8 ms·

Australia's Wildfires Spark Disinformation Battle as They Take a Tragic Toll

77 points by frereubu 7y ago

creaghpatr 7y ago
>Around the same time the bot campaign hit its crescendo, news stories about the wildfires also touted a police report in hard-hit New South Wales, where authorities recently announced that they have taken legal action against more than 180 people for fire-related offenses. Believe it or not, it's actually the other way around. People committed and were arrested for the arson before bot campaigns started spreading the narrative that arson had been committed. Between this and the Gizmodo article, it's confusing why news sites are trying to obfuscate the objective fact that people were charged with arson. Who wins here? The gizmodo article, which was even more egregious and got completely ripped on social media: https://earther.gizmodo.com/its-not-arson-you-absolute-fucking-morons-1840862475 https://earther.gizmodo.com/its-not-arson-you-absolute-fucki... "It's not arson, you absolute fucking morons"
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Hang on, you're both right, and you're both wrong. Gizmodo's making the point that there weren't 180 charged with arson. > While 183 arrests have been made in connection with fires, only 24 people have actually been charged with arson. There were some cases of arson, including a firefighter starting fires, but most of that number were scenarios of stupidity like deciding to have a campfire or tossing a lit cigarette. The fires started via arson also haven't been the large ones thus far. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw-fires-legal-action-taken-against-183-people-this-bushfire-season-20200106-p53p97.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw-fires-legal-action-taken... > NSW Police have taken legal action against 183 people so far this bushfire season, including charging 24 people with deliberately lighting bushfires. > Since November, police have also taken legal action against 53 people for failing to comply with a total fire ban and against 47 people for discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  I was tuned into 2GB and heard Alan Jones make the argument, (no surprises here): 93% [I think, something high...] bush-fires are not started by natural causes ... all this climate change rubbish! The arson narrative is that the arsonists are causing the fires, not climate change. Because, in this world view, everything bad can only have one factor contributing to it's cause. No one says "yes there is an arson problem but if they didn't start the fire there is a good chance something else would have started a fire in thousands of sq km of bush, and the fact that all the bush is super dry and it's very hot means it is most likely that would start a fire anyway." because that's too long and boring and doesn't fit in a tweet let alone a hash tag.
  - datashow 7y ago
    Even if we accept "all the bush is super dry and it's very hot means it is most likely that would start a fire anyway", this is still far from linking the fires to climate change. I am not saying it is not linked to climate change, but to establish scientific evidence to this causal link requires complicated analyses. Why am I getting downvoted for this? Someone care to explain?
    - missosoup 7y ago
      You need complicated analysis to correlate the prolonged drought and all-time record breaking heat to climate change? Why are you putting climate change in quotes? Even hardcore paid Oil shills don't deny climate change at this point, they only deny that it's anthropogenic. The bureau of meteorology even made a pretty infographic showing the effects of climate change: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/temperature/ http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/temperature/
      - datashow 7y ago
        What? I never noticed I put those quotes... Weird. I just removed the quotes. ... On the main point. Yes, correlation is easy. Causation? I don't know, because I don't work in climate science. Is obvious correlation sufficient to establish causation in climate science?
keanzu 7y ago
Police take legal action against more than 180 people so far during 2019/2020 bushfire season The NSW Police Force has taken legal action against more than 180 people for bushfire-related offences since late last year. Numerous bush and grass fires have impacted the state, claiming the lives of 18 people and destroying hundreds of millions of animals and livestock, thousands of homes, and more than 4.9 million hectares of land, so far this bushfire season. Since Friday 8 November 2019, legal action – which ranges from cautions through to criminal charges – has been taken against 183 people – including 40 juveniles – for 205 bushfire-related offences. Of note: 24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires 53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban, and 47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land. https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZWJpenByZC5wb2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGODIyNjQuaHRtbCZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_s... Source: NSW Police official webpage
- cam_l 7y ago
