Inhalers are the frontline treatment for asthma and COPD, but they come with a steep environmental cost, according to a new UCLA Health study—the largest to date quantifying inhaler-related emissions in the United States.
Researchers found that inhalers have generated over 2 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually over the past decade, equivalent to the emissions of roughly 530,000 gas-powered cars on the road each year.
OK, I’ll give you one more go around this loop because the self contradiction is too obvious and I want to see how you parse it, then I’m calling it.
So… why did you say “sounds big”?
Here:
Why do you think people are mad that the number “sounds big”?
Is the number big or small?
The headline makes it sound big, we both agree on that. A lot of the response is putting it in perspective: actually, 530000 cars is a small part of the new cars sold in one year (about 5%) and a tiny part of the total car pool (about 0.2%). So why does it sound big? If the implied comparison is with car emissions, shouldn’t it sound small?
The reality is the number isn’t big or small, it is some amount. And the study’s big takeaway isn’t that the emissions are big, so much as that, of the multiple models of inhalers one generates signficant emissions and others don’t, so the emissions from one type may be unnecessary.
So why does the headline make the number sound big?
You spend a lot of time setting arbitrary rules for what is or isn’t misleading, and all of that is entirely fallacious bullshit. Misleading means what it means, you don’t set the parameters for what is misleading.
But the interesting part is you accidentally, explicitly explained why the headline is misleading (i.e. it creates an emotional response about the scope of the problem that is disproportionate to its own unit of measurement, presumably to deliberately generate more engagement with the content). That is a technical objection, not to the number being reported but to how its being reported. It’s an objection on the headline writing technique, which is what people are complaining about.
Now, you won’t acknowledge this, because you’re in too deep and arguing with multiple people about this and you’re not going to just go “huh, I guess that’s a thing” and move on with your day, so there’ll be some mental gymnastics about it. But come on, you do get it, right? At this point it’s not that hard and you have implied that you get it already.
You still haven’t answered the core question. You called the headline “misleading,” but you have not shown:
a) the number is wrong b) the CO2e to cars conversion is wrong c) missing context that would change the conclusion
Your replies keep circling the same move: you dislike that the article points out something bad about inhalers, so you attack the framing. That is an emotional reaction, not a technical critique.
Shifting denominators after the fact, tone policing, and guessing intent, ad hominem about the author or myself: None of that shows a defect in the headline.
If you think it is sensationalist, quote the exact clause that creates a false impression and provide the corrected wording and denominator. If you cannot do that, then you have not supported “misleading.” Dislike is not an argument, which is all you’ve offered so far.
And “in too deep” bit: Bruh. Its like two days later. You can’t have it both ways.