
Australia fires: Misleading maps and pictures go viral - pionerkotik
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-51020564
======
55555
Misleading stats too.

I've seen countless articles mention that 500,000,000 animals have died. I was
skeptical as to how you could even devise such a number reliably so I looked
into the source of this statistic. First off, this number was devised by a
single Uni professor. How? He multiplied the square-mile density of each
species by the amount of territory that's burned. Secondly, and he notes this
in his estimate, it's 500,000,000 "killed _or affected_", not just killed.
Third, for almost all species, there are no density figures, so he just picked
the number 10 (lol, yes, seriously). Fourth, roughly 30% of those estimated
animals are birds, of which other experts say 99% would survive because, ya
know, they can fly away. Of the other 70%, many others would have just walked
or slithered or run and gotten away from the fire.

Basically some guy just made up a number of animals that exist and everyone
else just assumed that 100% of them were killed. Terrible "science."

Many bigger news sites have braced themselves for pushback on this stat by
adding "and plants" ("500,000,000 animals and plants") so that their use of
the statistic can't be criticized later.

~~~
Cogito
Just to challenge your scepticism a bit

> _Fourth, roughly 30% of those estimated animals are birds, of which other
> experts say 99% would survive because, ya know, they can fly away. Of the
> other 70%, many others would have just walked or slithered or run and gotten
> away from the fire._

The fires we're talking about here aren't ones you can easily get away from if
you're caught by them.

If they're near a firebreak of some kind (large river, cliff, etc) the animals
may be able to escape, but otherwise these are very fast moving and very hot
fires.

It's reasonable to think that for animals caught up in the fires, at least for
ground dwelling animals, more were severely impacted than were not.

I'm not sure about birds. Where did you see the 99% number?

The fires can get hot enough to kill you from 100m away, cause firestorms, and
are _massive_. A lot of birds would have needed to fly a very long way to be
safe, and I've no reason to think that they either could or did.

~~~
jcranmer
The intellectually honest thing to do here would be to either try to find some
precedent study of wildfire mortality for wildlife to get a coarse estimate on
what happens, or to admit that you don't know. Instead, we have an "affected"
number that is technically not presented as "killed", but we-kinda-sorta-hope-
you-interpret-it-as-such.

I'm personally frustrated that no one has been able to dredge up an actual
study on wildfire mortality patterns.

~~~
nl
_Small mammal populations in a eucalypt forest affected by fire and drought
[2009]_ [1] tracks 5 species in a particular area from 1970 until 2005.

Only the abstract is available (unfortunately), but by my reading of that it
shows that a 1973 bushfire wiped out all 5 species in the area ("Following the
1972 fire, numbers fell to the lowest level recorded during the study and each
population subsequently disappeared from the plot between the 1973 and 1974
winter censuses").

In further reading (I read a lot of abstracts trying to find one that had
numbers!) it appears this pattern of some surviving the immediate fire but 18
months later having disappeared dur to predators and lack of habitat is fairly
common.

[1]
[https://www.publish.csiro.au/WR/WR08086](https://www.publish.csiro.au/WR/WR08086)

~~~
wutbrodo
Thank you, this is _exactly_ the kind of analysis I'm interested in! (but
unfortunately, far too nuanced to be comprehended or covered by media with any
sort of reach).

> it appears this pattern of some surviving the immediate fire but 18 months
> later having disappeared dur to predators and lack of habitat is fairly
> common.

I don't think your reading of this is quite correct (or perhaps the
implication that I'm incorrectly reading into it). The species didn't quite
"disappear", as all of the ones claimed to have done so after the 1972 fire
were able to be tracked during the 1980 fire:

> Following the 1972 fire, numbers fell to the lowest level recorded during
> the study and each population subsequently disappeared from the plot between
> the 1973 and 1974 winter censuses. The less intense 1980 fire did not lead
> to extirpation, but numbers of A. agilis, A. swainsonii and R. fuscipes
> declined as drought conditions persisted through 1983.

This suggests to me that they were repopulated according to the carrying
capacity of the habitat (which itself recovered), either from areas outside of
the study area or from the small populations that remained (the abstract is
careful to repeatedly say "disappeared from the plot", a qualifier that you
dropped despite it being significant, as sampling has error).