  Great example of the kind of misinformation this article is talking about. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/police-contradict-claims-spread-online-exaggerating-arsons-role-in-australian-bushfires https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/polic... edit: and you missed (as did everyone else reporting on this) the pertinent piece from that article, which suggests that none of the fires have yet been linked to any of these arrests. "Investigations into the cause, origin and overall impact of fires are continuing and since the latest State of Emergency was declared last Thursday (2 January 2020), Strike Force Tronto has provided expertise to six Police Area Commands and eight Police Districts."
  - keanzu 7y ago
    Misinformation? A verbatim partial copy of the police force's official statement with a link to the original source? I'm reasonably confident that a Guardian article titled "Police contradict claims spread online exaggerating arson's role in Australian bushfires" does not consider the NSW police official website as exaggerated online claims which the police are contracting. It is a police source, if they think their own website is providing false information they can take it down.
williesleg 7y ago
I love how global warming starts fires in California and Australia but not in places naturally dry with few antifa and illegal immigrants. Strange.
jdoliner 7y ago
Articles like this are the disinformation campaign, they go on for 8 paragraphs before they admit that it's true that 180 people have been charged with fire related offenses, including arson. If they want to argue that arson isn't an emergency, and isn't the real issue that's one thing. But claiming it's a disinformation claim is just, well, disinformation if there are actual confirmed cases of arson.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The best disinformation campaigns have enough of a kernel of truth to survive or resist an initial look. Yes, there have been some cases of arson. No, Australia wouldn't be wildfire-free this year if there hadn't been any arson. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/fires-misinformation-being-spread-through-social-media/11846434 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/fires-misinformation-... > A number of the tweets took police figures out of context and claimed almost 200 arsonists had been arrested in NSW. > An article posted by an American far-right figure went one step further, claiming left-wing ecoterrorists were responsible for lighting the blazes.
- tclancy 7y ago
  Why wasn't it an emergency before these wider fires then?
  - jdoliner 7y ago
    Because the emergency is the amount of damage the fires are doing and wider fires do more damage.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      And what is the cause of the difference in the amount of damage now vs. then? (Hint: It's not the arson.)
- markdown 7y ago
  There are confirmed cases of arson all the time. This has been a problem for decades. The difference is that the bush has dried out more than usual, it's been much hotter than usual, and budget cuts have meant that the bush hasn't been managed well (no controlled burns, etc).
booboolayla 7y ago
The article is literal disinformation, gaslighting the readers into not questioning the climate emergency narrative. At the very end of it they admit there's been hundred+ arsons, so the writer can claim plausible deniability later on.
keanzu 7y ago
The ignition source for a bushfire isn't relevant. What creates the necessary conditions for severe bushfire? Long periods of hot and dry weather leads directly to large amounts of easily combustible material - fire danger ratings and total fire bans are issued on this basis. Any ignition source, deliberate, accidental or natural can set it off. Yes arson happens, no the arsonist(s) didn't create the conditions necessary to burn a million hectares, he merely provided the ignition source.
- throwaway3563 7y ago
  Exactly. With all the dry vegetation in place and ongoing drought, a dry lightning strike eventually would have done the same thing an arsonist didn’t.
  - keanzu 7y ago
    Eventually? Probably did do the same thing. There are hundreds of individual fires across the country thousands of kilometers apart. With so many fires there were likely a lot of different ignition sources, lightning easily could have been one. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50951043 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50951043
tick_tock_tick 7y ago
And Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.....
nostromo 7y ago
I've seen a lot more misinformation spreading about the scope of the wildfires than I have about any arson narrative. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-51020564 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-51020564
- capableweb 7y ago
  > As some Twitter users pointed out, maps that claim to show the size of the affected area by "overlaying" Australia on to other continents like North America and Europe are not completely accurate. > This is due to how how the curved earth is distorted when flat map projections are made. Hm, this seemed wrong as the images looked correct. Using https://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTYzMzA1NTk.ODg5NTU3MQ*MjI1NzE4NDU(MTE0NzEyNTk~!AU*MTQ0NjUzNjU.MTI4Nzg2Nzg)NA https://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTYzMzA1NTk.ODg5NTU3MQ*... I checked myself, and images looks correct, both when comparing the US and Europe with Australia. Am I misunderstanding something?
