3 ms·
Even the air pollution literature is most likely biased: the negative effects are real, but the studies are exaggerating them. For one thing, Andrew Gelman thin
by xyzzyz 5y ago
Even the air pollution literature is most likely biased: the negative effects are real, but the studies are exaggerating them. For one thing, Andrew Gelman thinks that the effects of air pollution are overestimated, and it's the one guy I'd trust when it comes to assessing quality of scientific evidence.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/04/02/why-the-new-pollution-literature-is-credible-but-im-still-guessing-that-the-effects-are-being-overestimated/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/04/02/why-the-ne...
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoHe does use the word 'guess' for his belief and makes no attempt to put any kind of error bars, confidence interval or lower bounds on that, which seems a bit rhetorically weak. He also suggests that he broadly agrees with the post he links to and that it gets a lot of ideologically motivated political pushback so this seems like the Ying to his Yang, an example of politically motivated disregard for solid science just going in the opposite direction.
- xyzzyz 5y agoHis point is not that it’s a solid science, but rather that the hypothesis they are studying is actually true, which helps with not being hopelessly wrong.