These dynamics are what need to be studied, or at least extrapolated from. The
study you shared is based on an 0.02 square mile study area (ಠ_ಠ), of a single
ecosystem type; It's possible that the vast scale of the current wildfires
mean that recovery from external populations is much less likely, but the
claim under discussion here is very far off either way. (For more information
about these dynamics, the "Population refuges and immigration" section of this
paper is interesting).

At any rate, the centrally-trumpeted claims that these animals have already
died based on habitat destruction is plainly false.

I guess I should note that I don't think pushing back against these estimates
suggests that this isn't a tragedy, or that it rebuts calls to action against
climate change or mitigation or whatever. I just don't think it serves anyone
to misrepresent the facts, or in this case, for such a sloppily-calculated,
off-the-cuff figure to be spread so widely as gospel. This is exactly the kind
of thing that gives anti-science skeptics traction. OTOH, maybe I'm typical-
minding too hard here: most people aren't interested in an accurate view of
reality in any case, and maybe being dishonest and plying the public with
bullshit figures is how things need to be done. Maybe the harm from giving
stupid denialists fodder is outweighed by the benefit of inciting stupid non-
denialists to care. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

~~~
Cogito
The author of the 480 million affected animals estimate has co-authored an
article addressing this in more detail and with lots of references.

I've posted it at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21990825](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21990825)

~~~
wutbrodo
Thanks for doing the legwork here!

~~~
Cogito
You're more than welcome!

I aim to be sceptical when taking on new ideas or information, and all the
questions people have are very reasonable.

It's hard to even imagine the size and ferocity of these fires.

The problem is when being sceptical twists into being dismissive. It's
actually really easy to do a bit of research and contact professors - but it
takes time.

When I first clicked through to the University of Sydney's statement, and
clicked on Professor Dickman's profile, I was left reeling by the sheer volume
of research the man has done on exactly these problems. In our emails he had
an anecdote about _jumping over fire fronts_ while researching them when he
was younger.

The scariest part is that the estimates given were for less catastrophic
events. They are a low bound based on previous understanding, and this is a
far worse event than ever seen before. I highly recommend people reading the
linked article, and follow the references therein.

~~~
nl
Do you know how he reconciles the vastly different death rate estimates from
the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires with these ones?

Black Saturday: 1M animals killed with 400K hectares burnt = 2.5
animals/hectare

These fires: 1B dead with 8.5M hectares burnt = 117 animals/hectare

I don't know how the Black Saturday estimates were done, just that the source
was the RSPCA.

------
keyle
It's true that the images are slightly outlandish due to the compilation of
data over a long period of time. Also not all these fires were or are of the
same size or nature (winds, fast moving or slow moving, controlled or wild).

But regardless it's been tragic and devastating.

If you want to shock people, forget showing maps or even pictures of destroyed
homes; just show them the footage of burning koalas being rescued and dying
off their injuries; that's far more visceral. I can't even watch it without
tearing up (from a local's perspective).

~~~
grecy
> _If you want to shock people, forget showing maps or even pictures of
> destroyed homes; just show them the footage of burning koalas being rescued
> and dying off their injuries; that 's far more visceral_

Also be sure to mention 500,000 animals have been killed in these fires.

~~~
jtms
I fully believe that a devastating number of animals have died, but when I see
nice, big, round numbers like 0.5 or 1 billion thrown out there I wonder how
we calculated this. How rigorous are these estimates?

~~~
nl
The methodology is here: [https://sydney.edu.au/news-
opinion/news/2020/01/03/a-stateme...](https://sydney.edu.au/news-
opinion/news/2020/01/03/a-statement-about-the-480-million-animals-killed-in-
nsw-bushfire.html)

~~~
mistermann
Well, not really....

[https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/methodology/](https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/methodology/)

> In your thesis or dissertation, you will have to discuss the methods you
> used to do your research. The methodology or methods section explains what
> you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and
> validity of the research. It should include:
    
    
        The type of research you did
        How you collected your data
        How you analyzed your data
        Any tools or materials you used in the research
        Your rationale for choosing these methods

~~~
nl
Ok. I'd note this wasn't a dissertation and instead was a statement by a
qualified scientist who previously has studied the field.

But if you want to be pedantic, that link is an explanation that includes
references to the methodology.

The methodology itself is in the report referenced in that explanation and
available at
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318029981_Impacts_o...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318029981_Impacts_of_Landclearing_the_impacts_of_the_approved_clearing_of_native_vegetation_on_Australian_wildlife_in_New_South_Wales/link/5955ce840f7e9b591cd74473/download)

~~~
mistermann
Well sure, the methodology is touched upon, but not terribly thoroughly
(perhaps there is a link to their actual calculations in there). But, that
methodology rests upon other methodologies in other studies. I mean, not that
that's _inappropriate_ , this is simply the complex nature of scientific
studies. But on any kind of topic like this, I get a constant impression from
comments that "the science" is right there for the reading, no gaps or
uncertainty exist whatsoever.

Are people _literally_ saying exactly that? Well ya, a lot of the time they
are literally saying that. But even if not, this is what is usually being
implied, and it's _certainly_ the impression readers are walking away with. In
my experience, it's a rare person who can unemotionally acknowledge the fact
that much of what we loosely refer to as "the truth" is actually just a big
messy collection of approximations, if not outright imaginations in many
cases.

------
thomasfoster96
As the BBC article suggests, generally the most accurate maps of where recent
fires are and how much they’ve burnt are the state government fire or
emergency services websites. Unfortunately they are state-by-state (which
isn’t usually a problem, but does mean there’s not a good whole-of-Australia
map), and some of them show all emergencies, not just fires.

ACT: [https://esa.act.gov.au](https://esa.act.gov.au)

New South Wales: [https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/fire-information/fires-near-
me](https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/fire-information/fires-near-me)

Northern Territory:
[https://www.pfes.nt.gov.au/incidentmap/](https://www.pfes.nt.gov.au/incidentmap/)

Queensland:
[https://www.ruralfire.qld.gov.au/map/Pages/default.aspx](https://www.ruralfire.qld.gov.au/map/Pages/default.aspx)

South Australia:
[https://www.cfs.sa.gov.au/site/home.jsp](https://www.cfs.sa.gov.au/site/home.jsp)

Tasmania:
[http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/Show?pageId=colGMapBushfires](http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/Show?pageId=colGMapBushfires)

Victoria:
[https://www.emergency.vic.gov.au/respond/](https://www.emergency.vic.gov.au/respond/)

Western Australia:
[https://www.emergency.wa.gov.au](https://www.emergency.wa.gov.au)

~~~
cmroanirgo
> _there’s not a good whole-of-Australia map_

This one (from WA) covers the whole country, and shows a) where the fire
fronts and b) what's been burnt. This website is actually linked to in the
main article (MyFireWatch):

[https://myfirewatch.landgate.wa.gov.au/](https://myfirewatch.landgate.wa.gov.au/)

It's also the one that ends up being doctored then played around social media.

As a 'side note' though, the article mentions:

> _In contrast to MyFireWatch maps (left), blue symbols on New South Wales
> Rural Fire Service maps (right) give 'Advice' warnings, indicating no
> immediate danger _

This is blatantly misleading. Blue means there _are_ fires still active in the
area, the MyFireWatch shows _exactly_ where those active fires are. And
personal experience has shown that Blue can become Yellow and then Red within
a space of 10 minutes.

~~~
thomasfoster96
> [...] MyFireWatch shows exactly where those active fires are.

I didn’t link to MyFireWatch precisely because it is showing ‘hotspots’ from
the past 72 hours, which is not _necessarily_ the same thing as mapping actual
reported fires, hence the confusion of some of the maps talked about in the
article. The data on MyFireWatch on areas which have burned is also very
inaccurate for some states (Tasmania and Victoria at least).

MyFireWatch explicitly says not to use their map in an emergency[0], because
the ‘latest’ hotspot data can be up to four hours old, can be up to 2km out of
place (5km in extremes), and may not show fires obscured from or otherwise
undetectable from the satellite.

[0]
[https://myfirewatch.landgate.wa.gov.au/disclaimer.html](https://myfirewatch.landgate.wa.gov.au/disclaimer.html)

------
rohfle
After the sky turned orange in New Zealand a few days ago from the smoke from
the Australian bushfires [1], I stumbled across this blog post by Scott
Bachmeier:

[https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/satellite-
blog/archives/35342](https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/satellite-
blog/archives/35342)

The post contains relevant satellite imagery taken from Himiwari-8 showing the
creation of pyrocumulonimbus clouds from the fires, along with thermal
imaging. There is also a technical explanation about how the thermal anomalies
are detected.

The smoke cloud is now heading to the middle of pacific ocean and is still
visible from space [2]

[1]: [https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/118597927/in-pictures-
auckl...](https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/118597927/in-pictures-aucklands-
sky-turns-orange-as-australian-bushfire-smoke-moves-to-nz) [2]:
[https://rammb-
slider.cira.colostate.edu/?sat=goes-17&z=1&im=...](https://rammb-
slider.cira.colostate.edu/?sat=goes-17&z=1&im=50&ts=6&st=20200105125036&et=20200108003037&speed=250&motion=loop&map=1&lat=0&opacity%5B0%5D=1&hidden%5B0%5D=0&pause=0&slider=-1&hide_controls=0&mouse_draw=0&follow_feature=0&follow_hide=0&s=rammb-
slider&sec=full_disk&p%5B0%5D=geocolor&x=7070.933349609375&y=18008.533203125)

------
ggm
The Guardian has a visualisation of the total area burned in this fire season,
which can be overlayed on google maps to any location. It is not the size of
'currently burning' but is the size of 'burning, or burnt'

[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-
inter...](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-
interactive/2019/dec/07/how-big-are-the-fires-burning-on-the-east-coast-of-
australia-interactive-map)

------
JorgeGT
I advise knowledgeable people to look at the data themselves! Nowadays anyone
can browse, download and process open access satellite data (Landsat,
Sentinel, Terra, Aqua, Suomi-NPP, etc.) with open source tools (QGIS, Python,
etc.). In this specific topic I recommend taking a look at the work of Pierre
Marcuse: [https://pierre-markuse.net/2018/04/30/visualizing-
wildfires-...](https://pierre-markuse.net/2018/04/30/visualizing-wildfires-
burn-scars-sentinel-hub-eo-browser/)

I have to admit, my grandpa was a wildfire firefighter coordinator and still,
I wasn't really aware of wildfires being this very thin front behaving like a
fractal until I saw this kind of satellite data:
[https://twitter.com/Pierre_Markuse/status/119499877723451392...](https://twitter.com/Pierre_Markuse/status/1194998777234513921)

------
jefft255
Some have been intentionally sensationalist, but the main lesson here is that
maps are hard. Both making and reading them.

~~~
wutbrodo
I'm not sure that is the lesson. I don't doubt that maps are hard, but there
are plenty of capable people making decent ones all the time (the OP article
contains a link to BBC's own visualizations). All of the issues described in
the linked article are complete sloppiness or dishonesty, not mistakes due to
the difficulties of map visualizations.

------
e40
I'm a big fan of [https://www.memeorandum.com/](https://www.memeorandum.com/)
but I saw a story on there that "almost 200 people had been arrested for
setting fires" ... only to find Alex Jones was one of the sources. Crikey.

~~~
vondur
Well, it does seem to be semi factual, 183 people had been arrested, "only 24
of them for arson:

    
    
        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.
    

Source:
[https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_s...](https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZWJpenByZC5wb2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGODIyNjQuaHRtbCZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D)

~~~
WilTimSon
I think their complaint isn't about the story not being factual but about the
fact that Alex Jones is an insane person/outrage feeder who shouldn't be
quoted as a source. Instead, they could have quoted, well, the source you
give. It's much more credible, after all.

~~~
reaperducer
The problem is that even a broken clock is correct twice a day. And for the
sort of people who follow conspiracy theory whackjobs, that's all they need.

~~~
manicdee
A STOPPED clock is correct twice a day, as long as you already know what the
time is you can tell that the clock is right at this time.

A broken clock will always be wrong. Even if you already know what the time
it, the fact that the broken clock looks like it is working will lead you to
wanting to believe that it might be right just this once.

~~~
HeWhoLurksLate
Stopped clocks are generally considered to be a subset of broken clocks.

~~~
manicdee
My apologies for not being extremely pedantic about my definitions in an
allegory.

------
lysp
Here is a realtime satellite "hotspot" service:

[https://hotspots.dea.ga.gov.au/](https://hotspots.dea.ga.gov.au/)

And an image (as of now) incase it's geo-locked:

[https://i.imgur.com/qWEMM7D.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qWEMM7D.jpg)

Here is another image of Victoria with current outstanding fires:

[https://i.imgur.com/izZt1lV.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/izZt1lV.jpg)

------
incompatible
There is apparently worse misinformation out there than some misleading maps,
e.g., "Bots and trolls spread false arson claims in Australian fires
‘disinformation campaign’: [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2020/jan/08/twitt...](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2020/jan/08/twitter-bots-trolls-australian-bushfires-social-media-
disinformation-campaign-false-claims)

~~~
Polylactic_acid
Yep, While all misinformation is bad, its better that we over prepare rather
than under prepare.

Reminds me of the quote that went something like "But what if its wrong, we
might accidentally make the world a better place for no reason."

------
lmiller1990
I'm not really a social media guy, but my relatives live near the badly
impacted areas and I can confirm the damage done to a lot of communities is
_very_ significant.

------
savethefuture
Didn't the same thing happen with the Amazon fires recently?

~~~
reaperducer
Yes. Celebrities were spreading photos of fires on other continents and other
years and claiming that it was the end of the world.

Their apologists will claim they were "just raising awareness" or "drawing
attention to the tragedy," but in reality they're doing more harm than good.

~~~
throwaway5752
Interesting, I think that climate change, slash and burn agricultural
practices on marginal land, and the inability of the biome to re-establish
itself is what is doing the harm. I never even once gave a single thought to
what "celebrities" or other people that were wrong are saying, just like how I
deal with right wingers that deny climate change is occurring.

~~~
mcantelon
Celebrities actually do have influence, horrifying as that is.

~~~
throwaway5752
And I would argue that it's hard to overstate the harm of global warming, so a
few ignorant celebrities being incorrect against the mountains of well fund
misinformation is not doing more harm than good. They are wrong on the
scientifically correct side of the issue, and that matters. They are unlikely
to cause harm to anyone, like climate change denier or Jenny McCarthy on
vaccines.

------
dekhn
At least partly an instance of "maps which actually just population heatmaps"

~~~
manicdee
Less than 1%, the rest is actual bushfires.

The area burned so far is larger than most European countries. Entire towns
have been razed, breeding grounds for various animals are destroyed and the
fire in Kangaroo Island decimated the population of chlamydia-free koalas.

Even worse is that this mass clearing of forests will lead to a drastic
increase in new growth which will lead to worse conditions for fires next year
(since young plants with shallower root systems will dry out faster)

------
throwaway5752
This pales in comparison to the actual problem, climate change. There are
people that deny it is happening while profiting from it, and those people are
in positions of power.

A cumulative visualization of the scope of the fires that is being
misinterpreted as real time is farting into a hurricane in comparison.

~~~
mcantelon
>This pales in comparison to the actual problem, climate change

Seems a bit ideological to label climate change as "the actual problem" when
24 arsonists were caught, over the season, deliberately starting forest fires.
Forest fires aren't a new thing but people deliberately starting them seems to
be.

~~~
lurgburg
> people deliberately starting them seems to be (seems to be a new thing)

No?

[https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/media-
centrenews/arso...](https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/media-
centrenews/arson-offences-in-victoria)
[https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/crime-
statisticshisto...](https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/crime-
statisticshistorical-crime-datayear-ending-30-september-2016/spotlight-arson-
offences)
[https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/e...](https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/embridge_cache/emshare/system:original/public/2016/12/b7/8cf3034ea/Graph%201.jpg)

Arson is certainly a thing that happens but isn't suddenly drastically
increasing for no reason.

What _is_ increasing is the rate at which those acts become extensive
bushfires. Which is caused by drought drying out the land (increasing fuel).
Which is linked to ... yep, climate change.

~~~
mcantelon
Are those stats on people deliberately setting forest fires, something much
more serious than garden variety arson?

>What is increasing is the rate at which those acts become extensive bushfires

According to MSM 24 were charged with "deliberately lighting bushfires", not
committing garden variety arson that metastasized into bushfires.

Forest fires have always been easy to start, if one wanted to, but people
intentionally attempting to do so seems unusual.

~~~
lurgburg
There is a breakdown of which incidents relate to bushfires yes.

~~~
mcantelon
Care to quote that rather than linking to a largish PDF?

~~~
lurgburg
[https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/e...](https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/embridge_cache/emshare/system:original/public/2016/12/b7/8cf3034ea/Graph%201.jpg)

~~~
mcantelon
Assuming "cause a brushfire" means intentional causing, rather than
unintentional causing during commission of another arson, that's certainly an
alarming trend. I live in a region of Canada that's had seasonal forest fires
for as long as I remember and I don't recall any of them being intentionally
set. Not good to see this emerge as a crime trend although I'm, in a way, not
surprised given I've wondered for awhile why terrorists haven't been using
forest fires as a tactic given the potentially low risk to mayhem ratio.

------
anotheryou
not that much different if you show it cumulative (where there have been fires
in recent weeks). Just not claiming to be a snapshot.

[https://i.imgur.com/VKOZ12Y.png](https://i.imgur.com/VKOZ12Y.png)

------
larnmar
Is anyone aware of any compelling evidence that these fires were meaningfully
worsened by climate change?

~~~
nl
What would you consider as compelling evidence?

Predictions made 10 years ago are now being met.

~~~
hyperdunc
Some predictions are being met. The ones that aren't are generally forgotten.

~~~
nl
Fire seasons are getting longer because of climate change.

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-17/drought-bushfire-
seas...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-17/drought-bushfire-seasons-
starting-earlier-lasting-longer/10132570) (note that this is _before_ the
current bushfires)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26172867](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26172867)

Droughts are getting worse because of climate change (and of course in
Australia droughts make bushfires worse because there is more dry scrub, and
hazard reduction burns are too dangerous to do).

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/06/water-
re...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/06/water-resources-
minister-totally-accepts-drought-linked-to-climate-change)

~~~
nl
Hey gd1, your comment is dead so I can't reply. But here is your BOM citation
(it also has your requested timeseries data):

Australia's driest year on record

Nationally-averaged rainfall 40% below average for the year at 277.6 mm

The national total rainfall for 2019 was 40% below the 1961–1990 average at
277.6 mm (the 1961–1990 average is 465.2 mm). This makes 2019 the driest year
in the 119 years since 1900.

[http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/#tabs=Rainf...](http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/#tabs=Rainfall)

------
sagichmal
This article is manipulative, bordering on malicious.

Its claim boils down to "Data visualization techniques can't be interpreted
literally" \-- which is obvious -- but is titled and written in such a way to
provide ammunition to climate change deniers that "the other side" is being
loose with facts, or something.

Absolute and insulting garbage. Whoever wrote this, edited it, approved it for
release, and whoever posted it here, should be ashamed.

~~~
yorwba
If "your side" is being loose with facts, then pointing that out isn't just
providing ammunition to "the other side". Arguments are not soldiers you need
to support unconditionally to secure victory for "your side" in the war of
public opinion. Pointing out when "your side" is wrong will hopefully help it
make better arguments in the future.

~~~
sagichmal
> If "your side" is being loose with facts,

But "my side" isn't being loose with facts. That's my point. Data
visualization techniques are always lossy, that's just how they work. The
article tries to paint this lossiness as deception, and that's wrong.

------
7952
I appreciate the clarity of the BBC maps. Having said that, the entire point
of a map is to artificially represent something that _cannot_ be perceived
naturally. All maps are a simplification of reality. And a graphically
misleading map can be better because it helps people understand the truth. It
is like a metaphor or analogy.

~~~
big_chungus
So it's okay to spread a graphic that exaggerates the data as long as it's
"helping to understand the truth"? Is not your perception of the magnitude of
the truth subjective? This is another way of saying that it's okay to mislead
as long as the issue is sufficiently important and/or people aren't taking it
seriously enough (in your judgement).

Metaphors and analogies are supposed to make a concept clearer, not to show
scale. A gif with each frame showing the data from each day would have a
similar impact but be clearer.

