Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Liberal's War On Science

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 28 Jan 2017, 11:47:47

To me this sounds great, Scientists checking the work of other Scientists to root out confirmation bias and make sure the results reflect reality. I quoted the significant portion of the story and stopped where they started talking politics, there are another dozen paragraphs at the link below the quote if that part interests you.

John Arnold Made a Fortune at Enron. Now He’s Declared War on Bad Science

Brian Nosek had pretty much given up on finding a funder. For two years he had sent out grant proposals for his software project. And for two years they had been rejected again and again—which was, by 2011, discouraging but not all that surprising to the 38-year-old scientist. An associate professor at the University of Virginia, Nosek had made a name for himself in a hot subfield of social psychology, studying people’s unconscious biases. But that’s not what this project was about. At least, not exactly.

Like a number of up-and-coming researchers in his generation, Nosek was troubled by mounting evidence that science itself—through its systems of publication, funding, and advancement—had become biased toward generating a certain kind of finding: novel, attention grabbing, but ultimately unreliable. The incentives to produce positive results were so great, Nosek and others worried, that some scientists were simply locking their inconvenient data away.

The problem even had a name: the file drawer effect. And Nosek’s project was an attempt to head it off at the pass. He and a graduate student were developing an online system that would allow researchers to keep a public log of the experiments they were running, where they could register their hypotheses, methods, workflows, and data as they worked. That way, it would be harder for them to go back and cherry-pick their sexiest data after the fact—and easier for other researchers to come in and replicate the experiment later.

Nosek was so taken with the importance of redoing old experiments that he had also rallied more than 50 like-minded researchers across the country to participate in something he called the Reproducibility Project. The aim was to redo about 50 studies from three prominent psychology journals, to establish an estimate of how often modern psychology turns up false positive results.

It was little wonder, then, that funders didn’t come running to support Nosek: He wasn’t promising novel findings, he was promising to question them. So he ran his projects on a shoestring budget, self-­financing them with his own earnings from corporate speaking engagements on his research about bias.

But in July 2012, Nosek received an email from an institution whose name he didn’t recognize: the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. A Google search told him that the Arnolds were a young billionaire couple in Houston. John, Nosek learned, had made his first millions as a wunderkind natural gas trader at Enron, the infamous energy company, and he’d managed to walk away from Enron’s 2001 collapse with a seven-­figure bonus and no accusations of wrong­doing attached to his name. After that Arnold started his own hedge fund, Centaurus Energy, where he became, in the words of one hedge fund competitor, “the best trader that ever lived, full stop.” Then Arnold had abruptly retired at the ripe age of 38 to focus full time on philanthropy.

As Nosek tells it, John Arnold had read about the Reproducibility Project in The Chronicle of Higher Education and wanted to talk. By the following year, Nosek was cofounding an institution called the Center for Open Science with an initial $5.25 million grant from the Arnold Foundation. More than $10 million more in Arnold Foundation grants have come since. “It completely transformed what we could imagine doing,” Nosek says. Projects that Nosek had once envisioned as modest efforts carried out in his lab were now being conducted on an entirely different scale at the center’s startup-like offices in downtown Charlottesville, with some 70 employees and interns churning out code and poring over research. The skeletal software behind the data-sharing project became a slick cloud-based platform, which has now been used by more than 30,000 researchers.

The Reproducibility Project, meanwhile, swelled to include more than 270 researchers working to reproduce 100 psychology experiments—and in August 2015, Nosek revealed its results. Ultimately his army of volunteers could verify the findings of only about 40 percent of the studies. Media reports declared the field of psychology, if not all of science, to be in a state of crisis. It became one of the biggest science stories of the year.

But as it happens, Nosek is just one of many researchers who have received unsolicited emails from the Arnold Foundation in the past few years—researchers involved in similar rounds of soul-searching and critique in their own fields, who have loosely amounted to a movement to fix science.

John Ioannidis was put in touch with the Arnolds in 2013. A childhood math prodigy turned medical researcher, Ioannidis became a kind of godfather to the science reform crowd in 2005, when he published two devastating papers—one of them titled simply “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” Now, with a $6 million initial grant from the Arnold Foundation, Ioannidis and his colleague Steven Goodman are setting out to turn the study of scientific practice—known as meta-research—into a full-fledged field in its own right, with a new research center at Stanford.

