5 ms·

Yes. I think the issue is that mainstream "journalism" is actually entertainment in all respects other than the fact that it carries a fairly widespread credibi

Yes. I think the issue is that mainstream "journalism" is actually entertainment in all respects other than the fact that it carries a fairly widespread credibility among its audience as not being entertainment but rather a factual, verifiable source of information - one that is beyond the audience's ability to understand. Sort of like the unquestioning acceptance that many give to doctors or lawyers because (it is assumed) neither medicine or law can be understood without them. What I mean is, if you watch a movie, you suspend disbelief and willingly assume the context they give you to be real for the sake of the movie without questioning it. You do that because you want to be entertained. And if you took everything literally and demanded that the context be aligned with reality, it wouldn't be any fun. As such, few people walk out of something like a Mission Impossible movie believing that any of it was actually possible. I had a discussion in online chat with co-workers in the last week or so regarding the wild fires currently burning in the US west. One lamented how sad the effects of climate change like these are. Out of curiosity, I looked at historical stats for wildland fires. Without getting in to a lot of detail, the source I found was very reliable and did not show any upward (or downward) trend in either count of fires or total acreage on an annual basis since the 1960s. I pointed this out - not as proof that climate change did not affect fires - but as a simple data point that didn't seem to match his assertion. The person was surprised and admitted that he didn't have any actual reason to believe that the occurrence or size of fires was more or less - he just assumed they were more and that the cause was climate change. So to be clear, I'm not saying that climate change doesn't exist. Nor am I saying that wildland fires are not somehow affected by climate change. Only that people tend to take narratives that are created and repeated by journalists as facts, without questioning them, much as they would a movie.

