I don't know about you but I would think that the Ukrainian aircraft near Tehran - 180 casualties - was taken down as a part of the revenge against the U.S. and "its allies". [...]Well, it took a day before before the U.S. and Canadian intelligence services (and any sources in the West) joined me.
For another day, Iran denied that the Boeing was downed by any missiles. Finally, on Saturday morning, Iran admitted that the Iranians shot down the airplane, indeed. It was a mistake, we hear. Well, maybe, we don't know and we will probably never know for sure (because any such intentional downing may be claimed to be a mistake and vice versa, any mistaken downing may be claimed as an achievement by a warrior) but it's almost certainly a "mistake" related to the ongoing U.S.-Iranian tension. It's just extremely unlikely that the same country of Iran would see such two major events at almost the same time if they were unrelated to each other.
I hope that this tragedy will help to calm down the situation. 147 Iranians died along with 12 Afghani, 11 Ukrainians, and 6 Westerners. However, many Iranians had some dual citizenship, too. Some ancestry matters to most of us, however, so most of the fatalities were Persian in this sense.
There are events that ironically lead some people to a much deeper denial than the Iranian denial about the cause of 176 fatalities. Such as the Australian fires. If you haven't noticed yet, there exists a full-blown Gretinist cult that demands everyone to say that the huge bushfires in Australia were only and entirely caused by "climate change".
If you want to see one of those cultists in the nearly pure form, you should look at the Gizmodo article soberly titled
meltdown of the Gizmodo managing editor. It is very clear that the likes of this editor really want to treat anyone's skepticism about the greatness and omnipotence of "climate change" as blasphemy.
Gizmodo is a relatively small outlet so a psychopath working as an editor may be considered a cherry-picked anomaly. But you may continue with much more influential sources that have displayed just a somewhat diluted version of this fanaticism. Four days ago, the Guardian posted a text under this headline:
Online posts exaggerating the role of arson are being used to undermine the link between bushfires and climate changeRight, anything that would reduce the greatness and omnipotence of "climate change" must be immediately and mindlessly treated as a blasphemy, regardless of any facts and before any analysis of the problem is actually made!
Interestingly enough, the Guardian's leftist comrades at the CNN just released a story where they say that "arson and climate change are to blame". How does it happen that the Guardian writers seem totally obsessed with completely denying almost all actual sources of fires while their CNN comrades don't really have such a problem?
Meanwhile, in the real world, the ongoing gradual, possibly (partially, more or less) CO2-related, climate change plays basically zero role in determining the frequencies and areas of similar wildfires. To see how it works, it's better to take the statistics from a greater territory so that the fires aren't quite coincidences. Let's take the wildfires in the United States of America:
I took it from Anthony Watts' website where Chris Martz visualized the data from NIFC in October 2019. You see that the burned acres in the U.S. were somewhat visibly higher since 2000 than between 1955 and 2000 or so. However, none of those periods may compare with the period 1926-1953 or so.
The main message of the graph is clear: you may dream about changing the acreage by affecting "global climate change" but the acreage will only change by a few percent or dozens of percent. Meanwhile, other things such as the Dust Bowl (in the 1930s) or a new policy to fight against man-lit fires may cause changes that are vastly larger than the changes caused by the "gradual" climate change.
Another graph from the same period wants to show a more dramatic lesson, a clear decrease of fires:
In this case, Chris Martz visualized the number of "total U.S. wildland fires" per year. That number has peaked above 200 thousands a dozen of times or so. But you see the huge drop after 1983, don't you? Be careful, however: the source, NIFC, warns that the drop in 1983 is almost certainly due to a change (hopefully improvement) in the methodology of counting the fires. If you divide the graph to pre-1983 and post-1983, I think that you will agree that there is no reliably detectable trend in either period.
There may be an underlying trend that gradually changes – probably increases because it's "warming" – the number of fires per year in recent decades. But the total area was much more affected by worse fire policies in the distant past and by the Dust Bowl than by the gradual climate change. To suggest that the "climate change" may be considered "the cause" of the wildfires is a sign of the speaker's hopeless insanity. Every individual fire has some reason, often simply arson, and when it spreads or stops, it does so depending on many factors (temperature, humidity, wind, availability of bushes that haven't burned yet and that are waiting to do so, and the competence of firemen, among others).