  - merlincorey 7y ago
    You are missing the nuances of various map projections[0], perhaps. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection
- htfu 7y ago
  Likely depends on what you're reading - look at the cloud in TFA. I take it Prisonplanet and donaldjtrumpjr probably aren’t your go-to sources?
AdamN 7y ago
The ignition source is really not relevant, that's the final step in a long chain and will happen naturally at some point. We should just disregard the arson narrative entirely (not that it shouldn't be punished, just that it's not an independent variable to be discussed).
- caiobegotti 7y ago
  Why?
  - supercanuck 7y ago
    because ... .The ignition source is really not relevant, that's the final step in a long chain and will happen naturally at some point.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Because arson isn't a key factor in the overall problem; it's basically background noise. If you used a time machine to remove the arsonists from the timeline, Australia would still be in a horrible fire season this year.
- Cougher 7y ago
  "Climate change is going to start fires eventually, so let's just ignore what happened and claim that what happened isn't what happened but what's gonna happen happened."
  - woggy 7y ago
    You missed the point. The ignition source is irrelevant. If an arson tries to start a fire during a wet winter the fire won't start or spread very far. However, we are in a difficult drought with very hot and dry conditions even in late spring. The problem is that once a fire gets started, by any means, it can spread very easily.
    - Cougher 7y ago
polemic 7y ago
You can see examples of the kinda of disinformation right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012427 Blaming arsonists, blaming "fire load" and lack of forest manangement, etc. Go listen to the rural fire chiefs: climate change is preventing management, is lengthening the season, making outbreaks more intense and causing them to spread further than before. Meanwhile the climate denying policies of their politicians leads them to cutting service funding, preventing activism, promoting coal mining and use. This isn't the time to be an armchair fire expert. Australia is burning and climate change is the primary factor in the seriousness of the situation.
- WanderPanda 7y ago
  *may be the primary factor
  - sanarothe 7y ago
    If root cause analysis isn't conclusive, you don't just not implement corrective actions... You act on the most likely contributing causes with no undue delay.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - AWildC182 7y ago
    Why? What could possibly be bad about just accepting this as the cause instead of running around trying to add an asterisk to everything?
- hinkley 7y ago
  In the US we are still dealing with the legacy of bad fire management that dates back a century. It's certainly likely that what we needed to do then and what we need to do now are two different things, but the fact is we've been handling things badly for a very long time. Blaming it all on management practices is probably not particularly productive. But neither is giving them a pass. And isn't it still true that funding was cut for these programs or is that more disinformation? We can argue about whether any amount of funding would have prevented these fires but the lack of it is certainly making things worse, right?
moomin 7y ago
Gotta love this worldview that the one thing that cannot possibly ever have a negative effect is policy making.
- mieses 7y ago
  moomin, you might enjoy the "The Fillyjonk Who Believed In Disasters" if you haven't read it already.
  - moomin 7y ago
    That is a rather excellent piece of work and a great example of "Jansson wrote children's stories for adults."
LatifBerroyer 7y ago
Here is a thread that explains what we know as of 8 Jan. It's in French but most references and links are in English (bbc, theguardian, wikipedia, vox, wired,...). https://twitter.com/RevueSesame/status/1214935279192223745 https://twitter.com/RevueSesame/status/1214935279192223745 In summary, the current fires are _not_ exceptional. What is exceptional is the emotional media coverage. Plus this link from 2018 about indigenous fearing that knowledge about traditional land management by fire get lost. Raises questions. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-23/call-for-return-of-traditonal-aboriginal-fire-control-methods/9877842 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-23/call-for-return-of-tr... Now a few things to keep in mind: Australia is a desert. If we had the power to lower its average temp to what it was in 1900, it would still be a desert. It's as large as Europe but populated only on its coasts, with as many people as Paris + London.
vanniv 7y ago
NPR itself is one of the major sources of disinformation on this issue. They could solve half the problem just by shutting up.