skybrian 8y ago
Entirely agree that many of our opinions are often not based on much in the way of facts. But to try to do do better: what's your source on fires?
thaumaturgy 8y ago
People also sometimes cherry-pick or carve up data so that they can find a "surprising" result, to use one of ~pg's favorite adjectives. Your coworker had the impression that wildfires are becoming larger and more damaging, and that climate change is a principal cause of this, due to widespread coverage to that effect (examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). (Which I suppose was your point.) And many of those journalists are repeating each other, but eventually you find that a lot of those statements originate from the National Interagency Fire Center [7]. There, the raw numbers pretty clearly show an upward overall trend from, oh, about 1953 or so. Before 1953, the numbers look a lot different, and if someone were to just casually plug all those values into a graph, they could make the point that wildfires aren't getting worse after all. That person would be completely ignoring the massive increase in wildfire suppression efforts over that same period, of course, but they wouldn't want that to get in the way of their surprising finding. Further investigation into the subject would start to reveal all kinds of neat subtleties that would be missed from a quick glance at numbers, both from non-climate-related factors like increased habitation in the wildland-urban interface areas [8], as well as climate-related factors like the massive number of dead trees in western forests as a result of increased bark beetle activity [9] [10]. And then someone might begin to be in a position to have a more interesting discussion on the subject. :-) [1]: https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-08-01/wildfires-are-getting-worse-and-more-costly-every-year https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-08-01/wi... [2]: http://www.climatecentral.org/western-wildfire-trends http://www.climatecentral.org/western-wildfire-trends [3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/14/wildfires-have-gotten-bigger-recent-years-trend-is-likely-continue/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/14/wildfires... [4]: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/31/634369281/wildfires-could-be-the-new-norm https://www.npr.org/2018/07/31/634369281/wildfires-could-be-... [5]: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/17661096/california-wildfires-2018-mendocino-carr-ferguson-climate https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/17661096/california-wildfires-2... [6]: https://theconversation.com/wildfires-in-west-have-gotten-bigger-more-frequent-and-longer-since-the-1980s-42993 https://theconversation.com/wildfires-in-west-have-gotten-bi... [7]: https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html [8]: https://www.wildfirex.com/2013/07/25/population-climbs-in-wildland-urban-interface/ https://www.wildfirex.com/2013/07/25/population-climbs-in-wi... [9]: https://www.fs.fed.us/research/invasive-species/insects/bark-beetle.php https://www.fs.fed.us/research/invasive-species/insects/bark... [10]: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sierra-dead-trees-20170128-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sierra-dead-tr...
- mbostleman 8y ago
  I also used the NIFC data. I mis-spoke on a couple of points. First, I only used data from 1983 and later (not the 1960s as I said, and certainly not prior to the 1950s as you assert that some people do) because their footnote said that the sources for data prior to 1983 are not known or can't be confirmed. Second, I graphed the data since 1983 and there was somewhat of a trend upwards (not no trend like I said). But it didn't look significant to me. Especially not in climate terms. And especially given that realiable data only covers 35 years. And especially given that the numbers swing wildly with how we manage fires. That is, a trend in either direction could easily be created by increasing or decreasing budgets to keep them from starting and/or fighting them, like the swings you reference prior to the 1950s. But in any case, as I said, I not saying that wildland fires are not somehow affected by climate change. Only that people tend to accept narratives that are repeated over and over without critically questioning them.
  - thaumaturgy 8y ago
    > Only that people tend to accept narratives that are repeated over and over without critically questioning them. Sure, but the challenge is that critically questioning a common narrative takes significantly more effort than a quick review of a single dataset, especially when that narrative is coming from a fairly large body of professional researchers in multiple fields. This is a big problem right now in the politics surrounding several different fields. A lot of interested laymen now have the tools to do some quick analysis on datasets, and then they draw conclusions from that that are contrary to the accepted science in that field. It's especially common in climate science because it's always been such a politically charged topic. People accepting common narratives is essentially "epistemic learned helplessness" (http://web.archive.org/web/20130111103623/http://squid314.livejournal.com/350090.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130111103623/http://squid314.li..., one of my favorite essays), and that's a good thing. It's an immune response to bad ideas like being opposed to vaccination. There is certainly room for asking questions about accepted ideas. Any time something doesn't make sense in some subject, absolutely go searching for an answer. You may even get to be one of the fortunate and talented few who find a significant question or even a flaw in some field. But, there's a fine line between asking questions, and drawing conclusions from a brief review and then indicting other people for not "critically" examining the subject.
akiselev 8y ago
The National Interagency Fire Center stats for fire suppression costs paint a completely different picture [1]. While the total number of fires has decreased by about 10-20% since 1985, the size of the fires in acres and the amount of money spent has skyrocketed. The annual average from 1985 to 1989 is ~2.9 million acres while from 2013-2017 the average was over twice that at ~6.7 million acres. Furthermore, inflation adjusted expenditures have increased over five fold, meaning that we're spending significantly more resources on fighting fires and yet, the number of acres on fire continues growing. This data suggests that our houses are built with better standards, fewer people are smoking, and our appliances are safer so there are fewer fires but it's pretty clear that our problems have grown much worse overall. [1] https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_documents/SuppCosts.pdf https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_documents/SuppCosts.p...
- Timmah 8y ago
  The increasing cost of a service has nothing to do with climate change. The cost of everything has gone up since 1985.
  - akiselev 8y ago
    According to Google, after adjusting for inflation, the average price of a new car in 1985 was $21-28k in today's dollars, and the average new car costs $30-40k today. The price of a Big mac: $1.17 in 1985, $3.50 today. Gasoline: $1.50-2/gal, today: $3-4/gal. We now spend over 5 times as much on fire suppression at the federal level than we did 30 years ago after adjusting for inflation. This growth outpaces cost of living, healthcare, and inflation significantly.
southern_cross 8y ago
The estimates that I've read say that up to 90% of modern wildfires are started by man, rather than being started by natural causes such as lightning. Subtract out much of that 90% from the current numbers and what do you get?

skybrian 8y ago

Entirely agree that many of our opinions are often not based on much in the way of facts. But to try to do do better: what's your source on fires?

thaumaturgy 8y ago

People also sometimes cherry-pick or carve up data so that they can find a "surprising" result, to use one of ~pg's favorite adjectives. Your coworker had the impression that wildfires are becoming larger and more damaging, and that climate change is a principal cause of this, due to widespread coverage to that effect (examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). (Which I suppose was your point.) And many of those journalists are repeating each other, but eventually you find that a lot of those statements originate from the National Interagency Fire Center [7]. There, the raw numbers pretty clearly show an upward overall trend from, oh, about 1953 or so. Before 1953, the numbers look a lot different, and if someone were to just casually plug all those values into a graph, they could make the point that wildfires aren't getting worse after all. That person would be completely ignoring the massive increase in wildfire suppression efforts over that same period, of course, but they wouldn't want that to get in the way of their surprising finding. Further investigation into the subject would start to reveal all kinds of neat subtleties that would be missed from a quick glance at numbers, both from non-climate-related factors like increased habitation in the wildland-urban interface areas [8], as well as climate-related factors like the massive number of dead trees in western forests as a result of increased bark beetle activity [9] [10]. And then someone might begin to be in a position to have a more interesting discussion on the subject. :-) [1]: https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-08-01/wildfires-are-getting-worse-and-more-costly-every-year https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-08-01/wi... [2]: http://www.climatecentral.org/western-wildfire-trends http://www.climatecentral.org/western-wildfire-trends [3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/14/wildfires-have-gotten-bigger-recent-years-trend-is-likely-continue/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/14/wildfires... [4]: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/31/634369281/wildfires-could-be-the-new-norm https://www.npr.org/2018/07/31/634369281/wildfires-could-be-... [5]: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/17661096/california-wildfires-2018-mendocino-carr-ferguson-climate https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/17661096/california-wildfires-2... [6]: https://theconversation.com/wildfires-in-west-have-gotten-bigger-more-frequent-and-longer-since-the-1980s-42993 https://theconversation.com/wildfires-in-west-have-gotten-bi... [7]: https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html [8]: https://www.wildfirex.com/2013/07/25/population-climbs-in-wildland-urban-interface/ https://www.wildfirex.com/2013/07/25/population-climbs-in-wi... [9]: https://www.fs.fed.us/research/invasive-species/insects/bark-beetle.php https://www.fs.fed.us/research/invasive-species/insects/bark... [10]: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sierra-dead-trees-20170128-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sierra-dead-tr...