British doctor Ben Gold­acre also got an email from the Arnold Foundation in 2013. Famous in England as a sharp-witted scourge of “bad science,” Goldacre spent years building up a case that pharmaceutical companies, by refusing to reveal all their data, have essentially deceived the public into paying for worthless therapies. Now, with multiple grants from the Arnolds, he is leading an effort to build an open, searchable database that will link all publicly available information on every clinical trial in the world.

A number of the Arnolds’ reform efforts have focused on fixing nutrition science. In 2011 the science journalist Gary Taubes received an email from Arnold himself. Having spent more than a decade picking apart nutrition science, Taubes soon found himself cofounding an organization with a substantial grant from the Arnold Foundation, to rebuild the study of obesity from the ground up. And in 2015 the Arnold Foundation paid journalist Nina Teicholz to investigate the scientific review process that informs the US Dietary Guidelines. Just weeks before the federal guidelines were due for an update, Teicholz’s blistering report appeared in the prominent medical journal The BMJ, charging that the government’s panel of scientists had failed to consider evidence that would have done away with long-held worries about eating saturated fat.

And those are just a few of the people who are calling out iffy science with Arnold funding. Laura and John Arnold didn’t start the movement to reform science, but they have done more than anyone else to amplify its capabilities—typically by approaching researchers out of the blue and asking whether they might be able to do more with more money. “The Arnold Foundation has been the Medici of meta-research,” Ioannidis says. All told, the foundation’s Research Integrity initiative has given more than $80 million to science critics and reformers in the past five years alone.

Not surprisingly, researchers who don’t see a crisis in science have started to fight back. In a 2014 tweet, Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert referred to researchers who had tried and failed to replicate the findings of a senior lecturer at the University of Cambridge as “shameless little bullies.” After Nosek published the results of his reproducibility initiative, four social scientists, including Gilbert, published a critique of the project, claiming, among other things, that it had failed to accurately replicate many of the original studies. The BMJ investigation, in turn, met with angry denunciations from nutrition experts who had worked on the US Dietary Guidelines; a petition asking the journal to retract Teicholz’s work was signed by more than 180 credentialed professionals.


https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arno ... d-science/
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14071
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 28 Jan 2017, 12:50:54

"...the file drawer effect." So freaking common in the oil patch. Mentioned a number of times about the thousands of project ideas petroleum geologist/engineers have stuck in the back of a file draw. Actually these days are likely in the hard drives in a file labeled something like "Good ideas".

I'll fill in a few more details of the Rockman's personal expertience. And it highlights not just unaccepted science but accepted by one group and defected by another. I'll skip a lot of the tech details to limit post length.

Redeveloping certain 50+ year old ONSHORE oil fields with horizontal wells bores. In the early 90's a company not only proved a lot of residual oil remained but that a hz could flow 100's of bopd offsetting wells making 15 bopd and hundreds of bbls of water per day. But the science they had not developed was the right completion method so their 6 efforts failed big time on a monetary basis. So jump 10 years ahead and OFFSHORE we learned how to complete those unconsolidated oil reservoirs and make commercial completions. BTW other onshore players knew about that company's effort and tried their own horizontal wells. And all failed for similar tech errors.

So now the Rockman has the DOCUMENTED proof that not only the oil is there but also DOCUMENTED proof of how to complete them. Should be easy to sell the idea to an onshore player in those trends. NOT! LOL. Years go by with rejection after rejection. The science was real and proven but onshore players lacked the sophistication that was common with offshore players. But eventually the Rockman got a $billionaire with a PH.D in physics who once consulted with NASA to listen to his story. A man generating the bulk of his incoming trading in the stock market. Oddly similar to the fellow in the story. And he provided the $millions to determine if the Rockman was full of sh*t or not. LOL

Long story short: two other local companies are trying to match Rockman's efforts. One doing semi OK and the other doing poorly. And very few in the oil are aware of what the Rockman accomplished a few years ago. Not being a pubco with stock to push we don't put out press releases. IOW we may have proven the approach (which is still economic at $50/bbl) but we don't want potential competitors to learn what we know.

