5 ms·

This article is manipulative, bordering on malicious. Its claim boils down to "Data visualization techniques can't be interpreted literally" -- which is obviou

This article is manipulative, bordering on malicious. Its claim boils down to "Data visualization techniques can't be interpreted literally" -- which is obvious -- but is titled and written in such a way to provide ammunition to climate change deniers that "the other side" is being loose with facts, or something. Absolute and insulting garbage. Whoever wrote this, edited it, approved it for release, and whoever posted it here, should be ashamed.

mc32 7y ago
Not really. It does the cause (ecological) harm when obviously misleading maps are posted as representations of fire damage. It gives the impression Australia is a burnt cinder with no unburnt areas left.
- sagichmal 7y ago
  > obviously misleading maps are posted as representations of fire damage The maps referenced in the article aren't "obviously misleading" -- data visualization techniques are always lossy, that's just how they work. Claiming they're misleading is the real deception.
rad_gruchalski 7y ago
> Absolute and insulting garbage. Whoever wrote this, edited it, approved it for release, and whoever posted it here, should be ashamed. Why. Because it doesn’t support climate change?
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Here I would have thought the sheer number of people arrested across the country for intentionally starting fires would have been enough to silence anyone claiming this was climate change. Newscorp estimating 10% of the arsonists are under 10 years old. Edit: Ah, we’re taking trends over actual arrests. OK. My mistake.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Just in case someone actually still doesn't realise - this is a bullshit claim. (that arson is relevant in this situation) There are fires every year and they will happen. Climate change doesn't start fires. What it does is extends the fire season and makes forest management harder, which provides more fuel when the fire is burning.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      https://abcnews.go.com/International/24-australians-arrested-deliberately-setting-fires-season/story?id=68108272 https://abcnews.go.com/International/24-australians-arrested... Seems like calling it bullshit is a little too all knowing for me. I’m going to go ahead with a scientific approach and not jump to conclusions. Edit: let’s not pretend this type of thing would be unheard of https://m.dw.com/en/australia-police-arrest-man-accused-of-starting-bushfires/a-51234527 https://m.dw.com/en/australia-police-arrest-man-accused-of-s... https://granitegrok.com/blog/2019/11/world-wildlife-federation-paid-70000-to-activists-who-set-fire-to-amazon-forest https://granitegrok.com/blog/2019/11/world-wildlife-federati...
      - viraptor 7y ago
        The number is correct. The relevance is bullshit. Australia will have fires every year, arson or not. It needs to keep them under control either way - which is related to climate and forest management. If arson can create out of control fires, so can lightning.
        SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        > relevance is bullshit Citation?
        viraptor 7y ago
        I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Fires are out of control. Have you got someone proving that fire caused by lightning could be controlled easier than fire started by arson? Basically if you claim they're relevant, it's on you to find an explanation how/why. Not on everyone else to disprove every possible theory. Otherwise we're stuck in gish gallop.
yorwba 7y ago
If "your side" is being loose with facts, then pointing that out isn't just providing ammunition to "the other side". Arguments are not soldiers you need to support unconditionally to secure victory for "your side" in the war of public opinion. Pointing out when "your side" is wrong will hopefully help it make better arguments in the future.
- sagichmal 7y ago
  > If "your side" is being loose with facts, But "my side" isn't being loose with facts. That's my point. Data visualization techniques are always lossy, that's just how they work. The article tries to paint this lossiness as deception, and that's wrong.
mcantelon 7y ago
>is titled and written in such a way to provide ammunition to climate change deniers Do you honestly think the BBC are climate change deniers? Even when discussing something considered to be an emergency one shouldn't suppress truth and normalize deceit.
- sagichmal 7y ago
  > one shouldn't suppress truth and normalize deceit. My point is that the article is claiming deceit where none exists. Data visualization techniques are always lossy, that's just how they work. The article tries to paint this lossiness as deception, and that's wrong.

mc32 7y ago

Not really. It does the cause (ecological) harm when obviously misleading maps are posted as representations of fire damage. It gives the impression Australia is a burnt cinder with no unburnt areas left.

sagichmal 7y ago
> obviously misleading maps are posted as representations of fire damage The maps referenced in the article aren't "obviously misleading" -- data visualization techniques are always lossy, that's just how they work. Claiming they're misleading is the real deception.

rad_gruchalski 7y ago

> Absolute and insulting garbage. Whoever wrote this, edited it, approved it for release, and whoever posted it here, should be ashamed. Why. Because it doesn’t support climate change?

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Here I would have thought the sheer number of people arrested across the country for intentionally starting fires would have been enough to silence anyone claiming this was climate change. Newscorp estimating 10% of the arsonists are under 10 years old. Edit: Ah, we’re taking trends over actual arrests. OK. My mistake.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Just in case someone actually still doesn't realise - this is a bullshit claim. (that arson is relevant in this situation) There are fires every year and they will happen. Climate change doesn't start fires. What it does is extends the fire season and makes forest management harder, which provides more fuel when the fire is burning.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    https://abcnews.go.com/International/24-australians-arrested-deliberately-setting-fires-season/story?id=68108272 https://abcnews.go.com/International/24-australians-arrested... Seems like calling it bullshit is a little too all knowing for me. I’m going to go ahead with a scientific approach and not jump to conclusions. Edit: let’s not pretend this type of thing would be unheard of https://m.dw.com/en/australia-police-arrest-man-accused-of-starting-bushfires/a-51234527 https://m.dw.com/en/australia-police-arrest-man-accused-of-s... https://granitegrok.com/blog/2019/11/world-wildlife-federation-paid-70000-to-activists-who-set-fire-to-amazon-forest https://granitegrok.com/blog/2019/11/world-wildlife-federati...
    - viraptor 7y ago
      The number is correct. The relevance is bullshit. Australia will have fires every year, arson or not. It needs to keep them under control either way - which is related to climate and forest management. If arson can create out of control fires, so can lightning.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        > relevance is bullshit Citation?
        viraptor 7y ago
        I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Fires are out of control. Have you got someone proving that fire caused by lightning could be controlled easier than fire started by arson? Basically if you claim they're relevant, it's on you to find an explanation how/why. Not on everyone else to disprove every possible theory. Otherwise we're stuck in gish gallop.

yorwba 7y ago

If "your side" is being loose with facts, then pointing that out isn't just providing ammunition to "the other side". Arguments are not soldiers you need to support unconditionally to secure victory for "your side" in the war of public opinion. Pointing out when "your side" is wrong will hopefully help it make better arguments in the future.

sagichmal 7y ago
> If "your side" is being loose with facts, But "my side" isn't being loose with facts. That's my point. Data visualization techniques are always lossy, that's just how they work. The article tries to paint this lossiness as deception, and that's wrong.

mcantelon 7y ago

>is titled and written in such a way to provide ammunition to climate change deniers Do you honestly think the BBC are climate change deniers? Even when discussing something considered to be an emergency one shouldn't suppress truth and normalize deceit.

sagichmal 7y ago
> one shouldn't suppress truth and normalize deceit. My point is that the article is claiming deceit where none exists. Data visualization techniques are always lossy, that's just how they work. The article tries to paint this lossiness as deception, and that's wrong.