77 points by frereubu 7y ago

>Around the same time the bot campaign hit its crescendo, news stories about the wildfires also touted a police report in hard-hit New South Wales, where authorities recently announced that they have taken legal action against more than 180 people for fire-related offenses. Believe it or not, it's actually the other way around. People committed and were arrested for the arson before bot campaigns started spreading the narrative that arson had been committed. Between this and the Gizmodo article, it's confusing why news sites are trying to obfuscate the objective fact that people were charged with arson. Who wins here? The gizmodo article, which was even more egregious and got completely ripped on social media: https://earther.gizmodo.com/its-not-arson-you-absolute-fucking-morons-1840862475 https://earther.gizmodo.com/its-not-arson-you-absolute-fucki... "It's not arson, you absolute fucking morons"

ceejayoz 7y ago
Hang on, you're both right, and you're both wrong. Gizmodo's making the point that there weren't 180 charged with arson. > While 183 arrests have been made in connection with fires, only 24 people have actually been charged with arson. There were some cases of arson, including a firefighter starting fires, but most of that number were scenarios of stupidity like deciding to have a campfire or tossing a lit cigarette. The fires started via arson also haven't been the large ones thus far. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw-fires-legal-action-taken-against-183-people-this-bushfire-season-20200106-p53p97.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw-fires-legal-action-taken... > NSW Police have taken legal action against 183 people so far this bushfire season, including charging 24 people with deliberately lighting bushfires. > Since November, police have also taken legal action against 53 people for failing to comply with a total fire ban and against 47 people for discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.
quickthrower2 7y ago
I was tuned into 2GB and heard Alan Jones make the argument, (no surprises here): 93% [I think, something high...] bush-fires are not started by natural causes ... all this climate change rubbish! The arson narrative is that the arsonists are causing the fires, not climate change. Because, in this world view, everything bad can only have one factor contributing to it's cause. No one says "yes there is an arson problem but if they didn't start the fire there is a good chance something else would have started a fire in thousands of sq km of bush, and the fact that all the bush is super dry and it's very hot means it is most likely that would start a fire anyway." because that's too long and boring and doesn't fit in a tweet let alone a hash tag.
- datashow 7y ago
  Even if we accept "all the bush is super dry and it's very hot means it is most likely that would start a fire anyway", this is still far from linking the fires to climate change. I am not saying it is not linked to climate change, but to establish scientific evidence to this causal link requires complicated analyses. Why am I getting downvoted for this? Someone care to explain?
  - missosoup 7y ago
    You need complicated analysis to correlate the prolonged drought and all-time record breaking heat to climate change? Why are you putting climate change in quotes? Even hardcore paid Oil shills don't deny climate change at this point, they only deny that it's anthropogenic. The bureau of meteorology even made a pretty infographic showing the effects of climate change: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/temperature/ http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/temperature/
    - datashow 7y ago
      What? I never noticed I put those quotes... Weird. I just removed the quotes. ... On the main point. Yes, correlation is easy. Causation? I don't know, because I don't work in climate science. Is obvious correlation sufficient to establish causation in climate science?

keanzu 7y ago

Police take legal action against more than 180 people so far during 2019/2020 bushfire season The NSW Police Force has taken legal action against more than 180 people for bushfire-related offences since late last year. Numerous bush and grass fires have impacted the state, claiming the lives of 18 people and destroying hundreds of millions of animals and livestock, thousands of homes, and more than 4.9 million hectares of land, so far this bushfire season. Since Friday 8 November 2019, legal action – which ranges from cautions through to criminal charges – has been taken against 183 people – including 40 juveniles – for 205 bushfire-related offences. Of note: 24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires 53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban, and 47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land. https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZWJpenByZC5wb2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGODIyNjQuaHRtbCZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_s... Source: NSW Police official webpage

