If you don't control for confounds and if there is no effect size, is it science at all?

Poor old Washington Post, they are having a rough time over at casa Althouse.  From "To assess green spaces, the researchers used satellite imaging and applied a widely accepted measure of quantifying vegetation..." by Ann Althouse.  

I let my WP subscription lapse again three or four years ago and so cannot see the details of the reporting but my anticipation that this is an extraordinarily sloppy research amounting to cargo cult science is supported by the commenters who can read it.

The Washington Post headline is 

Living near green spaces could add 2.5 years to your life, new research finds

Where "could" is doing all the heavy lifting.   

The hypothesis that living near nature in general and green spaces in particular is an especially attractive proposition which is naively attractive.  But is it true?

It is a longstanding hypothesis and there are decades of research on the topic.  You can see why it is a challenging argument to support because there are so many confounds.  If people living in green suburbs live longer than people living in dense built-environments, is it because of the greenery or is because people in the suburbs tend to be wealthier, healthier and more responsible?  

There are dozens of confounds which are challenging to define, measure, and control.  "Could" greenspace be beneficial?  Sure.  Is it?  We don't know.  The claim is made ad infinitum but the evidence is weak and disputed on valid grounds.  

The Washington Post is not reporting on a strong new study which moves the dial in determining whether the proposition is correct.  They are reporting on one more badly designed study with few controls of the already known confounding variables.  This is not much more than cognitive pollution.  Shame on the Washington Post for elevating fluff.