…is ten years old, and the professor is feeling a little more optimistic. Happy bloggiversary.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Good lord, I just realized that I’ve been blogging for seventeen years. Where did the time go?
…is ten years old, and the professor is feeling a little more optimistic. Happy bloggiversary.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Good lord, I just realized that I’ve been blogging for seventeen years. Where did the time go?
We haven’t all gone insane, but a lot of us seem to be.
I have to say, though, that I’ve been pretty unimpressed with Kelly’s political acument and judgment. He should stick to astronautics. I would also note that the demands of the howling left that he do a struggle session is Maoist.
Thoughts on the latest non-news from Judith Curry:
IMO, even with erroneous attribution of extreme weather/climate events and projections using climate models that are running too hot and not fit for purpose of projecting 21st century climate change, the IPCC still has not made a strong case for this massive investment to prevent 1.5C warming.
No kidding.
Glenn Reynolds on what adding Kavanaugh will mean.
TL;DR: Less than both leftists fear, and conservatives hope. It will take at least one more, maybe two picks, to really change its direction in favor of the Constitution.
…and the corruption of scholarship.
I’ve been surprised to see criticism of this from academics in the hard sciences, like Sean Carroll.
A fraud is exposed, but it’s a much larger problem:
Data dredging is fairly common in health research, and especially in studies involving food. It is one reason contradictory nutrition headlines seem to be the norm: One week coffee, cheese and red wine are found to be protective against heart disease and cancer, and the next week a new crop of studies pronounce that they cause it. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said that many researchers are under enormous pressure to churn out papers. One recent analysis found that thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days.
I liked this:
“P-hacking is a really serious problem,” said Dr. Ivan Oransky, a co-founder of Retraction Watch, who teaches medical journalism at New York University. “Not to be overly dramatic, but in some ways it throws into question the very statistical basis of what we’re reading as science journalists and as the public.”
You don’t say.
It goes far beyond nutrition. A lot of drug research is based on this sort of thing as well, including the statin scam.
Maybe it should just stop giving it.
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: It killed my father. It should prepare to die.
“…and it all unraveled before me.”
Low-carb should be the first approach in treating diabetes and obesity.
[Update a few minutes later]
Meanwhile, “Big Pasta” Barilla has been meddling in nutrition science.
[Sunday-morning update]
No, despite the headline, there is zero scientific evidence that listing calories on menus is helping people lose weight, and this article provides none. This “study” is nonsense. First, it’s self reporting. Second, it’s premised on the assumption, for which there is zero evidence, that counting calories is helpful, when calorie counting is a scientifically bogus concept, that assumes all calories are equal in their effects on metabolism. The kind of calories matter, and the way they measure calories, by literally burning food, is not how your body metabolizes calories, so it doesn’t even make sense thermodynamically.
The New York Times (shockingly!) gets it wrong. (Again)
[Update a while later]
And then there’s this misleading hed. You have to get deep into the story to find out that this decision was made during the Obama administration, and had nothing to do with Haley. Unless the headline is “Ambassador Haley’s Quarters Have $52,000 Curtains Ordered By The Obama Administration,” what is even the point of this story? Other than, of course, to make the Trump administration look bad.
[Noon update]
With regard to the latter story:
Wow.
"The article should not have focused on Ms. Haley, nor should a picture of her have been used. The article and headline have now been edited to reflect those concerns, and the picture has been removed." https://t.co/WTKrwMFYkN
— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) September 14, 2018
IOW, there was no point to the story. I wonder if the Public Editor will have anything to say about this?