[josephdviviano]

If you want to avoid this, just read the paper.

I don't understand why technical people waste their time complaining about this stuff. We all have the acumen to read, understand, and debate research.

[gwd]

> I don't understand why technical people waste their time complaining about this stuff. We all have the acumen to read, understand, and debate research.

But to be honest, the reason I read the comments (at least on a place like HN) is to get the key insight / failure without reading the article.

[josephdviviano]

When scientists disagree among themselves, it's hard to use this strategy.

[BurningFrog]

Reading scientific papers uses less time than complaining about them?

Is there a study to back that up? :)

[moultano]

It's paywalled. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00950...

If I had access, I'd try to dig into more depth into how they approached decoupling this from temperature, because that seems like a really strong confounder. I'm also a bit curious about the underlying physical cause of the change in pollution levels, (weekends? summertime?) because that seems like it could also be a confounding common cause.

Alas, I'm not interested in paying $35 for the paper.

[imagin8or]

Preprint from the Colorado State website:

https://pierce.atmos.colostate.edu/Monthly_Pollution_and_Cri...

[moultano]

Thanks!

[anigbrowl]

Just use SciHub like everyone else. Even if it's not up on SciHub the Supplementary MAterials are usually available free.

[_ptgt]

Because there’s only 24 hours a day? Because my tax dollars are often funding this research?

Why not take this farther and just do the research myself, eh?