5 ms·

> It expressly does consider, but did not get a response from the NSW police. I read the article twice, I didn't see that. Please provide the exact quote. > t

by keanzu 7y ago

> It expressly does consider, but did not get a response from the NSW police. I read the article twice, I didn't see that. Please provide the exact quote. > to report numbers before there is evidence to support it is misinformation The police state "24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires" - they've reported a number of people they've charged. What evidence do you require beyond the official police statement describing how many arrests they made. An audit?

cam_l 7y ago
>I read the article twice Sorry, I would not normally have suggested otherwise - I misunderstood your previous comment where you made reference to being 'reasonably confident' to the content of the article due to its title, I see now this was more rhetorical than actual. >Please provide the exact quote. "NSW police statistics show 24 individuals have been arrested for deliberately lighting bushfires during the current fire season." >What evidence do you require beyond the official police statement describing how many arrests they made. That they actually link the arson to the bushfire they have charged someone with lighting? I mean, if they charged them they have evidence right? Surely at least one of those 24 people have been charged with one of the current fires? Their comment that they are still investigating the cause of current fires suggests perhaps none of these are linked. All other reports I have seen of charges are from September through November. Why did you and everyone else reciting these stats leave the qualifying comment out? And why conflate the figures from the pre-fire season with the current fires? Why not just say that historically, nearly half of bushfires are suspected to be deliberately lit. Or better yet, 13% of bushfires have been proven historically to be deliberately lit. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/bushfire-ignition-source-how-we-know/11701132 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/bushfire-igni... Do the numbers show the rate of arson this fire season worse than previous ones? If it is not, then why is it being used to suggest otherwise? This is why I said this is a very good example of misinformation. It is objectively true on the face of what is reported, it produces a compelling narrative which is difficult to question if you are just skimming the news, while leaving out pertinent information that may complicate that narrative.
- keanzu 7y ago
  >>> It expressly does consider, but did not get a response from the NSW police. >> Please provide the exact quote. > "NSW police statistics show 24 individuals have been arrested for deliberately lighting bushfires during the current fire season." That's merely an accurate restatement of the police statement. You said "did not get a response from the NSW police" but nowhere in the article (that I saw) does it say anything about how the Guardian made any attempt to contact the police nor fail to get a response.
  - cam_l 7y ago
    That they did not get a response says nothing of whether or how hard they tried. They got a reponse from other police, but not NSW. Read into that whatever you please, I did not.
- keanzu 7y ago
  > Why did you and everyone else reciting these stats leave the qualifying comment out? I left out more than half of the article but provided a link to the entire source from the moment I posted it, never edited. As for the comment I believe you are referring to "Investigations into the cause, origin and overall impact of fires are continuing". There a lot of fires and investigations are on-going. To my reading it is just police boilerplate and not a qualifying comment. If you have 100 fires and you've managed to partially investigate 30 of them but the situation was still developing with new fires popping up then you would write "Investigations into the cause, origin and overall impact of fires are continuing". The statement is just a: Hey we've been working hard on the bushfire problem, here's some stuff we've already done but don't think we are resting on our laurels, there's more to do and we're working hard on that.
  - cam_l 7y ago
    Ok, so I see you are reading this very differently to me, and appreciate your alternate point of view. I just do not believe it says what you think it says. I personally see no reason to give the NSW police the benefit of doubt, particularly when they are using obfuscating language, and have not enlarged further with any media outlets. (Not even to mention they do not have a great track record of truth with the media.) That being said, I believe they are right to call out arson as a major contributing factor to bushfire, but using those figures, and using that as an explanation for the current fires, I believe, crosses the line into misinformation. And I believe this was their intent. That aside, and for the record, as I saw it and was arguing, there were two issues with the widespread posting of the report. 1. The use of this report and others, without context, by MSM as an explanation in and of itself as the cause of bushfires - or at least smoke-screening to avoid talking about other causes. This misinformation, even at its best (ie similar to the way in which yours was delivered), still relies on half truths delivered without context to create a misleading narrative. These narratives in the media are being created and propelled for the express purpose to drown out substantive calls for action on climate change. You have not argued this point so I take it you at least agree with this. 2. The report itself is misinforming. ie. it is, through vagary, suggesting these out of control bushfires in Nov-Dec were caused by arsonists, and through specificity, suggesting that these numbers were significant (if they even refer to these fires). They are not. Australia has lower rates than most of the world in bushfire arson. There were over a hundred separate major bushfires in that period in NSW. Estimates from a previous study from 2001-2006 show that Australia on average has around 60,000 bushfires every year. Most burn themselves out reasonably quickly, or with the help of one of the rural fire services. You can no more point to arson as the cause of these particular bushfires as you could to throwing a snowball to start an avalanche. It is the literal straw breaking the camels back. In a warming world, every unusually hot dry season is a bit worse than the last. To stop bushfires there is only one thing that makes a makes a difference - water content. Not arson, not undergrowth, not fuel load. Here is a great series of images from NASA, again via the Guardian, to explain how these fires spread, and how quickly. You can see the change in directions of the fires due the winds. Entire regions lit up or burnt out in a day. Its fucking terrifying. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/nov/21/how-australias-bushfires-spread-mapping-the-nsw-and-queensland-fires https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/nov/21/how-au...