mbostleman 8y ago
I also used the NIFC data. I mis-spoke on a couple of points. First, I only used data from 1983 and later (not the 1960s as I said, and certainly not prior to the 1950s as you assert that some people do) because their footnote said that the sources for data prior to 1983 are not known or can't be confirmed. Second, I graphed the data since 1983 and there was somewhat of a trend upwards (not no trend like I said). But it didn't look significant to me. Especially not in climate terms. And especially given that realiable data only covers 35 years. And especially given that the numbers swing wildly with how we manage fires. That is, a trend in either direction could easily be created by increasing or decreasing budgets to keep them from starting and/or fighting them, like the swings you reference prior to the 1950s. But in any case, as I said, I not saying that wildland fires are not somehow affected by climate change. Only that people tend to accept narratives that are repeated over and over without critically questioning them.
- thaumaturgy 8y ago
  > Only that people tend to accept narratives that are repeated over and over without critically questioning them. Sure, but the challenge is that critically questioning a common narrative takes significantly more effort than a quick review of a single dataset, especially when that narrative is coming from a fairly large body of professional researchers in multiple fields. This is a big problem right now in the politics surrounding several different fields. A lot of interested laymen now have the tools to do some quick analysis on datasets, and then they draw conclusions from that that are contrary to the accepted science in that field. It's especially common in climate science because it's always been such a politically charged topic. People accepting common narratives is essentially "epistemic learned helplessness" (http://web.archive.org/web/20130111103623/http://squid314.livejournal.com/350090.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130111103623/http://squid314.li..., one of my favorite essays), and that's a good thing. It's an immune response to bad ideas like being opposed to vaccination. There is certainly room for asking questions about accepted ideas. Any time something doesn't make sense in some subject, absolutely go searching for an answer. You may even get to be one of the fortunate and talented few who find a significant question or even a flaw in some field. But, there's a fine line between asking questions, and drawing conclusions from a brief review and then indicting other people for not "critically" examining the subject.

akiselev 8y ago

The National Interagency Fire Center stats for fire suppression costs paint a completely different picture [1]. While the total number of fires has decreased by about 10-20% since 1985, the size of the fires in acres and the amount of money spent has skyrocketed. The annual average from 1985 to 1989 is ~2.9 million acres while from 2013-2017 the average was over twice that at ~6.7 million acres. Furthermore, inflation adjusted expenditures have increased over five fold, meaning that we're spending significantly more resources on fighting fires and yet, the number of acres on fire continues growing. This data suggests that our houses are built with better standards, fewer people are smoking, and our appliances are safer so there are fewer fires but it's pretty clear that our problems have grown much worse overall. [1] https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_documents/SuppCosts.pdf https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_documents/SuppCosts.p...

Timmah 8y ago
The increasing cost of a service has nothing to do with climate change. The cost of everything has gone up since 1985.
- akiselev 8y ago
  According to Google, after adjusting for inflation, the average price of a new car in 1985 was $21-28k in today's dollars, and the average new car costs $30-40k today. The price of a Big mac: $1.17 in 1985, $3.50 today. Gasoline: $1.50-2/gal, today: $3-4/gal. We now spend over 5 times as much on fire suppression at the federal level than we did 30 years ago after adjusting for inflation. This growth outpaces cost of living, healthcare, and inflation significantly.

southern_cross 8y ago

The estimates that I've read say that up to 90% of modern wildfires are started by man, rather than being started by natural causes such as lightning. Subtract out much of that 90% from the current numbers and what do you get?