3 ms·

Are you number of acres is the metric that matters because if we looked at the total number of fired we'd see they have dropped 75% since the 1960s? I don't kno

Are you number of acres is the metric that matters because if we looked at the total number of fired we'd see they have dropped 75% since the 1960s? I don't know which metric is more important, and I'm not sure you do either. But it is a useful link because it shows how easy it is to take good data, and tell whatever story you want with it. The key point here is that you and I should be able to openly debate acres burned vs total number of fires without me trying to track you down and get you fired, or you having me banned from HN.

lisper 10y ago
> I don't know which metric is more important, and I'm not sure you do either. If what you care about is how many trees there are (and that's what I care about) then the number of acres burned is clearly the metric that matters. The trend has been a transition from a lot of little fires to a few huge ones. One of the reasons that the number of fires has dropped is that by the time the mega-fires are brought under control there is nothing left to burn. > The key point here is that you and I should be able to openly debate acres burned vs total number of fires without me trying to track you down and get you fired, or you having me banned from HN. That is certainly true. But there is nothing wrong with firing an academic for doing sloppy and possibly politically motivated research. I don't know if that's what this was, but I do have some actual data that indicates that it could be the case. And this data is not obscure nor was it particularly hard for me to find, so it seems likely that when I have the bandwidth to do a more thorough search I might find more evidence that this guy's research was in fact sloppy and politically motivated. The fact that he published this piece in the WSJ, whose biases are well known, is another indication that this is not a clear-cut case of political correctness run amok. It could be, but it's far from a slam-dunk. [UPDATE:] More evidence of bias: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13099156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13099156
- gizmo686 10y ago
  >One of the reasons that the number of fires has dropped is that by the time the mega-fires are brought under control there is nothing left to burn. Or, without little fires, flammable undergrowth accumulates that makes the fires that do occur even larger. Unlike most natural disasters, humans are very active in directly manipulating fires. This makes it difficult to attribute changes to fire statistics to underlying environmental changes, or fire control practices.
  - lisper 10y ago
    Yes, that's true. The situation with respect to fire is very complicated. I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk either way. All I'm saying is that in five minutes I was able to find some evidence (not proof, mind you, just evidence) that droughts are in fact getting worse. That isn't proof of anything, but it is evidence that the evidence is not "scant". It is possible that in five minutes I just happened to stumble on the only piece of evidence, and that the totality of the evidence is in fact "scant", but that's unlikely. Much more likely is that there is in fact a lot of evidence out there, and when I have access to decent internet connection again, I (or anyone else who looks) can find it.
    - inimino 10y ago
      It's not evidence of anything but your own confirmation bias. If you can't see why "the first thing I found may not be holding up well to criticism, but since it only took me five minutes to find, there obviously must be a lot more out there" is a bad argument, then you're just rationalizing.
      - lisper 10y ago
        You are ignoring an important piece of evidence: I've told you that I'm on a very slow internet connection. Now, I could be lying about that (I'm not sure how I could prove it to you) but if it is in fact true then that would explain my failure to come up with additional evidence. I have been trying to access drought data directly but it all seems to be hiding behind complex visualizations which I cannot currently access. However, I think it is telling that so far not a single participant in this conversation has (AFAICT) even tried to get to the actual drought data to see if there is anything there. Somewhere out there, one of you has to be on a high-bandwidth connection, so you could go get the data and settle this, where I currently cannot. That would seem to me to be a more constructive (to say nothing of definitive) way to address this than to accuse me of confirmation bias and rationalizing. [UPDATE:] Found some drought data: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES2010.pdf http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES201...

lisper 10y ago

> I don't know which metric is more important, and I'm not sure you do either. If what you care about is how many trees there are (and that's what I care about) then the number of acres burned is clearly the metric that matters. The trend has been a transition from a lot of little fires to a few huge ones. One of the reasons that the number of fires has dropped is that by the time the mega-fires are brought under control there is nothing left to burn. > The key point here is that you and I should be able to openly debate acres burned vs total number of fires without me trying to track you down and get you fired, or you having me banned from HN. That is certainly true. But there is nothing wrong with firing an academic for doing sloppy and possibly politically motivated research. I don't know if that's what this was, but I do have some actual data that indicates that it could be the case. And this data is not obscure nor was it particularly hard for me to find, so it seems likely that when I have the bandwidth to do a more thorough search I might find more evidence that this guy's research was in fact sloppy and politically motivated. The fact that he published this piece in the WSJ, whose biases are well known, is another indication that this is not a clear-cut case of political correctness run amok. It could be, but it's far from a slam-dunk. [UPDATE:] More evidence of bias: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13099156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13099156

gizmo686 10y ago
>One of the reasons that the number of fires has dropped is that by the time the mega-fires are brought under control there is nothing left to burn. Or, without little fires, flammable undergrowth accumulates that makes the fires that do occur even larger. Unlike most natural disasters, humans are very active in directly manipulating fires. This makes it difficult to attribute changes to fire statistics to underlying environmental changes, or fire control practices.
- lisper 10y ago
  Yes, that's true. The situation with respect to fire is very complicated. I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk either way. All I'm saying is that in five minutes I was able to find some evidence (not proof, mind you, just evidence) that droughts are in fact getting worse. That isn't proof of anything, but it is evidence that the evidence is not "scant". It is possible that in five minutes I just happened to stumble on the only piece of evidence, and that the totality of the evidence is in fact "scant", but that's unlikely. Much more likely is that there is in fact a lot of evidence out there, and when I have access to decent internet connection again, I (or anyone else who looks) can find it.
  - inimino 10y ago
    It's not evidence of anything but your own confirmation bias. If you can't see why "the first thing I found may not be holding up well to criticism, but since it only took me five minutes to find, there obviously must be a lot more out there" is a bad argument, then you're just rationalizing.
    - lisper 10y ago
      You are ignoring an important piece of evidence: I've told you that I'm on a very slow internet connection. Now, I could be lying about that (I'm not sure how I could prove it to you) but if it is in fact true then that would explain my failure to come up with additional evidence. I have been trying to access drought data directly but it all seems to be hiding behind complex visualizations which I cannot currently access. However, I think it is telling that so far not a single participant in this conversation has (AFAICT) even tried to get to the actual drought data to see if there is anything there. Somewhere out there, one of you has to be on a high-bandwidth connection, so you could go get the data and settle this, where I currently cannot. That would seem to me to be a more constructive (to say nothing of definitive) way to address this than to accuse me of confirmation bias and rationalizing. [UPDATE:] Found some drought data: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES2010.pdf http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES201...