cam_l 7y ago
Great example of the kind of misinformation this article is talking about. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/police-contradict-claims-spread-online-exaggerating-arsons-role-in-australian-bushfires https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/polic... edit: and you missed (as did everyone else reporting on this) the pertinent piece from that article, which suggests that none of the fires have yet been linked to any of these arrests. "Investigations into the cause, origin and overall impact of fires are continuing and since the latest State of Emergency was declared last Thursday (2 January 2020), Strike Force Tronto has provided expertise to six Police Area Commands and eight Police Districts."
- keanzu 7y ago
  Misinformation? A verbatim partial copy of the police force's official statement with a link to the original source? I'm reasonably confident that a Guardian article titled "Police contradict claims spread online exaggerating arson's role in Australian bushfires" does not consider the NSW police official website as exaggerated online claims which the police are contracting. It is a police source, if they think their own website is providing false information they can take it down.

williesleg 7y ago

I love how global warming starts fires in California and Australia but not in places naturally dry with few antifa and illegal immigrants. Strange.

jdoliner 7y ago

Articles like this are the disinformation campaign, they go on for 8 paragraphs before they admit that it's true that 180 people have been charged with fire related offenses, including arson. If they want to argue that arson isn't an emergency, and isn't the real issue that's one thing. But claiming it's a disinformation claim is just, well, disinformation if there are actual confirmed cases of arson.

ceejayoz 7y ago
The best disinformation campaigns have enough of a kernel of truth to survive or resist an initial look. Yes, there have been some cases of arson. No, Australia wouldn't be wildfire-free this year if there hadn't been any arson. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/fires-misinformation-being-spread-through-social-media/11846434 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/fires-misinformation-... > A number of the tweets took police figures out of context and claimed almost 200 arsonists had been arrested in NSW. > An article posted by an American far-right figure went one step further, claiming left-wing ecoterrorists were responsible for lighting the blazes.
tclancy 7y ago
Why wasn't it an emergency before these wider fires then?
- jdoliner 7y ago
  Because the emergency is the amount of damage the fires are doing and wider fires do more damage.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    And what is the cause of the difference in the amount of damage now vs. then? (Hint: It's not the arson.)
markdown 7y ago
There are confirmed cases of arson all the time. This has been a problem for decades. The difference is that the bush has dried out more than usual, it's been much hotter than usual, and budget cuts have meant that the bush hasn't been managed well (no controlled burns, etc).

booboolayla 7y ago

The article is literal disinformation, gaslighting the readers into not questioning the climate emergency narrative. At the very end of it they admit there's been hundred+ arsons, so the writer can claim plausible deniability later on.

keanzu 7y ago

The ignition source for a bushfire isn't relevant. What creates the necessary conditions for severe bushfire? Long periods of hot and dry weather leads directly to large amounts of easily combustible material - fire danger ratings and total fire bans are issued on this basis. Any ignition source, deliberate, accidental or natural can set it off. Yes arson happens, no the arsonist(s) didn't create the conditions necessary to burn a million hectares, he merely provided the ignition source.

throwaway3563 7y ago
Exactly. With all the dry vegetation in place and ongoing drought, a dry lightning strike eventually would have done the same thing an arsonist didn’t.
- keanzu 7y ago
  Eventually? Probably did do the same thing. There are hundreds of individual fires across the country thousands of kilometers apart. With so many fires there were likely a lot of different ignition sources, lightning easily could have been one. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50951043 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50951043

tick_tock_tick 7y ago

And Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.....

nostromo 7y ago

I've seen a lot more misinformation spreading about the scope of the wildfires than I have about any arson narrative. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-51020564 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-51020564

capableweb 7y ago
> As some Twitter users pointed out, maps that claim to show the size of the affected area by "overlaying" Australia on to other continents like North America and Europe are not completely accurate. > This is due to how how the curved earth is distorted when flat map projections are made. Hm, this seemed wrong as the images looked correct. Using https://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTYzMzA1NTk.ODg5NTU3MQ*MjI1NzE4NDU(MTE0NzEyNTk~!AU*MTQ0NjUzNjU.MTI4Nzg2Nzg)NA https://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTYzMzA1NTk.ODg5NTU3MQ*... I checked myself, and images looks correct, both when comparing the US and Europe with Australia. Am I misunderstanding something?
- merlincorey 7y ago
  You are missing the nuances of various map projections[0], perhaps. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection
htfu 7y ago
Likely depends on what you're reading - look at the cloud in TFA. I take it Prisonplanet and donaldjtrumpjr probably aren’t your go-to sources?

