s*** is absolutely unreal the leader of the country was warned months in advance about the danger but decided to cut funding to fire emergency services. As a result over 19 people are dead with dozens missing, 500 million animals have been killed and habitats have been completely wiped out, and it's only the beginning of summer

edition.cnn.com/2020/01/01/australia/australia-fires-explainer-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

Strategic post for sliding purposes

Damn man slaughter

I went to find a thread about this after seeing yours and realized there wasn't one

Maybe the fire killed off all them dangerous ass animals

Are the fires natural or man made? Somehow, ecologists can tell.

science heavily suggests that carbon emissions increasing the temperature have made conditions drier than ever, allowing fires to start and spread more rapidly

I didn't ask what "science" suggested. I'm talking about this specific incident. Also, I hope this isn't the same "science" that resulted in the reporting change of average temperature of Earth going up from 14 to 15ºC, just to satisfy the global warming narrative.

Yeah bruv the same science that 97% of climate papers agree on which is as certain as gravity at this point. you smoking on some good crack or you just wanna desperately have the unpopular opinion to feel the edge of some counter culture bruv?

f*** Scomo b

They slipped up by letting him make it out of there without a fade at the minimum

Yea, and a lot of koala bears

it's predicted that about half a billion of our animal and plant life are dead because of the bushfires

Shouldnt it be winter in auatralia? Its january

naw brah just getting into summer

97% of climate papers agree on what? Do you even know what your suggesting here with that faux pas?

Any consensus on climate change is no where near 97%
archive.is/civv5

Predicted by who? I have to ask based on your attraction to character assassination in this thread alone. I need evidence before I can take anything you say seriously.

straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/half-a-billion-animals-potentially-killed-in-australia-wildfires < you can read about the study here

btw you've used state sponsored propaganda as a source to push your opinion, anything you say I'm just gonna assume is in bad faith

world going to s*** infront of us

500 million lives lost, f***

I don't need to worry about. What I post is "wrong" in your eyes, and that makes it bad faith already in your opinion. To go to the source that your link references:

sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/01/03/a-statement-about-the-480-million-animals-killed-in-nsw-bushfire.html
Professor Chris D***man estimates that 480 million animals have been affected since bushfires in NSW started in September 2019. This statement explains how that figure was calculated.
Better to use this than an article which doesn't even link the statement.

This figure is based on a 2007 report for the World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF) on the impacts of land clearing on Australian wildlife in New South Wales (NSW).
The same WWF linked to the NGO implicated in the Amazon rainforest fire? 🤔 Although, that doesn't imply anything outside of the findings mentioned in the statement.

To calculate the impacts of land clearing on the State’s wildlife, the authors obtained estimates of mammal population density in NSW and then multiplied the density estimates by the areas of vegetation approved to be cleared.
If I understand this correctly, a 2007 report is being used to estimate the damage of a wildfire that started in 2019? If true, are they accidentally implying that the wildlife hasn't changed much in 12 years, even when considering land clearing?

Even if a 2007 report isn't being used to determine 2019 figures for NSW wildlife, they're using a basic mathematical model for the statistics. Can animal behaviour be explained in such simple terms? This hints a little at being intellectually dishonest.

The authors deliberately employed highly conservative estimates in making their calculations. The true mortality is likely to be substantially higher than those estimated.
This means nothing. It's an estimate, and therefore can only be treated as hypothetical. Whether it's more or less cannot be ascertained at this time. Important to note, because they don't clarify what "highly conservative" means despite claiming to explain how their figure was calculated. Sounds like an attempt to emotionally manipulate the reader.

Using that formula, co-author of the original report Professor Chris D***man estimates that 480 million animals have been affected since the bushfires in NSW started in September 2019. This figure only relates to the state of NSW. Many of the affected animals are likely to have been killed directly by the fires, with others succumbing later due to the depletion of food and shelter resources and predation from introduced feral cats and red foxes.
This is possible. Not sure about that figure though, sounds a little too dubious to be accurate.

The figure includes mammals, birds and reptiles and does not include insects, bats or frogs. The true loss of animal life is likely to be much higher than 480 million. NSW’s wildlife is seriously threatened and under increasing pressure from a range of threats, including land clearing, exotic pests and climate change.
This is what I was expecting. In the midst of a large fire, got to throw in the bone about climate change, like that has anything to do with the "study" on the 480 million animals affected.

Professor Chris D***man has over 30 year’s experience working on the ecology, conservation and management of Australian mammals.
He could've been doing this for 300 years. An estimate is just that: an estimate.

I never denied it being estimated I literally said its "predicted"