Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on December 1, 2011 at 13:00

Hummm .... one well was contaminated, not seven wells .... hummm ....

 

Do I smell a student worker goosing the numbers?  Forgive my cynicism, I work at a university and I have seen people not falsify, but certainly massage data to fit their conclusion.  This may be an honest error - but it should not have happened and will be far less publicized than the original study.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on December 1, 2011 at 13:16

AND... it happened at Penn State.  When things start crashing... they really crash!  You're right... it won't get much publicity.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on December 1, 2011 at 14:48

Oops!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on December 1, 2011 at 15:24

JHH,

Mistakes are made and corrected all the time.  Remember when CHK reported well "waste water" in "gallons" instead of barrels to Pennsylvania state regulators.  CHK reported 25.4 Million barrels when the number was 660,000 barrels. 

CHK didn't catch their mistake, Pennsylvania state officials did.   And, it was reported in The Times-Tribune Newspaper. 

Let's hope Penn State will prominently and publicly issue the corrected study in The Times-Tribune. 

DrWAVeSport Cd1 12/1/2011

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on December 2, 2011 at 10:22

the peer review system is broken.  end of story.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on December 3, 2011 at 6:56

Sesport, 

Sadly, it's very easy for "peer" to become "herd".  What bothers me are people who want their research to say a certain thing because they believe it to be true. The herd instint is strong in acdemia these days.  The image of a lone wolf professor fighting the good fight against what his/her colleagues think is long gone.

oh wait ... you asked about this paper from the Halliburton service company ... is this a research paper?  it reads more like an choir anthem. I do WANT every word of what he says to be true and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  That's my bias reading it.

But, looking at it objectively ... I did not see any footnotes, did I miss them?  This isn't peer reviewed is it?  Also, he only has a B.S. in science.  His article might be 110% true but I don't think he proves his point with much supporting evidence (although I do want his point to be true) We need strong positive proof and strong voices to convince the public that fracking is safe.  He is a good cheerleader, but I don't think people outside the field would be impressed.  I hope he's right.

BTW, I bet Kevin Fisher would be a good neighbor. He clearly believes in what is is writing about and it's nice to see genuine enthusiasm without sarcasm.  I don't know much else about him.  How did you happen to pick this article written by Kevin Fisher (does he look a little like he could be Dick Cheney's son?)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on December 4, 2011 at 20:49

SCIENTISTS' ELUSIVE GOAL: REPRODUCING STUDY RESULTS

Seasport... I must have a guardian angel.  I figured I'd have to admit you were right about the virtues of peer review. (you really are right, I have just had my own bad experiences with a few researchers on a couple of projects.

Then ... the Wall St. Journal runs an online article about how few studies can be replicated. It sheds a lot of light on the peer review process and the difficulty of reproducing lab results - which to to me is the ultimate peer review.

I was able to read the article the first time but the second time I accessed it the page wanted me to subscribe. Maybe you will be lucky.  I also included the comments.  But, it's a great article, trust me. Honest.

I have to admit that a conversation about research goofs touches a nerve with me.   I obsess about double and triple checking everything.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203764804577059841672...

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203764804577059841672...

Two years ago, a group of Boston researchers published a study describing how they had destroyed cancer tumors by targeting a protein called STK33. Scientists at biotechnology firm Amgen Inc. quickly pounced on the idea and assigned two dozen researchers to try to repeat the experiment with a goal of turning the findings into a drug.

It proved to be a waste of time and money. After six months of intensive lab work, Amgen found it couldn't replicate the results and scrapped the project.

"I was disappointed but not surprised," says Glenn Begley, vice president of research at Amgen of ..."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on December 5, 2011 at 11:25

"climate change" is the poster child of painting a target around the dart after it's been flung into a wall.

the peer review process itself is fine IF and this is a BIG IF, the people doing the reviewing were actually "OBJECTIVE."  but guess what, sometimes they're not, and it's too easy to exploit.

confirming bias is not confirming science.

Permalink Reply by essay on December 5, 2011 at 13:37

the epa defending the ipcc?  lol.  yes it's suspect.

Permalink Reply by essay on December 7, 2011 at 2:15

so which one is this exactly, the epa rebuttal to the report with oig response, or what.  i lost track.

regardless, what is the omb, or inspector general, for that matter, going to do about any of it?  epa is the enforcement arm.  so what if it didn't bother asking any questions about the ipcc's data, or otherwise didn't follow proper procedure on any number of things?  the folks in charge of that place serve at the pleasure of the president.  here's the first clue: "Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers..."

congress can't stop them either.  your guy would veto any legislation targeted to put the brakes on what amounts to HIS policy, bypassing an increasingly irrelevant congress by executive fiat.  most of the contents of that report appears to be bunch of academic squabbling over manipulation of the process itself, which is my point.

so what is yours, again?

Permalink Reply by essay on December 8, 2011 at 15:42

so yet again you don't have a point, and yet again since you don't like the answers to your questions, you ignore them.

let's try again.  anything from the epa, especially on this topic?  suspect.  unreliable.  perhaps outright dishonest.  the office of the inspector general's critique of the epa's procedures?  awesome.  but i ask again, what is anyone going to do about it, and don't you find it a bit ironic that the link you so conveniently supplied actually supports my point, as opposed to your point, which you have not even bothered to articulate whatsoever, leaving us to guess, which is about par for the course?

i suspect we all know why you do stuff like this but hey it's not my problem.  so, again, what.  is.  your.  point.

Permalink Reply by essay on December 9, 2011 at 17:07

wow yeah that's... random.  still without a cogent point?  zzzzzzz

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page