31 ms·

How do you know its not stage 0.5 or stage 3? Genuinely want to understand if this is climate change driven or just apart of the cycle of boreal forest fires th

How do you know its not stage 0.5 or stage 3? Genuinely want to understand if this is climate change driven or just apart of the cycle of boreal forest fires that have raged in northern Ontario for centuries.

remarkEon 3mo ago
They don’t. If people actually believed this stuff they’d be learning how to hunt, get good with long guns, filter their own water etc. Revealed preferences always smash headlong into one’s imagination.
- amazingman 3mo ago
  Underneath your sneering is a failure to understand how humans tend to act.
  - remarkEon 3mo ago
    I don’t follow. If I believed the global climate was going to collapse imminently (it’s not) I would have a very specific to do list and would be spending every hour of my free time preparing for this event. Is your point that people performatively engage in catastrophizing? In which case, I agree.
    - amazingman 3mo ago
      My point is that individuals behave wildly differently to the same stimuli, and therefore your belief that "revealed preferences" put the lie to stated beliefs is specious. Individual humans can believe that a broad ecological collapse is coming and still live their day to day lives in ignorance of this belief. Self-assess honestly and you'll find examples in your own life.
      - remarkEon 3mo ago
        >Individual humans can believe that a broad ecological collapse is coming and still live their day to day lives in ignorance of this belief. This sentence is contradictory. How could one believe a particular thing, and then intentionally live in ignorance of this thing? >Self-assess honestly and you'll find examples in your own life. Okay. I did the assessment. I found that when I have deeply held beliefs I live my life according to those beliefs. For example, I strongly believe that learning new languages is the most efficient way to maintain neuroplasticity, for a number of reasons. Therefore, I spend 30-60 minutes each day studying languages. Do you have examples in your own life where you believe something to be true, but then intentionally don't live your life as if that thing were true?
        amazingman 3mo ago
        You've smuggled in a "deeply held" motte to move your goal posts. Seems like this conversation is over.
        remarkEon 2mo ago
        Your point appears to be that my deeply held belief is more reasonably attainable than as an activity someone can engage in that what should result from "I believe the world is going to end unless all global economies cease activity in order to drop carbon emissions to zero". In which case, yes I agree and the conversation is over.
aurelius_v 3mo ago
Its definitely not part of forest fires that have raged for centuries. In the past thousand years, we have never seen a single season where 4% of Canada's entire forest area burned down. The 2023 season torched over 15 million hectares, completely shattering the natural baseline. It's entirely unprecedented. The line about this being normal sounds like the talking points climate skeptic grifters like Bjorn Lomborg use to breed doubt. Claiming global fires of this scale are normal is a totally dishonest stat. He even claims they are decreasing, but that decline is just because African grasslands are disappearing due to agriculture and urbanization. When you normalize the data and isolate forests, fire-related tree cover loss in boreal forests has been accelerating by an average of 160,100 hectares per year over the last two decades. Globally, forest fires burn twice as much tree cover today as they did 20 years ago. I'm just mentioning this in case you are only hearing the louder, skeptic side on social media. I'm no tree hugger. I've started data centers in the telco and crypto space and have provided seed financing for natural resource mining projects, and I will continue to do so knowing that it's a positive for society. But I don't believe in being dishonest about where the data says the planet is headed. Anyone who grew up in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, or New York in the 70s, 80s, and 90s knows smelling smoke and seeing red skies in the summer was not common, unless you were out at camp deep in the woods. It just didn't happen. For kids growing up in the 2020s, it's just a normal part of summer in the city.
- alexk307 3mo ago
  > In the past thousand years, we have never seen a single season where 4% of Canada's entire forest area burned down You cannot possibly know this, you do not have accurate records of forrest fires that occurred 800+ years before Canada was even founded. Wildfires abide by power law distributions [1][2] meaning that enormous outliers like the one in 2023 (and maybe even this year) are not unexpected with a long fat tail distribution. Wildfires in Canada have been trending down in terms of number of fires, but the fires are burning more area [3]. > When you normalize the data and isolate forests Here's the past two decades of forrest fires globally [4], very hard to spot a significant trend. I'm not arguing that there isn't a problem here and that climate change isn't playing at least some role in it, but to attribute this entirely to climate change is misguided and not supported by literature. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law [2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0500880102 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0500880102 [3] https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/en/fire-history https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/en/fire-history [4] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/area-burned-wildfires-by-type https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/area-burned-wildfires-by-...