As said many times: it ain't personal...just business. LOL

BTW the Rockman is also well versed in anoither EOR method proven more the 50 years ago. And gave up pitching that idea years ago. Much more technically complex then hz drilling. Andvthe Rockman understands this tech better then the vast majority of the oil patch. But not because he's that smart but because all the experts are DEAD. Sertiously: they were senior researchers in the late 50's. Unless one digs out very old studies and published reports you won't even know the method exists let alone how to do it properly.

And no...not going to advertise the method and will take it to the grave with me...just like all the other dead old farts did. So f*ck all of you. LOL. Actually have a former partner still trying to get a pilot project started. The Rockman just doesn't have the time to help him these days.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Cog » Sat 28 Jan 2017, 16:30:36

Perhaps Rex Tillerson could make you the Undersecretary for Cool energy ideas. Give the Donald a call.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9497
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby clif » Sat 28 Jan 2017, 21:00:59

They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction.
FDR

About the perfect description of the T-Rump campaign and current mis-admistration.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 09 Jul 2017, 11:40:04

More like conservatives war on science
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/science-div ... rs-depart/
Science division of White House office left empty as last staffers depart
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8036
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Cog » Sun 09 Jul 2017, 13:07:00

I'm sure if those staffers have any value they should have no problem finding work in the private sector.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9497
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 09 Jul 2017, 15:53:16

Cog,

Did you intend to make a relevant comment or just agitate?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Cog » Sun 09 Jul 2017, 17:46:13

Newfie wrote:Cog,

Did you intend to make a relevant comment or just agitate?


Ok here you go. The federal government is bloated and we need to fire as many people as we can that are employed by it. If these people have any scientific merit to them and were not just hired by Obama as a political favor, then they should have no problem obtaining employment in the private sector.

There is my relevant comment.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9497
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 10 Jul 2017, 05:21:48

Not relevant what so ever as it misses the point.

The point being that the Presidential staff needs some input on scientific matters. You know, that physics thing. I don't give a hoot if these guys have employment or not. What I care about is a leadership that is aware of scientific thought and the consequences of actions.

Trump has a degree in Finance, which is sort of applied Economics. This is the group of disconnected and self benighted geeks, who have been responsible for the global financial and economic mess, it is this crowd. This is the group that brings us unlimited growth in a limited world. If anyone ever needed a dose of reality and scientific thought it's these guys.

If Trump wants to fire the current staff fine. Good riddence. What is his alternative for having scientific input? The writings of Chairman Bernanke?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Cog » Mon 10 Jul 2017, 06:20:22

We have cabinet secretaries who have staff at the DOE and EPA if the president is curious about some scientific angle to making American great again. He can pick up a phone and call them for whatever information is pertinent to his job. We don't need legions of "scientists" camped out in the White House creating position papers on matters better left to the various agencies to create.

Reducing duplication of effort is key to reining in the Hydra we call the federal government. Obama had dozens of these climate change working groups in just about every agency in the federal government. Those are rightly being dismantled. We don't need dozens of working groups to deal with a single issue when one can do the job.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, for those in love with the federal bureaucracy, but if your job doesn't enhance making the USA stronger, safer, or economically more competitive, then its on the chopping block.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9497
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 10 Jul 2017, 06:57:52

"I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, for those in love with the federal bureaucracy, but if your job doesn't enhance making the USA stronger, safer, or economically more competitive, then its on the chopping block."

Oh for goodness sake Cog, will you please read and comprehend. I AGREE with this above statement. I thought I made that abundently clear.

The reason for having folks on staff, direct to the White House, is to have a quick, clean, clear line of communication with experts who are not beholden to someone else. Sure he can call the EPA, but then his question will get filtered through the EPA bureaucracy, and take time to get back after being vetted and reviewed by the brass. Sometimes you just want someone you can sit down with and chat, informal like. Maybe even someone who can help you formulate the question to the EPA. Or set off a BS alert.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Cog » Mon 10 Jul 2017, 07:47:40

Maybe Trump should set up an account here. There seems to be no lack of experts to advise him.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9497
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 10 Jul 2017, 07:50:16

Newfie, the entire Republican has ostensibly either rejected or not understood the solid scientific standing of Anthropogenic Global Warming. So, it is no surprise that they are no longer even trying to hide their disdain for and discounting of scientific input.
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8036
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 10 Jul 2017, 07:53:03

Cog wrote:Maybe Trump should set up an account here. There seems to be no lack of experts to advise him.

