61–70 of 152 posts
This feels like a simple strawman. The problem is called global warming, not global deoxygenation.
Maybe feels like it, but the argument being attacked here is just the false 'amazon = world's lungs' claim, not something else, not global warming, so I don't think it qualifies as strawman according to it's definition? (Plus note that the article specifically mentions burning down the amazon is a tragedy)
It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…
Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative. Promoting a good cause by allowing falsehoods to spread may seem helpful in the short term, but in doing so you're building a house on a foundation of sand. When you promote trivial falsehoods instead of calling them out, you allow your opposition to be the one who calls out those falsehoods, and thus undermine your cause. When somebody on your s…
It's of a piece with the general decline in liberalism of the last 10 years (as another example, take the reputation of free speech as a concept), but I guess what I'm describing is how grotesquely fascinating it is to see a society and its institutions so rapidly lose their connection to basic decency and honesty. I'm not naive enough to think this was some hyperstable equilibrium, but it's fascinating to see how rapidly it happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative. Promoting a good cause by allowing falsehoods to spread may seem helpful in the short term, but in doing so you're building a house on a foundation of sand. When you promote trivial falsehoods instead of calling them out, you allow your opposition to be the one who calls out those falsehoods, and thus undermine your cause. When somebody on your s…
Yea, you shouldn't deny a reality because you believe in the noble lie. And to be fair, climate change is turned into a crazy red hearing of a political issue. There are lakes of sludge outside factory cities in China, insane amounts of plastic particulates in the oceans, tons and tons of textile waste. There are so many many forms of pollution much worse than CO2, and when you focus on just CO2, you get carbon laws…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually) The global average temperature has been higher than that in the past, and there was plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere.
> The global average temperature has been higher than that in the past Yes > there was plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere. Well, citation needed.
Some are motivated to hyperbolize about the wildfires in Brazil in order to craft a narrative that Bolsonaro is ushering in the apocalypse. There’s wildfires in Bolivia but no one is blaming socialism (Evo Morales). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/02/bolivia-evo-mo...
- Appointed a climate denialist conspiracy theorist as his foreign minister [2]
- Appointed as minister for the environment a man convicted of forging documents in favour of mining companies [3]
- Contradicted the National Institute for Space Research, responsible for satellite tracking of deforestation, when it published preliminary data that showed the increase (as it had done every year), then fired its director[4]
- Then went on to blame the fires on conservation NGOs [5]
This is just off the top of my head (I'm Brazilian), links provided are just the first search results from reputable sources in English. Happy to provide more info to anyone who needs it.
That said, I have no love for Evo nor do I know the specifics of the situation across the border, but Bolsonaro is terrible for the environment and the world should be concerned, not in the least because 58.4% of the Amazon is inside Brazil's border. In contrast, 7.7% of it falls within Bolivia
1: https://www.dw.com/pt-br/desmatamento-na-amaz%C3%B4nia-em-ag...
2: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/15/brazil-foreign...
3: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics-minister/...
4: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-environment-job/br...
5: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/21/jair-bolsonaro...
[edited to add size of Bolivian Amazon]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It might make you feel good to write that, but there are much bigger lies being told. if you held the opposite position in this debate, you would probably call this "whataboutism".
No, lying is bad and for whatever critiques you can have of my point, it's not whataboutism. You can say it's cynical, but I believe people lie all the time and I should be economical with my precious time when arguing on the internet. But if you think the categorization of the Amazon as the Earth's lungs is above that criteria for you, then I will not stop you even though I will think it's ridiculous.
it's one thing to decide not to spend your mental energy on a small deceit/inaccuracy. you are actively trying to shut down the discussion.
It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…
It's CO2 (and species and habitat loss) that matters, and the Amazon is hugely important for those, and for the climate of the region.
Which the article seems pretty clear on. So how is it presenting an impression climate change isn't that bad, or there's no urgency?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a true fact is playing in to a false narrative, there is a problem with how it's being presented. Calling that out is just as important as calling out falsehoods.
The article contextualizes the truth in terms of the pro-climate narrative, > "Losing the Amazon, beyond representing a planetary historic tragedy beyond measure, would also make meeting the ambitious climate goals of the Paris Agreement all but impossible. World leaders need to marshal all their political and diplomatic might to save it." So what exactly are you calling out? Better the Atlantic be the one to call ou…
Otherwise, while the article may come out acknowledging climate change, the headline comes across as click-bait that could easily be pushed into a climate-denier narrative. Better to have a more neutral title like "The Amazon's Role in Global Oxygen Production". That stops the facts from being decontextualized.
News just in: the metaphor is not the thing
If you click the link at the top of the page, it takes you to an article that you can read. I recommend doing so before commenting on a post in general
It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…
> This type of articles is the last thing we need right now We always need the truth. If your agenda can't handle the truth, it's maybe not that great to begin with.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the contents of this article. It does not undermine the climate change (read: scientific) "agenda" in the slightest. However, considering the sheer amount of people who only read article titles and form rigid opinions nonetheless, this article's title specifically is potentially harmful.