The recent news about "ClimateGate", as it's been dubbed, provides an opportunity to talk about all junk science.

The root of the problem is the current "pay for results" system. Scientists are paid based on results, not on good science, by think-tanks or other politically-motivated organizations.

ClimateGate provides documented evidence of the broader problem, but fudging numbers to land on the pre-determined conclusion is not unique to global warming.

I've been out fighting against a local smoking ban in Northern Kentucky, which is my personal home-base of operation. In this fight, we see studies that show 40% declines in emergency-room visits within months of the enactment of local smoking bans, and that there is no economic harm done by local smoking bans. Using simple common sense, it's easy to debunk these studies.

Economic impact

Just as in the debate over Global Warming/Cooling/Climate-Change, there are conflicting studies in this area, and one must ask: who is right?As a smoker myself, I know that I personally cut back on the number of dollars spent in entertainment. If I have to go outside, when it's cold or hot, then it's not very enjoyable for me, and therefore, I just avoid venues where I have to do that; and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

The 40% effect

If someone quits smoking, the positive health effects may take effect immediately, but an immediate 40% result is impossible. Other studies - which may or may not be trusted - suggest that the healing process within ones lungs begins immediately, but that it take years to undo the damage done by smoking. Additionally, there are many, many more people in the ER admission room for a multitude of various problems, not just smoking-related illnesses. To see a 40% decline in the number of ER admissions, you'd have to see drops in other things; complications from the flu and other illnesses, a reduction in violent crime, and some mechanism to keep people from getting old. There is no possible way that there is truly a 40% decline in emergency room admissions as a direct result of smoking bans.

Who to believe

When you are presented with a study, one must ask; is this legitimate? Who benefits financially from this study? Why was this study done in the first place?

Examining the source of the funding for these studies helps determine the reason for the study, and the outcome.

The Industry of Studies

"Smoking Bans," like "Climate Change," have an entire industry built around them, including the taxpayer-funded studies and taxpayer-funded organizations who conduct those studies. In Kentucky, the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment act - a.k.a. "The Stimulus", gave over $275,000 to the primary group pushing for smoking bans throughout the state. This group conducts studies, which are then published and peer-reviewed in a publication called "Tobacco Control Journal". Simultaneously, the group in Kentucky (and many other places) promoting these bans are asking for bans on the nicotine vaporizers, also known as "e-Cigarettes", though they do nothing different that what is provided in nicotine gum or patch. The motivations of these groups are clear; they are not providing science for the sake of science, but for the sake of furthering an agenda.

Other junk science

Salt and butter were under attack in the 1980s, as you may recall. While heart disease can indeed be a problem for some with genetic dispositions for such issues, most people can consume salt without any real negative ramifications. In fact, your body needs salt. The "butter scare" led to the rise of margarine, most of which contained trans-fat, until the latest "trans-fat scare". The irony of one scare causing another scare isn't lost on me, and I hope you find it at least entertaining, as well.

Most notably interesting about Junk Science is that it has led people down the path to libetarianism. Most notably, John Stossel was converted to libertarianism through his in-depth investigations into junk science, as well as other problems he found were actually rooted in (possibly well-intentioned, but still) bad government policies. (You can learn more about John Stossel's libertarianism at http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/john-stossel.html )

Summary

One must look at the source of the study, and ask "Why is this group providing this study?" You should also ask "Who stands to financially benefit from this study?"

I don't see the "pay for results" system going away anytime soon, but they're just as reliable as a letter to the editor in your local paper. These groups have an axe to grind, and are willing to pay someone who can "prove" what they want to prove.

So, what are we to do? Don't take a study at face value. Don't take people at their word. Think about it. Does this position seem counter-intuitive? Who benefits if government gets involved to "solve" this problem? Never implicitly trust anyone.