The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » mathedcc

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Re: Keystone XL: The Pipeline to Disaster - ADDENDUM
Replies: 1   Last Post: Apr 7, 2013 10:18 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Alain Schremmer

Posts: 876
Registered: 10/10/05
Re: Keystone XL: The Pipeline to Disaster - ADDENDUM
Posted: Apr 7, 2013 10:18 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Thanks for ruining my day!

I knew things are hopeless and why. But, the article makes it
impressively clear.

Every teacher should read it to the students. To object that "we are
supposed to teach math" is like saying that we shouldn't tell our
students that there is a fire in the next door classroom because
that's got nothing to do with math.

I am going to reduce the argument of the article to a few sentences
and have my students read and react to it.

What the article only hints at, though, is that it is *we* who would
have to make the effort but it is *the next generation* that would
benefit. Unfair, isn't it?

Which is really why the situation is hopeless.

Rueful regards

On Apr 6, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Richard Hake wrote:

> Q. What's the Keystone XL Pipeline got to do with math?
> A. See McKibben's (2012) "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math."
> Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
> Links to Articles: <>
> Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: <>
> Academia: <>
> Blog: <>
> GooglePlus: <>
> Google Scholar <>
> Twitter: <>
> Facebook: <>
> REFERENCES [URL shortened by <> and accessed on 06
> April 2013.]
> McKibben, B. 2012. "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math: Three
> simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make
> clear who the real enemy is," Rolling Stone, 19 July; online at <

> >. McKibben wrote: "When we think about global warming at all, the
> arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to
> grasp the seriousness of our predicament, YOU JUST NEED TO DO A
> LITTLE MATH. . . . .[[My CAPS]]. . . . For the past year, an easy
> and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by
> financial analysts in the U.K. has been making the rounds of
> environmental conferences and journals, but it hasn't yet broken
> through to the larger public. This analysis upends most of the
> conventional political thinking about climate change. And it allows
> us to understand our precarious - our almost-but-not-quite-finally
> hopeless - position with three simple numbers: . . . . .2° Celsius,
> 565 Gigatons, and 2,795 Gigatons."

* To post to the list: email *
* To unsubscribe, email the message "unsubscribe mathedcc" to *
* Archives at *

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.