Deer in the Headlights

[LP]

I've lived in both city and country since leaving the Navy in 1976 and although there are some definite cultural differences, the divide is not as great as some might believe.

I think the primary issue is that the impression is crafted by the loudest voices which are generally at the extremes of the debate.

In my job I get exposed to a lot of scientists, some of them actual climate and environment scientists and not just opinionated biologists or physicists. The scientists almost never use words like "will" or "is", and always use terms like "could" or "might". It's that "Imposter Syndrome" kicking in, the more you know the less definitive and confident you become.

It's the idiots, morons and extremists who declare things in the definitive, the Dunning-Kruger effect in full swing!

Back on the Hazard Management / Fuel Reduction debate, the rules are the same for all fires, The Fire Triangle applies no matter if it's a wildfire in the bush or the family barbecue.
[img width=200]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Fire_triangle.svg/1200px-Fire_triangle.svg.png[/img]

Finally if fuel reduction isn't effective, why are they back-burning in the Corryong yesterday and again later this week?

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victo...53pwa.html

The reported and published words don't mean much when the actions don't match.

Finally, why do some(people or business) want the fires to be declared an act of arson? It can be for as simple of a reason as the fine print in the insurance policy that they signed!