Posted on 03/27/2018 4:03:15 PM PDT by DeweyCA
You may recall our recent discussion about a new EPA policy which will require all scientific studies used in considering new regulations to make not only their findings but their methodology and underlying data available for public scrutiny and comparative analysis. What’s not to like, right? These are investigations being done by the government and funded by the taxpayer, so the information used to reach any conclusions should be freely available. Everyone’s a big fan of transparency when it comes to those sneaks in Washington so this should roll through smoothly.
Not even close. It turns out that a previous EPA chief, Gina McCarthy, and Janet McCabe, the Obama era author of the Clean Power Plan, don’t care for this new system at all. In fact, they published an op-ed to remind all of you peasants that it’s none of your darn business what data went into any given study and you should just take their word for it. (The Hill)
In a New York Times op-ed published Monday, former EPA administrators Gina McCarthy and Janet McCabe warned the public should “not to be fooled” by a recent announcement by Pruitt that he would rid the agency of “secret science,” a term used by some critics of the agency to describe studies that include nonpublic scientific data.
“Don’t be fooled by this talk of transparency. He and some conservative members of Congress are setting up a nonexistent problem in order to prevent the EPA from using the best available science,” the two wrote.
“It is his latest effort to cripple the agency,” they added.
This poorly explained op-ed relies on the same two arguments which Pruitt’s critics have attempted to foist off on us before, neither of which does them any credit. The first is the claim that any scientific study involving medical data could compromise the confidential medical data of patients. That’s patently absurd as I’m sure McCarthy knows. Those studies could have patient names stripped out before publishing and simply provide the results of medical examinations and how they link to the subject at hand.
The second argument is the real kicker, in which we are informed that there’s no need for the hoi polloi to have a look at studies which have been peer reviewed. Seriously? Does anyone over there keep track of the news from the science world? The quality of a peer review depends entirely on who is doing the reviewing, what their qualifications are and whether or not they bring any bias into the lab with them. But let’s say none of that is a factor. Even in generic terms, peer reviews are no guarantee of anything and the scientific community already knows how much of a problem this is. You don’t have to look far to find stories of how the peer review process needs to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the 17th century. And with good reason, too. Just a few years ago, one science journal announced they had to pull dozens of peer reviewed studies from publication because the “reviews” had been done from fake accounts set up to be favorable to the original authors. Just last year one cancer journal deleted more than 100 studies for the same reason… fraudulent peer reviews. Other science journals were found to be publishing peer reviewed reports which turned out to be random, computer generated nonsense.
The list goes on. If you want everyone to be confident in the work being used, be transparent. It’s really that simple. And if you’re using a study which raises a lot of eyebrows, particularly among other scientists in the same field, the work can be debated and, if need be, redone to see if their results can be replicated. Insisting on using hidden data is only going to make people question your results even more.
This crap monster of arbitrary and leftist totalitarianism must be gutted this term and put on a sound foundation. The new Trump director can only do so much. The crap Republicans in Congress must step up and hamstring this junk agency and get it in line with voters desires.
Have these people no shame?
When transparency of data will “cripple” your public policy making department, there’s a problem.
The EPA, under Obama, was “cooking the books” on their science and they don’t want people to be able to question what they did then or in the future. Dems are always such authoritarian liars.
They decided what policy they wanted to have, then created “studies” to justify that policy.
If a scientist will not allow you to see their data, they are not a scientist, and the “study” is not science.
The new frontier is Data Analytics, machine learning, big data, predictive analytics, etal. All software depends on subjective pre-suppositions, assumptions.
In politics a basic assumption of some is that the government is the solution to all problems and exists to solve problems.
Others assume the government is the problem, as Reagan so famously observed.
It is amazing how many CDC and NIH studies studies make the first assumption. They postulate out of thin air a “problem”. They state the government must solve the problem. They only question: How to solve the problem?
Watch out for Analytics.
The Journal of Irreproducible Results
I’m pretty McCarthy and her predecessor, Lisa Jackson, are lesbonians,,,,
GREEN carpet only
#FakeScience #FakePresident0bama
“Watch out for Analytics”
Data science is not based on some desired outcome. Quite the opposite, in fact. Palantir has proven quite adept at generating significant leads based on almost-incomprehensible datasets.
There are many areas where our technology literally exceeds the human mind. The amazing thing is that humans have been able to formulate the structures and algorithms to take advantage of such knowledge. Of course, it’s not 100%, and obviously not everyone is honest, but most engineers and scientists are not leftist sycophants.
There is danger inherent in all man’s undertakings, but it’s not evil in and of itself. All things are good until someone perverts their purpose. As for data science, if you want to opt out, put down your electronics and move somewhere that doesn’t have mail or phone service. Otherwise, your just another entity adrift in a sea of attributes.
Data sets are just data sets.
If you look for stuff in the data that is not there, you chase the wild goose.
Correlate the data with disparate events... Patterns appear...
It’s all spooky stuff
It includes this gem"NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton denies the accusations. She notes that the agency’s study was peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal, and that the agency has provided the committee with temperature data and briefings on the research.
“We stand behind our scientists, who conduct their work in an objective manner,” Clayton says. "We have provided all of the information the Committee needs to understand this issue."
A government agency telling congress what it can and cannot see ! Note there is no national security consideration here.
This Scientist just added Ciaran Clayton to the equation.
Shame??
I presume that your question is rhetorical. If not — No, they’re incapable of shame.
They’ll just find a bunch of crisis actors and pass out some white coats like they did at the Whitehouse promoting socialized medicine.
Obama regime psychos bump for later...
It’s not spooky; it’s rules. Sometimes correlations are are just correlations, but sometimes there’s a lot more than meets the eye. You want to talk spooky? Look at Stock and FOREX trades prior to major “random” events—some traders are amazingly prescient...
(I’m bouncing this post off of three satellites routed through an anonymize located in former Soviet state. Can’t be too careful these days) LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.