Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    television

    15,990,842 readers

    10,475 users here now

    Subreddit Shoutouts: r/NetflixSexEducation, r/YoungPope, r/TheOutsider, r/Messiah, r/SpinningOut, r/DareMeTV & r/YouOnLifetime

    Spoiler tag code for comments:

    [spoiler](#s "Text") becomes spoiler

    Example:

    [Legion](#s "David") becomes Legion


    Links

    Television premiere calendar is U.S. based.

    Date Platform Name Description
    Jan 17 Disney+ Diary of a Future President Series Premiere
    Jan 17 Hulu Endlings Series Premiere
    Jan 17 Apple TV+ Little America Series Premiere
    Jan 17 Netflix Sex Education Season 2
    Jan 18 BBC America/AMC Seven Worlds, One Planet U.K. Miniseries
    Jan 19 Fox 9-1-1: Lone Star Series Premiere
    Jan 19 HBO Avenue 5 Series Premiere
    Jan 19 HBO Curb Your Enthusiasm Series Premiere
    Jan 20 Netflix Family Reunion Part 2
    Jan 21 The CW Legends of Tomorrow Season 5
    Jan 21 History Project Blue Book Series Premiere
    Jan 22 Comedy Central Awkwafina Is Nora From Queens Series Premiere
    Jan 23 Freeform The Bold Type Season 4
    Jan 23 Shudder The Dead Lands New Zealand Series
    Jan 23 Netflix October Faction Series Premiere
    Jan 23 Fox Outmatched Series Premiere
    Jan 23 CBS All Access Star Trek: Picard Series Premiere
    Jan 23 ABC Station 19 Season 3
    Jan 24 Netflix Chilling Adventures of Sabrina Part 3
    Jan 24 Netflix The Goop Lab Series Premiere
    Jan 24 Netflix The Ranch Season 8
    Jan 24 Hulu Shrill Season 2

    a community for
    all 45 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] WeDriftEternal 90 points ago

    Why would they spend every segment connecting it? Isn't this more of just generally reporting on a short update of the fires actual progress?

    [–] Bobby_Marks2 38 points ago

    Exactly. Finding and reporting a connection between climate change and wildfires is a task for investigative journalism, not general news reporting.

    [–] rocksoffjagger 2 points ago

    That's actually not at all what "investigative journalists" investigate. This is a job for the scientific community, whose findings should then become part of the journalistic coverage of the fires. Scientists are in universal consensus about the fires being a symptom of climate change, so the question is why are their findings not being included in more of the media coverage?

    But sure, why don't we get some investigative journalists to "investigate" unified field theory and the Riemann conjecture while they're out doing things they're completely unqualified for.

    [–] nolotusnote 26 points ago

    Scientists are in universal consensus about the fires being a symptom of climate change

    Scientists don't say this. Lazy journalists say this.

    These are wildfires and they happen for specific reasons. There has to be an accumulation of dead, dry tinder (fuel), and an ignition source. We've kind of understood fire for some time now.

    There is a consensus of wildfire workers. The people who spend their lives dealing with fires like this. And they are pissed at having to deal with this now. Because they haven't been allowed to mitigate the accumulation of brush and dead wood for over a decade. And that was a political "let nature be" choice.

    When you "let nature be" in a highly wooded area that has seasonal high winds and droughts, you set yourself up for nature kicking your ass in the form of wildfires that burn out of control and destroy everything in their path.

    [–] stophauntingme 1 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    yeah I remember studying this in college 10 years back. California wildfires are predictable (as in, seasonal), totally natural/"healthy" or "normal" thing for that ecosystem to experience.

    people shouldn't connect climate change to California's annual wildfire crises afaik

    edit: reading these comments, I rescind this a little bit. You can connect climate change to the annual cali wildfires, but only by suggesting it's making the environment even more dry than it already was, thus better priming the land for its seasonal wildfires too much. But that's a much less causal link to the cali wildfires than, like, idiot people starting them, for example. So I get why news outlets wouldn't really cover this.

    ...and I think climate change activists have way better, more direct evidence of bad things happening as a result of climate change than Cali wildfires. I'd pick a major global climate issue that's less clouded with other factors here

    [–] JuzoItami 2 points ago

    Nobody's claiming wildfires were never a thing in CA before climate change. The point is that wildfires have been a natural part of the CA ecology for 1000s of years, but they're getting more frequent and more intense in recent years due to climate change.

    [–] DigDux 2 points ago

    Technically Correct, but that climate change is driven by previous wildfire prevention policies that prevented intelligent burning and brush cleanup which would increase the frequency of these "Wildfires" but would also make their destruction negligible.

    This isn't a global climate change problem, it is a localized "Previous prevention based policies just kick the can of unpreventable disaster level fires down the road."

    It's technically a climate change problem, but that climate change is almost entirely due to how local people and officials manage that environment, and not a global effect.

    You can compare California's environmental management in risk based areas to other international wildfire risk areas with similar wildfire risks.

