3 ms·

>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 mat

>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

> 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.