remarkEon 3mo ago

They don’t. If people actually believed this stuff they’d be learning how to hunt, get good with long guns, filter their own water etc. Revealed preferences always smash headlong into one’s imagination.

amazingman 3mo ago
Underneath your sneering is a failure to understand how humans tend to act.
- remarkEon 3mo ago
  I don’t follow. If I believed the global climate was going to collapse imminently (it’s not) I would have a very specific to do list and would be spending every hour of my free time preparing for this event. Is your point that people performatively engage in catastrophizing? In which case, I agree.
  - amazingman 3mo ago
    My point is that individuals behave wildly differently to the same stimuli, and therefore your belief that "revealed preferences" put the lie to stated beliefs is specious. Individual humans can believe that a broad ecological collapse is coming and still live their day to day lives in ignorance of this belief. Self-assess honestly and you'll find examples in your own life.
    - remarkEon 3mo ago
      >Individual humans can believe that a broad ecological collapse is coming and still live their day to day lives in ignorance of this belief. This sentence is contradictory. How could one believe a particular thing, and then intentionally live in ignorance of this thing? >Self-assess honestly and you'll find examples in your own life. Okay. I did the assessment. I found that when I have deeply held beliefs I live my life according to those beliefs. For example, I strongly believe that learning new languages is the most efficient way to maintain neuroplasticity, for a number of reasons. Therefore, I spend 30-60 minutes each day studying languages. Do you have examples in your own life where you believe something to be true, but then intentionally don't live your life as if that thing were true?
      - amazingman 3mo ago
        You've smuggled in a "deeply held" motte to move your goal posts. Seems like this conversation is over.
        remarkEon 2mo ago
        Your point appears to be that my deeply held belief is more reasonably attainable than as an activity someone can engage in that what should result from "I believe the world is going to end unless all global economies cease activity in order to drop carbon emissions to zero". In which case, yes I agree and the conversation is over.

aurelius_v 3mo ago

Its definitely not part of forest fires that have raged for centuries. In the past thousand years, we have never seen a single season where 4% of Canada's entire forest area burned down. The 2023 season torched over 15 million hectares, completely shattering the natural baseline. It's entirely unprecedented. The line about this being normal sounds like the talking points climate skeptic grifters like Bjorn Lomborg use to breed doubt. Claiming global fires of this scale are normal is a totally dishonest stat. He even claims they are decreasing, but that decline is just because African grasslands are disappearing due to agriculture and urbanization. When you normalize the data and isolate forests, fire-related tree cover loss in boreal forests has been accelerating by an average of 160,100 hectares per year over the last two decades. Globally, forest fires burn twice as much tree cover today as they did 20 years ago. I'm just mentioning this in case you are only hearing the louder, skeptic side on social media. I'm no tree hugger. I've started data centers in the telco and crypto space and have provided seed financing for natural resource mining projects, and I will continue to do so knowing that it's a positive for society. But I don't believe in being dishonest about where the data says the planet is headed. Anyone who grew up in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, or New York in the 70s, 80s, and 90s knows smelling smoke and seeing red skies in the summer was not common, unless you were out at camp deep in the woods. It just didn't happen. For kids growing up in the 2020s, it's just a normal part of summer in the city.

alexk307 3mo ago
> In the past thousand years, we have never seen a single season where 4% of Canada's entire forest area burned down You cannot possibly know this, you do not have accurate records of forrest fires that occurred 800+ years before Canada was even founded. Wildfires abide by power law distributions [1][2] meaning that enormous outliers like the one in 2023 (and maybe even this year) are not unexpected with a long fat tail distribution. Wildfires in Canada have been trending down in terms of number of fires, but the fires are burning more area [3]. > When you normalize the data and isolate forests Here's the past two decades of forrest fires globally [4], very hard to spot a significant trend. I'm not arguing that there isn't a problem here and that climate change isn't playing at least some role in it, but to attribute this entirely to climate change is misguided and not supported by literature. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law [2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0500880102 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0500880102 [3] https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/en/fire-history https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/en/fire-history [4] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/area-burned-wildfires-by-type https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/area-burned-wildfires-by-...