian cherry picked that question
There appears to be a whole lot of cheery cherry-pickin' going on for sure.
Don't nitpick.
if the science don't fit, you must cherry pick
Oh Johnnie, you the man.
Post a Comment