To forget about this whole complexity and to "blame fires on climate change" means to become a brain-dead cultist who understand nothing that matters correctly. Nevertheless, such brain-dead people are all around us and they have hijacked a huge portion of what used to be called the "mainstream media". These brain-dead people come in many flavors. In this case, the CNN folks were just "partially brain-dead" while their colleagues at the Guardian were much more thoroughly brain-dead.
If and when a teenager plays with lighters in the forest and you take the lighter from him, you will reduce the expected burned acreage by much more – by orders of magnitude more – than if you prevent the teenager from taking an intercontinental flight. This is surely a correct comparison and I think that people with common sense know that it's the case – that the lighter is a more effective "creator of fires" than the increase of CO2 caused by one passenger's share in a single flight – but certain people are working hard to rob millions of people of their common sense and these efforts are rather successful. Millions of people have completely lost their common sense. Well, they've been robbed of it.
For some time, there haven't been really big fires, so this increases the probability that the bushfires may extend to larger areas. To a certain extent, the quasi-periodicity in the burned acreage is statistically guaranteed, much like the nearly constant frequency if it is measured in the long run. But arsonists matter a great deal and they always did. We just want to know whether the most important arsonists are just naughty children, Islamic jihadists, or climate fearmongers fabricating their own "natural" disasters in order to increase the apparent greatness of their climate change gods. Or something else. And what is the effect of various debatable policies that ban the fires. Some of these fire policies may have... backfired.
Incidentally, in Czechia, there were many interesting stories. One shocking news was that Ms Helena Válková wanted to be the public ombudsman for the country. But a few decades ago, she was one of just two co-authors of papers written along with Mr Josef Urválek, the most famous justice murderer in the Czechoslovak history. He has created the verdict "hang her" against the only Czechoslovak woman who was ever executed by the Czechoslovak communists for political reasons (despite emotional letters written by Einstein, Churchill, and many others), Dr Milada Horáková, and justice-murdered dozens of men.
Aside from some particular research papers with Urválek, she has also generally worked on the "re-integration" of dissidents into the socialist society, i.e. on various communist schemes to abuse the law enforcement and psychiatric institutions to eliminate the dissidents' influence, dignity, and their satisfied lives in general.
Urválková – whose name only differs from Urválek's female relatives by the extra prefix Ur-, to make the relationship juicier – claims that she didn't know who Mr Urválek was. Wow. She claims to have been a brilliant lawyer but she didn't know the name of the most famous justice murderer in our history, even when she become one of his 2 main research collaborators? It's just amazing. Even if it were true and she hadn't known who Urválek was, it would have been enough to show her incompetency for the ombudsman job. Someone who protects the human rights of the Czech citizens simply has to know the name of the judge in the most famous justice murder ever.
She also became a member of the communist party (a fact she quoted as the reason why she stopped the efforts to become the ombudswoman, thank God). Her explanation of the party membership was that "she wanted to stay at the Faculty of Law because she was a brilliant student". Wow, quite an explanation. Another, more general problem with assertions like that is that the underlying judgement is a lie. She was only a brilliant student according to the nasty, intellectually incapable, and uncivilized commies for whom a spineless individual like her looked convenient. Otherwise she obviously sucked. How can a "brilliant" law student be unaware of the identity of Josef Urválek? It just makes no sense.
We are seeing that similar lies are getting relevant today, too. Researchers-activists in various fields who basically "completely suck" are being lied to by various random folks and told that they are wonderful – and that's important why they become political appointees or "media savvy scientists" and similar junk. Even though all this praise arises only because it is convenient for the "praisers", almost always filthy scientifically worthless people with a highly problematic agenda by themselves, some of these "praised" mediocre scumbags start to believe all the compliments. Greta Thunberg is a canonical example but we have many examples of "fake physicists" who have probably started to believe that they're good physicists although they are obviously trash, too.
Incidentally, some fellow Czech anti-globalists are willing to support Válková because she's been criticized by the Prague Café. I am unequivocally on the Prague Café side in this case. I think that this spineless careerism of Ms Válková is rather typical for the Prague Café, however. It's just because of her ambitions that she got close to PM Babiš in recent years. She seemed equally close to the TOP 09 folks before that. I just despise individuals like that.