It brings to mind comparisons of our "CAO science" to real science. Like replacement NFL referees, the Council's CAO science just doesn't cut it. It's replacement science all the way. It's not real eco-toxicology. It's not real conservation biology. It's not real fate and transport. It's not real hydrology. It's not real oceanography. It's not real environmental science. It's not real anything, except real you-know-what.
It certainly appears that some, if not most, of the key CAO methodologies have been dreamt up by Planner Shireene Hale and just sort of laundered through the eco-suggestible Dr. Adamus to come out as Best Available Science (BAS) on the other end. The wants and desires of Ecology and the Friends have been tossed into that sausage maker too.
Last December/January, for example, Hale resuscitated wetland buffer efforts after Adamus' initial buffer proposal died. Hale came to the rescue and cobbled together bits and pieces of inapplicable stormwater hydrology (her husband is the Stormwater Utility Manager for the County) to create the "site-specific" water-quality buffer method we now have. After flushing (pun intended) out the initial details, Hale handed it off to Dr. Adamus, so he could take credit for it. However, even now when the Council has questions about key aspects of the methodology, such as the Mayer paper, Hale answers those questions, not Adamus.
All during the near-death experiences of Adamus' credibility over the past year, the CAO Implementation Committee was convening, and we continue to see the individuals of that group act as ongoing life support for Dr. Adamus' ideas, no matter how ridiculous. The CAO Committee members included Patty Miller, Lovel Pratt, Richard Fralick, Shireene Hale, Jon Cain, Pete Rose, and Colin Maycock. Committee meetings were not public, despite having three participating Council members (enough to veto Council actions). "They" say that nothing really went on in those meetings except discussions about scheduling. Then why exclude the public?
It seems suspicious that some of the actions of the Committee members appear coordinated, such as when Dr. Adamus recently attended a Council meeting via phone conference. During that meeting, Rich Peterson asked Adamus a challenging question. Adamus prevaricated, hemmed and hawed. Lovel Pratt came to the rescue by interjecting a shiny-object question for apparent distraction purposes, and Hale directed the conversation towards Pratt's shiny object, never to return to the query of Peterson.
If experience is any guide, Adamus probably needs the help. Dr. Adamus has bombed in front of the Council and Planning Commission on a regular basis. Yet, he lives on. Like Lazarus, Adamus rises from the dead with the help of his miracle-working Life-Support Committee. If the CAOs are to have a prayer, the Council needs Adamus, and in a strange turn of events, the life-givers appear to be held hostage by him at this point. During recent public meetings, Council members almost seemed to be begging with Adamus to be reasonable, as his "science" recommendations were becoming more and more extreme. We heard Council members ask, "Dr. Adamus could you accept" or "Dr. Adamus, do we really need" ... but having ridden Dr. Adamus this far, they are in no position to bargain with the monster they've created. If Dr. Adamus says BAS requires all of us to abandon our homes to create a wild frog sanctuary, by golly, the Council is going to stand behind it as BAS.
That's replacement science.
And when any of us try to get answers from our public officials for their apparently illogical support for replacement science, "they" respond much like Howie Rosenfeld recently responded to CSA (see email reply below copied to all candidates). But it is the positions and actions of Council members who prop up replacement science that deserve scrutiny, not the motivations of those who can't fathom it.
From: Howard Howie Rosenfeld <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: September 25, 2012 10:17:02 PM PDT
To: Debbie Dickinson <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lovel Pratt <email@example.com>, Rick Hughes <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <Getmarc@aol.com>, Howie Rosenfeld <email@example.com>, Scott Lancaster <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: CSA FORUM
Can you please explain why in God’s name would I want to participate? It sounds like I’m being invited to my own roasting. The contributors to my opponent and Lovel’s are a who’s who of CSA members. You yourself are listed as an assistant. What kind of Fair and Balanced format does CSA have in mind? My position on the CAO is already well known. CSA’s position is well known. What’s the point?
On 9/25/12 5:39 PM, "Debbie Dickinson" <email@example.com> wrote:
To all Candidates,
CSA will be having a Candidate forum on Oct 20th at the Middle School Commons. The Title will be “Council Candidates and the CAO”
The meeting is scheduled to start at 12:00 and continue until 2:00 Saturday afternoon.
Looking forward to seeing you,