Debunking a so-called “scientific” study

Karl Denninger points out – scathingly – that a recent study of fine particulate matter air pollution is fundamentally flawed in its recommendations, because it doesn’t take the whole picture into account.  The study claims that there are up to 100,000 “premature” deaths every year due to such pollution.

100,000 dead people in a year is 0.03% of the American population.  A real number, to be sure.

But….. all those trucks, trains, cars, boats, agriculture and industry — the source of that fine particulate emission — is why we have:

• Food.
• Energy.
• Warm houses in the winter.
• Cool houses in the summer (A/C, to be specific)
• Fire engines so if your house catches on fire it can be put out.
• Water pressure at the hydrant so the fire engine can put the fire in your house out.
• The ambulance to haul your about-to-be-dead ass to the hospital when you have a heart attack.
• The chemicals required to sanitize your city water.
• The chemicals required to turn your **** (literally) into safe discharge water in that same city.

And so on…. basically, all the trappings of modern civilization.

In short without those emissions many more than 100,000 people would “prematurely die” — 10x as many, if not more, due to a lack of food, electricity, clean water and readily-available transportation yet that alleged “paper” includes none of the positive effects and avoided deaths, premature or otherwise, that come along with those emissions.

This isn’t “science”, it’s political advocacy and lying wrapped in “environmental” claims.

There’s more at the link.

I’ve seen so many of these superficial, special-interest-driven “studies” that I’ve long since lost count.  They all espouse an ideological position, and amass “scientific” facts (or what they allege to be facts) in support of that position.  In other words, they decide what they want to prove, then set out to find corroborating evidence.  They don’t look at the “big picture” at all, because that might threaten their preconceptions.

In fairness, we have to admit that this is a problem on both ends of the ideological spectrum;  conservatives are just as guilty as progressives, and so on.  Unfortunately, that means we can’t accept a “scientific” study’s conclusions uncritically.  We have to presume the existence of bias and manipulation, and double-check for them before we decide whether or not the study can be trusted.  That’s bad for all of us, and for science as a whole.

Peter