Support Australia!

[ausanimal]

So why not cut out the middle man and just donate directly to the charity?

The real problem here is the people thinking they should get something in return for donating to a charity. At that point, you're no longer donating to help out a cause. You're making a purchase and using the charity as an excuse to try to make yourself feel better about it.

No one is saying that the only way to donate to a charity is if they bring out the mount plus no one knows how much SE would keep or if they would donate the whole amount, the problem is people have a closed mind when they are looking at things. Take donations here in Australia if you donate over a certain amount you can claim it on your tax return now by your thinking people are only donating so come tax time they have one more thing to claim not the fact that the ATO wants receipts for everything so if you donate $500 to a charity you need that receipt for when you claim so they know where your money was spent.

By your logic streamers that take part in rising money for St Jude are only doing it for the items that they may get if they reach high enough donations and the chance to go to St Jude the following year and look behind the scenes, where i see it as a one off the biggest community's coming together to rise money for a great cause and that's what happened. Streamers even put up incentives if they reach a goal or would do something for the right donation i.e bean boozled and it worked to rise the 8 mil for St Jude, So having something people can get be it a mount knowing that say all the money went to charity what is wrong with that more people might be inclined to buy the mount to donate to charity then if they were to just donate to the charity.

[Saefinn]

Whilst yes, as people say, you can just give them money. And the OP might well have done, I've not read them saying either way (admittedly, I've not read all of the posts)

But adding an extra incentive will encourage more people to give money. It's the principle Humble Bundle works by and it has been very successful in getting people who don't normally give charitably an incentive to give charitably.

It might be a sad sociological statement that people getting something out of donating is a bigger incentive than donating out of good will and there will be a lot of people who do give out of good will without expecting something in return. And not all justification is as bleak as "I only care if there's something in it for me", there's a lot of charitable causes in need of attention and people may well have their own rules or principles for giving or be giving to other causes already.

So I don't think it's a crazy idea.

[Zephera]

Just making another quick post to link the annual climate statement from our Bureau Of Meteorology if anyone wants to read up on how hot and dry it was on average straight from our national weather service: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/

Their temperature and rainfall averages comparison maps show that 2019 was the hottest and driest year for most parts of Australia.

[Melichoir]

Just making another quick post to link the annual climate statement from our Bureau Of Meteorology if anyone wants to read up on how hot and dry it was on average straight from our national weather service: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/

Their temperature and rainfall averages comparison maps show that 2019 was the hottest and driest year for most parts of Australia.

2018 rainfall appears to been about average based on the graph data provided on the BOM website (at a glance admittedly). 2019 has been substantially lower, but this offset is a problem because it is an outlier in comparison to all the other data. If it's strictly a global warming issue, you should see there being an overall trend in lack of rainfall, much like you do see a trend in average temperature rises. In fact that graph for annual rainfall seems to suggest a gradual increase in rainfall. This is also a bit weird considering northern parts of Queensland had above average rainfall earlier in the year, and these are areas that are on fire currently. Also, typically the areas which are currently on fire are also areas that on average see the most rainfall, with far less rainfall hitting the interior. So with an average increase in rainfall over time nationally, a year with a severe offset in rainfall compared to past years, and zones that are suffering a lot of fire damage are areas with typically higher rainfall activity compared to the interior, Im not keen to chalk this up to it simply being a matter of only being global warming. At least not in the sense of "Everything is hotter and drier than before" as, again, Northern Queensland received above average rainfall earlier in the year and its also a fire zone currently. Ill concede that 2019 was extra dry overall, but I dont think thats painting an accurate picture unless Im missing something from the data provided.

If you also check out there decadal and multi decadal map regarding rainfall, it tends to show that theres more rainfall overtime, or rather rain is hitting more of the country than before when you look at it over a 100 year period. Im not saying there is no global warming, just again, that Im not keen on saying it's only global warming that the current situation is happening and nothing else is worth considering.