No , he would not like it here as the issues are much too factually oriented and so he could not "spin" them as it would suit him
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8036
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby BlinkBlink » Mon 10 Jul 2017, 15:30:09

onlooker wrote:
Cog wrote:Maybe Trump should set up an account here. There seems to be no lack of experts to advise him.

No , he would not like it here as the issues are much too factually oriented and so he could not "spin" them as it would suit him


And many of the posts are longer than 140 characters.
"I've seen the future, brother, it is murder."

Leonard Cohen

http://theblokeyshed.com
User avatar
BlinkBlink
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue 27 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Australia

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 10 Jul 2017, 15:34:40

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But really, can't we let this ridiculous thread die the death of neglect it so richly deserves, rather than keep on bumping it (and no, I did not just 'bump' it myself, as it was already at the top of the line). Thanks.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16785
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 10 Jul 2017, 17:56:14

Cog wrote:Maybe Trump should set up an account here. There seems to be no lack of experts to advise him.


I was rather hoping you would explain how my last post was wrong.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Cog » Mon 10 Jul 2017, 22:00:46

I suspect that Trump has his own way of doing things. He is at heart a CEO. When he wants something he calls up whoever has the information and says "Come down here tomorrow and give me a briefing on XYZ", Maybe he wants to make sure he got rid of all the Obama hold-overs before he appoints a National Science advisor. Which he has not done by the way.

His mandate to his various cabinet secretaries was to find ways to cut their budgets. That is his priority and perhaps he feels starting with cutting White House staff is a good first step.

Is there some science emergency brewing right now where a team at the White House is needed?
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9497
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby efarmer » Tue 11 Jul 2017, 00:02:52

Liberals and Conservatives are the dichotomy that has brought our nation to it's knees
while the nations swirls the toilet bowl of destiny and history. No hard decisions, catering
to fiscally dead ends, no real plans for real purchase and sustainable solutions, and the
never ended stream of who is to blame instead of who found solutions by any means
or collaboration. Trump reads speaches and then twiiters them to death for personal
gain and glory or tilting to his 35% base.

This is all about the story about who is to blame to take the hit for America slipping into
a regional and broke experiment that went large on too many things at once beyond it's
means and mindset. And so we ponder if an intelligent community organizer from gut shot
Chicago is more eloquent than a self absorbed developer and and golf course guy have the
real answers for a nation hungry for their national executive, while waiting for the corporate
and malleable whores of congress to do something unrelated to oaths they took in the glory
days of austere extremism or the people who think the government can print money to fix
the Grand Canyon gap of income versus outflow (for votes and popularity) and then magically
wake up and do something smart for their nation. The tools these people offer up to save their
nation are the torch and the plunder, and they act like it is a brilliant choice of well thought out
alternatives for us to pick on like a Sunday chicken. Methinks the notion we can rule the world and also take care of the people are nigh unto the end, the party that tells them loses immediately. We of course all lose in the gambit but with the exquisite illusion of whom to blame for it, which is useful for the next election. When someone tells us we are 5% of the global people and we use 20% of the global resources and they live and have a plan and are somewhat reasonable I will vote for them and then they will be destroyed by the American Jimminy Cricket chorus of "The World Owes Me A Livin". This is the big story, the executive is going to tell you the feel good one, Obama, or Trump or the next one, (probably let a woman win to take the big fall). So Trump is probably closer to the truth, the big fat cats, the big city media, the smart and connected, most probably will be undone by all the little people, who they gamed and ployed with fancy crap from positions of power, will simply stop playing and wreck their trusted demographics to take profit and power and join them in being nonviolently, but surely and unconditionally fucked in every possible way and form. It is hard to eat and thrive way up on the handle of leverage and privelege, it is humble but possible near the earth.
User avatar
efarmer
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1997
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby onlooker » Tue 11 Jul 2017, 01:49:44

Yes fully agree the management/decision making system is broke in no small measure due to our dysfunctional politics
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8036
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests