You forgot something important, did you not? If you read in the very top, the data from before 1983 is inaccurate! You are trying to manipulate people and put your self in the center. Some mig classify that as “Fake news”pic.twitter.com/joKOtTd3lj
Please stop the misleading fire stories: The US is smouldering less, not more 2018 will likely see burnt area one-sixth of the US record https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967.168468.146605843967/10157044699208968/?type=3&theater …pic.twitter.com/BSVAQaejfS
-
-
-
Disingenuous to question provenance of data before 1983: from Forest Service Wildfire Stats. And early numbers likely *greater* because early fires only reported for 30% of current area. See excellent overlap with US carbon budget. All ref here: https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/posts/10157044718363968?comment_id=10157047854333968&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D …pic.twitter.com/pEKEJ4ZvWx
-
It remains the fact that the origin of the numbers is not known! You did not state that. Also, you did not say that you base the statistics on your assumptions and interpretations rather than facts and then you use the outcome for political purposes!
-
Pls read tweet and link. Data from Forest Service wildfire stats; here collected in Historical Statistics of the United States - Colonial Times to 1970, p537: http://bit.ly/2hGp7XF Showing these stats hardly political Not wanting them shown – more sopic.twitter.com/dgh1k7V0aK
-
When you have a climate change agenda to push, it's rather convenient that the numbers before 1983 aren't considered "accurate".
I guess the stats for floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., might be tossed as well? 
-
I don’t claim the number of wild fires and climate change are correlated, but apparently Lomborg does, since he published the inaccurate data! One could imagine that extremely high temperatures and prolonged drought increased the chances of wild fires.
-
He tells half the story. He’s not showing incidents but rather acres burned. That graph is a tribute to our wildfire response and prevention outreach, and he shows contempt for those who protect our lives and property.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I respect you and your work, but I think it is your tweet that may be misleading. Something appears to have caused a sharp decrease in wildfires since the New Deal (maybe more investment/improved forest management?) and since then upward trajectory seems pretty clear.
-
Thanks – and yes, I agree with you. And I wrote that in post, linked to the tweet I'm simply challenging the argument that the problem of fire is accelerating, unprecedented, extreme – it is not Not in US, EU or world https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1026466589191942145 …pic.twitter.com/hX37qqvNd8
-
I just heard a podcast today. Surprise surprise: FDR had a “put out all fires” policy that disrupted the naturally occurring wildfires. About the same time you see the sharp decline. The New Deal is the Energizer Bunny of unintended consequences.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I like how you ignore that this data pretty clearly appears to show an uptick in recent years (likely due to climate change) and that the massive drop is almost certainly from improved fire fighting techniques. Your dishonesty on this makes your think tank seem untrustworthy...
-
Perhaps read my linked post first? I did write it is also going up, I did write the reasons (more burnable mass) and that global warming likely will increase burning, but also returning to the massive, overwhelming point from the graph: that wildfire used to be much worsepic.twitter.com/YrWM9zqSpW
-
Then, at best, you appear to be trying to distract from the actual issue at hand. They were worse in the past due to lack of firefighting techniques. You're just seemingly pointlessly downplaying the uptick in wildfires because it was worse at some point in the past.
-
The 1918 flu killed 50-100 million people - that doesn't mean that other unusually bad flus that kill fewer than 50 million people should be something we aren't concerned about.
-
And before you say "Well I didn't say it's something we shouldn't be concerned about" -- that was very clearly the implication of your original tweet - to downplay the recently increased threat of wildfires and effect that climate change has had.
-
And if that wasn't your intention -- well then I think you definitely missed the mark on what you were aiming for. And unfortunately, you're giving fuel to people like Jordan Peterson who think that climate change is a hoax and that the economist is just being PC.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The article talks about the world. The statistic is just the US. Apples to oranges comparison.
-
How?
-
Because despite what people in this country seem to think, the US is not the world. We make up only a small percentage of the world. His graph showing US wildfires, while the article addresses world wildfires.
-
here is the data for worldhttps://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1026466589191942145 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.