4 ms·

>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 author

>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?
      - missosoup 7y ago
        Causation between years of consecutive drought and record-breaking temperatures leading to record-breaking wildfires is not hard to establish. Trying to deny that would require some impressive mental gymnastics. Causation between human activity and climate change resulting in that temperature anomaly, is fundamentally hard. Especially in a field like climate science where every model carries a big bundle of assumptions some of which are just educated guesses. But the models for anthropogenic climate change have been pretty bang on at predicting the temperature anomaly that we're seeing today. That doesn't formally prove causation but it's certainly enough evidence that we need to start acting to mitigate climate change now, there's no more 'complicated analysis' needed. At this point it's a bit like arguing over whether hitting the iceberg is really what's making the titanic sink, while standing on the submerging deck.

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?
    - missosoup 7y ago
      Causation between years of consecutive drought and record-breaking temperatures leading to record-breaking wildfires is not hard to establish. Trying to deny that would require some impressive mental gymnastics. Causation between human activity and climate change resulting in that temperature anomaly, is fundamentally hard. Especially in a field like climate science where every model carries a big bundle of assumptions some of which are just educated guesses. But the models for anthropogenic climate change have been pretty bang on at predicting the temperature anomaly that we're seeing today. That doesn't formally prove causation but it's certainly enough evidence that we need to start acting to mitigate climate change now, there's no more 'complicated analysis' needed. At this point it's a bit like arguing over whether hitting the iceberg is really what's making the titanic sink, while standing on the submerging deck.