11–20 of 79 posts
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra...
>As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years.
There is also a big forest fire in Siberia, but I can't remember seeing anything on it in the Norwegian press. There are some stories about the Amazon fire, though. Perhaps the one in Siberia is less dangerous? I don't know! Why is the Amazon fire worse? Or can you compare them at all?
State of emergency in the largest state of Brasil
75.000 wildfires in 8 months, double as in the last year
200 millions of tonnes of CO2 released, actively boycotting any chance of fixing climate of the planet
Deforestation accelerated in a 278%, actively increasing the six extinction rate
But, but... this is happening since the last decades also!, so, oki doki. All is fine like soy ice cream. Not Bolsonarson fault.
There is also a big forest fire in Siberia, but I can't remember seeing anything on it in the Norwegian press. There are some stories about the Amazon fire, though. Perhaps the one in Siberia is less dangerous? I don't know! Why is the Amazon fire worse? Or can you compare them at all?
Our information ecosystem is truly polluted. It's hard to find impartial journalism these days – or maybe it was always like that? I think that our willingness to share content (without thinking) is exploited to spread disinformation.
I suspect though that the attention that the press is giving to this year's fires, which are catastrophic and need attention, has something to do with the fact that Brasil is about to sign a historic trade agreement with the EU and this is being used to politically pressure Brasil into stopping the increasing deforestation.
Which I'm all for it, I get it that it's politics and that's how it works, I just don't like the manipulation.
Our information ecosystem is truly polluted. It's hard to find impartial journalism these days – or maybe it was always like that? I think that our willingness to share content (without thinking) is exploited to spread disinformation.
Even this article isn't great, though it's obviously better than the hoaxes on social media. For instance, they start off the article with the claim that Brazil has seen a record number of forest fires in 2019 and a scary-looking graph of them increasing from 2013. They then follow up with a repetition of activists' claims that right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro is to blame. You have to scroll down several pages to…
Our information ecosystem is truly polluted. It's hard to find impartial journalism these days – or maybe it was always like that? I think that our willingness to share content (without thinking) is exploited to spread disinformation.
Even this article isn't great, though it's obviously better than the hoaxes on social media. For instance, they start off the article with the claim that Brazil has seen a record number of forest fires in 2019 and a scary-looking graph of them increasing from 2013. They then follow up with a repetition of activists' claims that right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro is to blame. You have to scroll down several pages to…
From your description, that seems like an understatement. If you cherry pick starting points to make s graph look dramatic and leave out crucial context so that readers will assume the worse, that’s not just “not great” it’s flat out fraudulent, manipulative propaganda.
There is also a big forest fire in Siberia, but I can't remember seeing anything on it in the Norwegian press. There are some stories about the Amazon fire, though. Perhaps the one in Siberia is less dangerous? I don't know! Why is the Amazon fire worse? Or can you compare them at all?