Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Peter Baye - Pre-Conceptual Scientist?

posted by: r. roads


Lance said...

We have lot's of pre-conceptual scientists in this town. Professor Nancy Hall, Bio-Diesel.
Professor Brent Plater, Urban Mosquito Proliferation.
We also have pre-conceptual planners. Professor John Curtis, Civic Bankruptcy Made Easy. Professor James Vreeman, Civic Opaqueness.
Many others too numerous to list. We are truly blessed.

Steve Sinai said...

Everyone suffers from preconceptions, including those on our side. There's no way to avoid it.

My complaint about Baye isn't that he holds particular opinions. It's that the Destroy Sharp Park crowd keep trying to pass him off as an objective scientist, when in fact, he's a dedicated, non-objective advocate. Environmental science and wildlife biology are not hard sciences like physics and chemistry, so for issues like Sharp Park, personal biases come into play when it comes to interpreting data and predicting what will happen under certain scenarios.

mike bell said...

All cities, counties, states and countries have pre-conceptual know-it-alls on every side of every issue.

That's what we hire our leaders to do for us; competently parse through all the bullshit and find the most equitable, forward thinking and correct solutions.

This Council has, and still is, failing completely at this simple directive.

We will have failed completely if we don't get some new blood in there and start building around what little competency actually exists in the form of Mary Ann Nihart, Steve Rhodes and a few others.

The problem is Council, not the nutcakes and special interest gangs. (BTW - we're considered nutcakes and a special interest gang by the other side)

Don't let Vreeland "the Liar", Sue "the Confused", Julie "please love me" or Pete "whatever John Curtis wants", off the hook. They have wrecked our city and must be fired.

ian butler said...

Pater Baye's science is unassailable, although his suggestions about the best course of action are open to debate.

I attended the presentation by Karen Swaim at the council chambers, and she made her case persuasively. Nevertheless, I have misgivings about her plan, which amounts to spending millions of dollars to form a temporary breeding ground that by her own admission will be "under water in 30 years."

In the interest of balance, I taped her talk and will be airing the best 30 minutes of footage next Monday at 6:30 on PCT (the best footage being the part between getting a tripod and running out of tape!)

It is informative for those who couldn't make the meeting or those who would like to analyze her talk more closely.

Jeffrey W Simons said...

Pater Baye's science is unassailable . . .

why? Because you said so?

ian butler said...

"Why, because you said so?"

There's a reason Peter has been the go-to scientist for lagoon restorations in Northern California.

Even Karen Swaim said that she believed Peter's science is in agreement with hers. She said where they differ is that she favors "species restoration", while Peter favors "habitat restoration".

I should take this opportunity to make an important correction. In the video in which I interview a zookeeper with an SF garter snake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dhyTuHPnrA), the zookeeper says there are "12 to 20" SF garter snakes in the Sharp Park area. According to Karen, that is how many were directly observed in the last 4 years. The total amount of snakes there is probably much higher. This is good news, because it means the population is likely still viable.

Kathy Meeh said...

Ian, yes you were pretty cute viewing the SF Garter Snake in that video.

A difference in the science is that Peter referenced his experience with habitat which exists inland with a fresh water lake (Rodero) vs. a coastal near ocean lagoon (Laguna Salada). "The problem is not the Golf Course, the problem is the Lagoon which needs to be clean-up, and continue with the right mixture of sediment" (a monitored lower level).

Jeffrey W Simons said...

I don't see that as much proof that anyone's "science" is "unassailable" . . . if you're selectively using your "science" to come to a pre-determined outcome . . . that isn't science.

Jeffrey W Simons said...


in related news, Glenn Beck has been declared an "unassailable" source of information about the gold market:


Perhaps he and Peter Baye have more in common than we originally thought . . .