by keanzu 7y ago

cam_l 7y ago

>I read the article twice Sorry, I would not normally have suggested otherwise - I misunderstood your previous comment where you made reference to being 'reasonably confident' to the content of the article due to its title, I see now this was more rhetorical than actual. >Please provide the exact quote. "NSW police statistics show 24 individuals have been arrested for deliberately lighting bushfires during the current fire season." >What evidence do you require beyond the official police statement describing how many arrests they made. That they actually link the arson to the bushfire they have charged someone with lighting? I mean, if they charged them they have evidence right? Surely at least one of those 24 people have been charged with one of the current fires? Their comment that they are still investigating the cause of current fires suggests perhaps none of these are linked. All other reports I have seen of charges are from September through November. Why did you and everyone else reciting these stats leave the qualifying comment out? And why conflate the figures from the pre-fire season with the current fires? Why not just say that historically, nearly half of bushfires are suspected to be deliberately lit. Or better yet, 13% of bushfires have been proven historically to be deliberately lit. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/bushfire-ignition-source-how-we-know/11701132 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/bushfire-igni... Do the numbers show the rate of arson this fire season worse than previous ones? If it is not, then why is it being used to suggest otherwise? This is why I said this is a very good example of misinformation. It is objectively true on the face of what is reported, it produces a compelling narrative which is difficult to question if you are just skimming the news, while leaving out pertinent information that may complicate that narrative.

keanzu 7y ago
>>> It expressly does consider, but did not get a response from the NSW police. >> Please provide the exact quote. > "NSW police statistics show 24 individuals have been arrested for deliberately lighting bushfires during the current fire season." That's merely an accurate restatement of the police statement. You said "did not get a response from the NSW police" but nowhere in the article (that I saw) does it say anything about how the Guardian made any attempt to contact the police nor fail to get a response.
- cam_l 7y ago
  That they did not get a response says nothing of whether or how hard they tried. They got a reponse from other police, but not NSW. Read into that whatever you please, I did not.
keanzu 7y ago
> Why did you and everyone else reciting these stats leave the qualifying comment out? I left out more than half of the article but provided a link to the entire source from the moment I posted it, never edited. As for the comment I believe you are referring to "Investigations into the cause, origin and overall impact of fires are continuing". There a lot of fires and investigations are on-going. To my reading it is just police boilerplate and not a qualifying comment. If you have 100 fires and you've managed to partially investigate 30 of them but the situation was still developing with new fires popping up then you would write "Investigations into the cause, origin and overall impact of fires are continuing". The statement is just a: Hey we've been working hard on the bushfire problem, here's some stuff we've already done but don't think we are resting on our laurels, there's more to do and we're working hard on that.
- cam_l 7y ago
  Ok, so I see you are reading this very differently to me, and appreciate your alternate point of view. I just do not believe it says what you think it says. I personally see no reason to give the NSW police the benefit of doubt, particularly when they are using obfuscating language, and have not enlarged further with any media outlets. (Not even to mention they do not have a great track record of truth with the media.) That being said, I believe they are right to call out arson as a major contributing factor to bushfire, but using those figures, and using that as an explanation for the current fires, I believe, crosses the line into misinformation. And I believe this was their intent. That aside, and for the record, as I saw it and was arguing, there were two issues with the widespread posting of the report. 1. The use of this report and others, without context, by MSM as an explanation in and of itself as the cause of bushfires - or at least smoke-screening to avoid talking about other causes. This misinformation, even at its best (ie similar to the way in which yours was delivered), still relies on half truths delivered without context to create a misleading narrative. These narratives in the media are being created and propelled for the express purpose to drown out substantive calls for action on climate change. You have not argued this point so I take it you at least agree with this. 2. The report itself is misinforming. ie. it is, through vagary, suggesting these out of control bushfires in Nov-Dec were caused by arsonists, and through specificity, suggesting that these numbers were significant (if they even refer to these fires). They are not. Australia has lower rates than most of the world in bushfire arson. There were over a hundred separate major bushfires in that period in NSW. Estimates from a previous study from 2001-2006 show that Australia on average has around 60,000 bushfires every year. Most burn themselves out reasonably quickly, or with the help of one of the rural fire services. You can no more point to arson as the cause of these particular bushfires as you could to throwing a snowball to start an avalanche. It is the literal straw breaking the camels back. In a warming world, every unusually hot dry season is a bit worse than the last. To stop bushfires there is only one thing that makes a makes a difference - water content. Not arson, not undergrowth, not fuel load. Here is a great series of images from NASA, again via the Guardian, to explain how these fires spread, and how quickly. You can see the change in directions of the fires due the winds. Entire regions lit up or burnt out in a day. Its fucking terrifying. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/nov/21/how-australias-bushfires-spread-mapping-the-nsw-and-queensland-fires https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/nov/21/how-au...