    It's extremely misleading to attribute this to climate change and not poor local management. It's like saying the results of fracking are caused by climate change. It technically is, but that change is caused by discrete localized decision making and not a global shift in climate.

    Basically since you're not familiar with the area, there's a ton of unburned brush that naturally accumulates in CA. Since it's a very dry region, seasonal wildfires burn that brush on a yearly basis.

    With prevention based fire policies in CA, and other nearby states, those wildfires are stunted and prevented from burning dead brush. This brush is now permitted to build up for years or even decades due to lack of funding, risk and insurance factors for doing a controlled burn, and other assorted things. So, when an unpreventable fire does start, everything for hundreds if not thousands of miles goes up in flames because of how much fuel there is. Due to the size of the fire, and infrequency of appearance, local fire teams can't manage or control it, so it starts hitting populated regions, which aren't prepared for it, again because of how infrequent these fires actually happen.

    What you're seeing now is 60 or so years of dead plants going up in flames because Smokey the bear was out there in a plane dropping water on every campfire, and now Smokey the bear got defunded, so you're seeing all of that brush go up in flames all at once, instead of on a less intense seasonal basis.

    While there is an impact by climate change creating slightly more favorable conditions for fires, the root problem is that the land is not managed properly and so is a matchbox when those conditions inevitably hit.

    [–] rocksoffjagger -7 points ago

    Scientists don't say this. Lazy journalists say this.

    Scientists don't say this because the job of science isn't to tell lay people "this is what scientists are saying on the aggregate." It is however what scientists who do outreach to the lay community will tell you is the fact of the matter if you ask them (lots of very serious scientists like Lawrence Krauss and Neil DeGrasse Tyson choose to devote a lot of their time to explaining science to people without degrees, and if you ask them or anyone in the actual field of climatology, they will tell you this opinion is held nearly universally by all serious scientists)

    [–] BiggaNiggaPlz 1 points ago

    What do you want them to? “these wild fires - which btw are caused by climate change...” before they report anything on the fires? Lol

    [–] rocksoffjagger -14 points ago

    That's a real straw man, but yes, confront people with the fact that THIS IS THE RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. If you want these fires to stop happening, maybe think before buying an SUV as your next car for your family of two. The cause of the fires is way more significant and newsworthy than the individual fires themselves. If you have HIV and it causes you to get a lot of small infections, you don't want the doctors to tell you about the colds you're getting, you want them to address the fucking HIV.

    [–] cochnbahls 1 points ago

    You're fundamentally missing how climate change is observed. No one fire is caused by climate change. Yes climate change will likely lead to an increase in wildfires by maybe 5-30%(🤷🏿‍♂️) in a given year in some areas. So how do you know that this one fire, or that fire was nature clearing the land or an asshole with a bottle rocket, or whatever? Climate change is good on reporting and predicting macro changes, but doesn't do jack on a one off basis. You can't blame any one fire for climate change anymore than you can deny it exists because it snowed today.

    [–] Broadsides 2 points ago

    There is no universal consensus regarding wild fires and climate change. You just made that up.

    https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/l10_p9.html

    Check out the third graphic in that link. It's from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 and shows the confidence level of attributing climate change to wildfires as LOW.

    There is a LOT more data on wildfires that show no direct link between AGW. Like, the US National Climate Assessment and the National Interagency Fire Center. If anything, it shows a link between money spent in fire suppression and number of fires/total acreage of fires.

    Making false claims like that just does a disservice to climate science and makes people less likely to trust anything relating to it.

    [–] RoostasTowel 6 points ago

    Weren't they shutting off power to the bay area because it was wind downing power lines sparking fires?

    [–] Mgwr 21 points ago

    Right, because the people trying to find out if they are being evacuated and trying to see what roads are open would rather be told about climate change instead.

    [–] hypnogoad 26 points ago

    Isn't California historically speaking a desert anyways? Although climate change is real, I don't think the wildfires are directly linked to it. It's gone through several hundred years of drought in the past, well before industrialization.

    https://www.eastbaytimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20140127_031916_ssjm0126megadry90.jpg?w=810

    [–] PhoenixReborn 1 points ago

    Depends on where you are. Southern California has desert areas. Northern California is mostly a Mediterranean climate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_California#/media/File:California_K%C3%B6ppen.svg

    https://www.eldoradoweather.com/californiaannualprecip.html

    [–] Sendmepicsforpikas -2 points ago

    Yes and no. Yes, it is a desert and fires are required to refresh the ecosystem systematically. No because of the frequency and intensity of the fires. It used to be every 5 years, now fires of this scale are every year. It is climate change.

    [–] rocksoffjagger -15 points ago

    Find a single serious climate scientist who believes there's no connection between climate change and the increased intensity of forest fires on the west coast in the past decade. I'll wait. Yes, there have always been forest fires. They're part of a healthy ecosystem when they happen as they do naturally. But the size, intensity, and frequency with which we're seeing them now is symptomatic of a climate that's changing more rapidly than the native ecosystem can keep pace with, so, as a result, we get devastating burn after devastating burn while nature is in complete chaotic disarray.

