3 ms·
Perhaps I am being a little unfair, there is a lot of discussion of the physics and chemistry in the article. It may seem like a wild leap to start talking abou
by fwlr 4y ago
Perhaps I am being a little unfair, there is a lot of discussion of the physics and chemistry in the article. It may seem like a wild leap to start talking about politics because of a few paragraphs at the end of the article, to which I offer the defense that the Australian media landscape during that season was extremely, aggravatingly politicized. I did try to make sure most of my comment was focused on the interesting physics of extreme wildfires, leaving my criticism as a one-line post-script at the end.
- magicalist 4y agoThis isn't an article about how crazy wildfires are, it's about the effect on the ozone layer, so not sure why any of that would be relevant. If the objection is that the lead author used the term "climate change" out loud, the article seems to go out of its way to be precise so the "any mention of climate change is political" crowd won't be aroused: > Haywood would like to see the new chemistry integrated into a climate model to forecast how ozone depletion might be affected if intense wildfires become more common.
- epgui 4y agoI agree with the other commenter and I would even say you're completely failing to understand the medium, context, and purpose of the piece of writing you're criticizing.