Biased Perception of Macroecological Findings Triggered by the IPCC—The Example of Wildfires

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

IPCC reports from 2018-2023 are analyzed to addresses the issue of public perception bias regarding wildfire trends. It’s both important and relevant. The following remarks should be taken into consideration preparing updated version of the paper:

1.      The data units in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 should be given in X and Y axis.

2.      The negative and repetition biases mentioned require more evidence to support these conclusions. Suggest conducting additional statistical tests to quantify these biases and discuss potential sources.

3.      For the text mining and word frequency analysis methods, more technical details should be provided to allow other researchers to replicate your analysis.

4.      How to improve communication of wildfire risks to the public to reduce cognitive biases can be discussed further.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

Thank you for your study, which is devoted to the actual problem-Biased Perception of Macroecological Findings Triggered by the IPCC. As the Example, Wildfires were chosen. Nowadays, information from the media plays a really big role in the perception of events. It is no secret that the media often distorts the information they provide. But this should definitely not be in scientific reports and official forecasts like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are the primary sources for the media and citizens trying to soberly assess events in the world. Unfortunately, this work revealed the presence of excessive drama and catastrophization of natural events using the example of wildfires described by the IPCC. I hope this work will be published after some revisions and will find a response among people preparing reports like the IPCC.

1.There is some bias in the size of the sections. The introduction to the problem is very brief, while the discussion is, in my opinion, very extensive and includes a lot of material that could be moved to the introduction.

2.The materials and methods are also very brief and do not allow one to fully understand how this study was conducted. For example, there is no description of how the calculations were carried out and in what programs; on page 68 it would be good to indicate which keywords were used for the search.

3.The results look like disjointed descriptions of tables and illustrations with no attempt to link them into a whole text. The illustrations need improvement: each part of a complex figure needs to be labeled with letters and described in more detail in the figure caption. Indicate in the graphs what is on the axes X and Y, and accompany the trends with the corresponding reliability coefficients.

4. The discussion seems overly extensive and makes few references and relies on the results obtained. As I have already written, it seems to me that part of the text can be moved to the introduction, something can be removed and more discussion of the results of the meta-analysis can be introduced.

5.The conclusions also look very vague and do not fully correspond to the purpose of the work. It seems to me that they should be made more specific, following from the results of the work, and all the reasoning should be left in the discussion section.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Biased Perception of Macroecological Findings Triggered by the IPCC - The Example of Wildfires" examines the portrayal of wildfires in IPCC reports and critiques the prevailing narratives that suggest an increase in wildfire risks due to climate change. The authors utilize text mining and word frequency analysis to reveal a discrepancy between the reported trends in wildfire incidents and actual data showing a decline in global wildfires. They argue that alarmist messaging dominates public discourse, potentially leading to cognitive distortions regarding wildfire dynamics.

While the manuscript presents interesting insights, several areas require further elaboration and clarification to enhance its academic rigor:

 

1. Methodological Clarity: The authors should provide a more detailed description of their text mining methods, including specific algorithms used, the selection criteria for included text, and how they ensured the reliability of their analyses. This transparency is crucial for reproducibility.

2. Data Interpretation: The interpretation of results, particularly regarding the relationship between climate change and wildfire incidence, should be more nuanced. The authors should acknowledge potential confounding factors that might influence these relationships, such as land management practices and socio-economic variables.

3. Balanced Perspective: The critique of IPCC reports appears somewhat one-sided. Acknowledging the complexities of wildfire ecology and the potential benefits of certain fire regimes would provide a more balanced view and strengthen the manuscript's argument.

4. Contextualization of Findings: The ecological implications of declining wildfire incidents need further exploration. The authors should discuss how this decline affects biodiversity, ecosystem services, and fire-adapted species.

 

Specific Concerns：

- The abstract states that wildfires have declined globally but does not provide specific data or references to support this assertion. Include quantitative evidence to substantiate this claim.

- The introduction mentions "cognitive distortion" but does not define it clearly. A brief definition or example would enhance reader comprehension.

- In the hypotheses section, clarify how these hypotheses will be tested through subsequent analyses. A clear roadmap would aid reader understanding.

-When defining "wildfire," consider providing examples of different types (e.g., forest fires, grassland fires) to clarify distinctions for readers unfamiliar with terminology.

- In Table 1, while linear regression results are presented, there is insufficient discussion on how these results impact interpretations regarding climate change's influence on wildfires. Elaborate on this connection.

- The correlation coefficients in Table 2 indicate no highly significant relationships; however, this section lacks a discussion on what these findings imply for wildfire management strategies.

- The conclusion should summarize findings and suggest actionable recommendations based on results, particularly regarding public policy and future research directions.

- There is a lack of discussion on the implications of declining wildfires for fire-adapted ecosystems and species. Addressing this would enrich the ecological context of the findings.

- The authors reference several studies but fail to incorporate recent literature that discusses the role of fire in ecosystem dynamics. Citing relevant studies would strengthen their argument about the misrepresentation of wildfires in IPCC reports.

By addressing these detailed concerns, the authors can significantly enhance the clarity, depth, and impact of their manuscript within ecological discourse surrounding wildfires and climate change.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf