4 ms·

Inexplicably name-calling clear math communication as "patronizing" doesn't make it any less essential. The numbers are shocking. Based on the modest complexit

Inexplicably name-calling clear math communication as "patronizing" doesn't make it any less essential. The numbers are shocking. Based on the modest complexity of that task (I'd say between upper Level 2 and Level 3), perhaps 35-50% of Americans are able to complete the task.[0] >And if someone doesn't understand 91 v 98%, do you really think they'll get 350% increase? Sure, if you explain it. "4.5 times" is a good phrase. Doesn't take up many column inches. It's a much harder leap to go straight from "91% vs 98%" to "that means 350% more," which is what the article is currently expecting. Since we've apparently agreed not to have a working education system, maybe we should at least explain key global environmental threats in mass media in terms the majority of citizens can actually understand. Just a thought. [0] https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/11/whats-the-latest-u-s-numeracy-rate/ https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/11/whats-the-latest-u-s-numer...

caminante 3y ago
>Inexplicably... Not true. Did you miss the part of the article that highlights why the seemingly small % difference is a big deal due to methane's global warming potential? [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39323155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39323155 Now to your article, an ArsTechnica audience likely isn't representative of a numbersense survey for average americans with fuzzy buckets. And I see your article as making my point.
- schiffern 3y ago
  >Did you miss the part of the article that highlights... Thanks. It's more troubling than I thought. It seems the authors themselves may not understand the math! "The difference between the assumed efficiency of flaring and the efficiency found in Kort and his colleagues’ results is a matter of a few percentage points. However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry. Further, methane has more than 80 times the impact when it comes to warming the planet—at least during the first 20 years it spends in the air." It isn't a problem because it's a small difference "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." It isn't a problem because it's a small difference but methane is worse than CO2. It's a problem because it's a huge difference: over a quadrupling in total emissions. Re-reading, the authors never actually realize/acknowledge this. Truly the blind leading the blind! :o
  - caminante 3y ago
    > This isn't a problem because it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." This isn't what the article/researcher says literally or figuratively.
    - schiffern 3y ago
      That's literally directly in your quote, taken from the article. "However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." I can see we're done. cheers mate
      - caminante 3y ago
        The article/researcher by no means said "It isn't a problem" as you claimed they did. You said they said: > > This isn't a problem because it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." That is NOT "literally directly" from the quote: > "However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." What you said changed the meaning.
        aidenn0 3y ago
        You misunderstood the GPs statement. What they meant was [the reason this is a problem is not because] it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry" Not [There is no problem because] it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry" The words the commenter used: "This isn't a problem because" can mean either in English. In other words, they were saying the article was misleading because TFA claims that the problem is due to a small fraction multiplied by a large industry, while it's actually a very large multiplier multiplied by a large industry.

caminante 3y ago

>Inexplicably... Not true. Did you miss the part of the article that highlights why the seemingly small % difference is a big deal due to methane's global warming potential? [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39323155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39323155 Now to your article, an ArsTechnica audience likely isn't representative of a numbersense survey for average americans with fuzzy buckets. And I see your article as making my point.

schiffern 3y ago
>Did you miss the part of the article that highlights... Thanks. It's more troubling than I thought. It seems the authors themselves may not understand the math! "The difference between the assumed efficiency of flaring and the efficiency found in Kort and his colleagues’ results is a matter of a few percentage points. However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry. Further, methane has more than 80 times the impact when it comes to warming the planet—at least during the first 20 years it spends in the air." It isn't a problem because it's a small difference "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." It isn't a problem because it's a small difference but methane is worse than CO2. It's a problem because it's a huge difference: over a quadrupling in total emissions. Re-reading, the authors never actually realize/acknowledge this. Truly the blind leading the blind! :o
- caminante 3y ago
  > This isn't a problem because it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." This isn't what the article/researcher says literally or figuratively.
  - schiffern 3y ago
    That's literally directly in your quote, taken from the article. "However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." I can see we're done. cheers mate
    - caminante 3y ago
      The article/researcher by no means said "It isn't a problem" as you claimed they did. You said they said: > > This isn't a problem because it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." That is NOT "literally directly" from the quote: > "However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." What you said changed the meaning.
      - aidenn0 3y ago
        You misunderstood the GPs statement. What they meant was [the reason this is a problem is not because] it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry" Not [There is no problem because] it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry" The words the commenter used: "This isn't a problem because" can mean either in English. In other words, they were saying the article was misleading because TFA claims that the problem is due to a small fraction multiplied by a large industry, while it's actually a very large multiplier multiplied by a large industry.