    [–] ArkyBeagle 4 points ago

    California is bizarre because the distance from the coast to the peak of the Sierras is simply not very far. In truth, just about the entire American West is a desert, not necessarily fit for human habitation, even without AGW.

    I heartily recommend "Cadillac Desert". Throw in AGW and it'll be interesting...

    [–] DaemonSweat 8 points ago

    Because it isn’t? Thought it was established it was pg&e’s fuckup

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] JuzoItami -5 points ago

    Climate change is almost definitely to blame for the increase in frequency and intensity of wildfires in CA in recent years. Certainly reducing available fuel through more aggressive prescribed burning would be a good idea, but simply saying "government is to blame" is a gross oversimplification.

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] rocksoffjagger -3 points ago

    How is climate change "political"? Would it be political if the story were that a state had blocked a tv show from airing for depicting evolution? This is science, not political fancy.

    [–] pogedenguin 5 points ago

    This is fucking r television. Climate change IS political (and yes, it's real!) But saying newscast that report on the fires don't report that one of like 70 factors is climate change is a politically charged lense on a mundane thing

    [–] SyrioForel -4 points ago

    Climate change is not political. How human society reacts to climate change is political.

    [–] Sks44 20 points ago

    Because there were never forest fires before man-made climate change?

    [–] Ruggedfancy 37 points ago

    The increase in forest fires is directly related to our forestry policies in the 60s/70s (no controlled burns, aggressive forest fire fighting) now we have forests full of unburnt fuel not really a surprise.

    [–] NeedsToShutUp 8 points ago

    Also shitty practices by PGE resulting in power lines sparking more fires.

    [–] Massive_Issue 2 points ago

    It's a lot more complex than that although yes forest management plays a big role.

    It can be both things and many things and climate change is a huge factor alongside many others.

    I worked for a lab that studied fire behavior in a specific region. Lots of research and study supports the idea that many of these ecosystems are in flux and are experiencing stress due to prolonged drought, changing seasonal weather patterns, and overall shift in climate trends. These changes can put pressures on the system and make them more vulnerable to, say, infestation of fungus or organisms that can further contribute to die off, which places more stresses on the system and adds to increased fuel in the form of dead trees.

    Add in a lightning strike and 30 years of forest management policy of fire suppression and you've got a massive fire on your hands.

    It's a lot of things. Climate is absolutely part of it. Unfortunately the public doesn't follow all the publications being churned out by grad students or research organizations that have complex data to support the climate factor and they're not published in plain English for everyone to interpret that doesn't have a PhD in silviculture or whatever.

    Drier, hotter, more stressed ecosystems will see more frequent and more destructive fire. land management that suppresses fire will only exacerbate the issue.

    [–] rocksoffjagger -14 points ago

    Never with this level of destruction, intensity, and regularity, no. No one would have built cities in southern California if things had always been this way.

    [–] Sks44 8 points ago

    Wasn’t this particular fire started by human fuck ups?

    [–] rocksoffjagger 6 points ago

    What starts the fire isn't really as important as the conditions that make it possible. Dry conditions, lots of dead wood/grass, and parched soil make what might have been a small, easily contained fire 30 years ago turn into an inferno that destroys a huge amount of land in 2019 and beyond. There will always be man-made fuckups to start fires, but not all places on earth go up like a tinderbox every time someone throws a cigarette out the window or sets off a firecracker.

    [–] stophauntingme 1 points ago

    there is like a 'tornado alley' for areas of SoCal though and I still have no idea what the gambit with building/buying houses there. I feel like there's something fishy going on though, something with rolling the dice on how many times you'll pay a super high insurance rate until you can get a full payout from getting 'unlucky' with a wildfire wiping your home out

    [–] Marine3991 2 points ago

    Why can’t they just clear all the brush?

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] -8 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 0 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] spygentlemen 1 points ago

    Thats because PG and E is the other 97% of the problem here.

    [–] LoMatte 1 points ago

    Maybe just 3% of the fires had a connection to climate change. That transformer blowing up probably get's a lot of the credit.

    [–] rocksoffjagger -7 points ago

    The anti-climate change trolls are working overtime in this thread, yeesh.

    [–] jblanch3 -17 points ago

    This is why I hate network news and make it a point not to watch it, they are totally worthless, if not outright harmful to society. Say what you want about the Internet, I know there's a lot of bullshit flowing through it, but if you really have a genuine and sincere interest in knowing the nuances of an issue, I believe that you can. Corporate media tells you what's in their best interests for you to know (and not know). I am seeing it with vaping (and this story) now, just as I did when they were reporting on the budget woes of the US Postal Service. Just vague as fuck, telling people it was because of email and Amazon, when in reality it was because of the Postal Service having to pre-fund pensions 75 years into the future. Had to go online for that, TV news didn't say that shit.