AdamN 7y ago

The ignition source is really not relevant, that's the final step in a long chain and will happen naturally at some point. We should just disregard the arson narrative entirely (not that it shouldn't be punished, just that it's not an independent variable to be discussed).

caiobegotti 7y ago
Why?
- supercanuck 7y ago
  because ... .The ignition source is really not relevant, that's the final step in a long chain and will happen naturally at some point.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Because arson isn't a key factor in the overall problem; it's basically background noise. If you used a time machine to remove the arsonists from the timeline, Australia would still be in a horrible fire season this year.
Cougher 7y ago
"Climate change is going to start fires eventually, so let's just ignore what happened and claim that what happened isn't what happened but what's gonna happen happened."
- woggy 7y ago
  You missed the point. The ignition source is irrelevant. If an arson tries to start a fire during a wet winter the fire won't start or spread very far. However, we are in a difficult drought with very hot and dry conditions even in late spring. The problem is that once a fire gets started, by any means, it can spread very easily.
  - Cougher 7y ago

polemic 7y ago

You can see examples of the kinda of disinformation right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012427 Blaming arsonists, blaming "fire load" and lack of forest manangement, etc. Go listen to the rural fire chiefs: climate change is preventing management, is lengthening the season, making outbreaks more intense and causing them to spread further than before. Meanwhile the climate denying policies of their politicians leads them to cutting service funding, preventing activism, promoting coal mining and use. This isn't the time to be an armchair fire expert. Australia is burning and climate change is the primary factor in the seriousness of the situation.

WanderPanda 7y ago
*may be the primary factor
- sanarothe 7y ago
  If root cause analysis isn't conclusive, you don't just not implement corrective actions... You act on the most likely contributing causes with no undue delay.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- AWildC182 7y ago
  Why? What could possibly be bad about just accepting this as the cause instead of running around trying to add an asterisk to everything?
hinkley 7y ago
In the US we are still dealing with the legacy of bad fire management that dates back a century. It's certainly likely that what we needed to do then and what we need to do now are two different things, but the fact is we've been handling things badly for a very long time. Blaming it all on management practices is probably not particularly productive. But neither is giving them a pass. And isn't it still true that funding was cut for these programs or is that more disinformation? We can argue about whether any amount of funding would have prevented these fires but the lack of it is certainly making things worse, right?

moomin 7y ago

Gotta love this worldview that the one thing that cannot possibly ever have a negative effect is policy making.

mieses 7y ago
moomin, you might enjoy the "The Fillyjonk Who Believed In Disasters" if you haven't read it already.
- moomin 7y ago
  That is a rather excellent piece of work and a great example of "Jansson wrote children's stories for adults."

LatifBerroyer 7y ago

Here is a thread that explains what we know as of 8 Jan. It's in French but most references and links are in English (bbc, theguardian, wikipedia, vox, wired,...). https://twitter.com/RevueSesame/status/1214935279192223745 https://twitter.com/RevueSesame/status/1214935279192223745 In summary, the current fires are _not_ exceptional. What is exceptional is the emotional media coverage. Plus this link from 2018 about indigenous fearing that knowledge about traditional land management by fire get lost. Raises questions. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-23/call-for-return-of-traditonal-aboriginal-fire-control-methods/9877842 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-23/call-for-return-of-tr... Now a few things to keep in mind: Australia is a desert. If we had the power to lower its average temp to what it was in 1900, it would still be a desert. It's as large as Europe but populated only on its coasts, with as many people as Paris + London.

vanniv 7y ago

NPR itself is one of the major sources of disinformation on this issue. They could solve half the problem just by shutting up.