[Zephera]

2018 rainfall appears to been about average based on the graph data provided on the BOM website (at a glance admittedly). 2019 has been substantially lower, but this offset is a problem because it is an outlier in comparison to all the other data. If it's strictly a global warming issue, you should see there being an overall trend in lack of rainfall, much like you do see a trend in average temperature rises. In fact that graph for annual rainfall seems to suggest a gradual increase in rainfall. This is also a bit weird considering northern parts of Queensland had above average rainfall earlier in the year, and these are areas that are on fire currently. Also, typically the areas which are currently on fire are also areas that on average see the most rainfall, with far less rainfall hitting the interior. So with an average increase in rainfall over time nationally, a year with a severe offset in rainfall compared to past years, and zones that are suffering a lot of fire damage are areas with typically higher rainfall activity, Im not keen to chalk this up to it simply being a matter of only being global warming. At least not in the sense of "Everything is hotter and drier than before" as, again, Northern Queensland received above average rainfall and its also a fire zone currently. Ill concede that 2019 was extra dry overall, but I dont think thats painting an accurate picture unless Im missing something from the data provided.

If you also check out there decadal and multi decadal map regarding rainfall, it tends to show that theres more rainfall overtime, or rather rain is hitting more of the country than before when you look at it over a 100 year period. Im not saying there is no global warming, just again, that Im not keen on saying it's only global warming that the current situation is happening and nothing else is worth considering.

North Queensland, as well as most of the northern parts of Australia sits above the tropic of Capricorn so they don't get normal seasons, they get a wet season and a dry season with the wet corresponding with the rest of Australia's Summer and the dry corresponding with the rest of Australia's Winter. It's the part of the country that gets hit by cyclones and monsoons so that explains the bigger amount of rainfall there.

The nastiest bushfires currently burning typically fall within the regions on the map that had very much above average temperatures and very much below average rainfall. Good examples are the ones in NSW, Victoria, SA and southern Queensland.

I'm not accusing you of saying global warming isn't an issue though, just wanted to point out that the worst effected areas had a really rough time in 2019 regarding temperature and dryness.

[Nedkel]

They cant adjust hairstyles to fit on viera 7 moths after release and you expecting them to create a new mount in less than a week? Are you crazy!? xD
You should have predicted the fire catastrophe 3 years back in 2017 and then tell them, they need 2 years of development and 1 year of reading the feedback.

[BroFists]

Can't they just borrow a laptop and open their house

[Iscah]

On the discussion regarding arson as the cause of fires (or not), ABC posted an article going into that in more depth.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-...cause/11855022

Particularly relevant to previous discussion:

This week, a NSW Police media release revealed 24 people had been charged over deliberately-lit bushfires this season.

However, the majority of suspected arson relates to small grass fires and rubbish bins set alight, which have inflicted negligible damage and burnt a tiny area compared with fires sparked by lightning.

It seems a bit odd how they're using "deliberately-lit bushfires" then saying the majority of them are grass fires, but maybe there's something in the exactly legal terminology or something.

Anyway, the core point is:

Only about 1 per cent of the land burnt in NSW this bushfire season can be officially attributed to arson

...and even then, the cause is still a separate issue to what drives the fire once lit.

Also, hazard reduction burns are not a straightforward answer - and our changing climate conditions are making it harder to find the right weather to conduct them.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-...ainer/11853366

---

EDIT: a few extra links without waking up the thread again.

The Bureau of Meteorology's review of 2019's weather - floods, snow where we don't usually get it, and the driest year on record for an alarmingly large section of the national map:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...remes/11852500

And another fact checker on the arson claims, which goes into more detail about what term legally means and where the numbers are coming from. (The Coalition/Liberals/Nationals are, despite the name, our conservative government.)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...risis/11865724

This also gives a solid explanation for the origins of the "almost 200" claimed statistic.

According to a January 6 statement released by NSW Police, since November 2019, legal action ranging from cautions through to criminal charges had been taken against 183 people in relation to bushfires.

However, it is wrong to suggest, as some people have done, that this figure relates solely to bushfire arson.

The vast bulk of this action related to other offences such as failing to comply with fire bans and the discarding of lit cigarettes and matches.

Of the 183 people who face legal action in NSW, only 24 (representing 13 per cent of the total) were charged with deliberately lighting bushfires.

A further 53 people (29 per cent of the total) faced charges or a caution for failing to comply with a total fire ban; 47 (26 per cent) faced charges or were cautioned for throwing away a lit cigarette or match on land.

It also makes the interesting point that fires started by lightning may occur in remote and inaccessible places which makes fighting them more difficult, while deliberately-lit fires will be closer to civilisation.