Comments on: Absolutely Atrocious Science

By: Connie

Connie — Thu, 31 May 2007 02:19:20 +0000

The whole smoking issue is getting scary…special “politically correct” or well funded groups turning American citizens into criminals for their choices in lifestyle. Sorry, but I also don’t buy all the “research” that’s been pumped into media regarding smoking. This country sounds more and more like the good ol’ USSR of yesterday. Be careful coffee lovers…they’ll be coming after that nasty, unhealthy chemical called caffiene next. I think I might have to retire to another country. (I won’t give my email…Big Brother might be monitoring for future detainee’s who are illegally smoking tobacco)

By: scraphoops

scraphoops — Sun, 27 May 2007 08:04:18 +0000

They did this exact thing in Pueblo, CO a few years ago. They passed an indoor smoking ban and the next year claimed incredible results based on tiny numbers. This pretty much directly led to the same indoor smoking ban in Colorado Springs (where I live). I quit smoking 8 years ago and this stuff still drives me crazy.

By: Always Skeptical

Always Skeptical — Sat, 26 May 2007 20:53:55 +0000

And and added bonus is that we may have identified the backbone of the AGW consensus.

By: Daublin

Daublin — Sat, 26 May 2007 08:19:43 +0000

Another thing to note in the paper is that they do not compare against previous years. Instead, they compare against a control city, Kent, Ohio.

It's decently done, from the sound of things. But the lack of data makes the result weak. It's only for two cities, and only for a handful of years.

Anyway, I'm still not sure I'd want to live there. I don't expect smoking to be good for me, but it's my body to do with as I will. "It's for your own good" is a creepy thing to tell adults.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 26 May 2007 02:21:28 +0000

Nice sample size too – if 2002 was 4 people and 2004 was 2 people, that would be a 50% drop! Heh…

By: Joel

Joel — Sat, 26 May 2007 00:41:17 +0000

Looking at the "AbstractPlus" feature, it was based on monthly data not the yearly data cited by whoever it is you linked to. And the author used a fairly advanced time series analysis technique (ARIMA)

This only makes it worse because the conclusion of the study is ridiculous on the face of it. I'd like to see the whole article to see where he went wrong, if i can. I know only enough to get in trouble, perhaps. If anyone finds it, please email me.

By: Joel

Joel — Sat, 26 May 2007 00:13:55 +0000

More years are needed, but I bet the data distribution would be Poisson -- completely random.

This is funny.

I noticed the lead author has a long publication list. Scary.

By: engineering

engineering — Fri, 25 May 2007 23:31:45 +0000

its really impossible to predict the main things………..yaah..now a dyas all research is too many may be factors makes the people dubious………….thanks for nice posting

By: engineering

engineering — Fri, 25 May 2007 23:31:42 +0000

its really impossible to predict the main things………..yaah..now a dyas all research is too many may be factors makes the people dubious………….thanks for nice posting