4 ms·
>And while fires in Brazil have increased, there is no evidence that Amazon forest fires have. i see. let's read on. >What increased by 7% in 2019 are the fir
by cryoshon 7y ago
>And while fires in Brazil have increased, there is no evidence that Amazon forest fires have.
i see. let's read on.
>What increased by 7% in 2019 are the fires of dry scrub and trees cut down for cattle ranching as a strategy to gain ownership of land.
so it appears that fires in the Amazon have indeed increased as a result of intentional deforestation efforts using fire. this undermines the author's prior statement.
>Against the picture painted of an Amazon forest on the verge of disappearing, a full 80% remains standing.
put differently, we've lost 20% of it. we should be battling as fiercely as possible to prevent any further losses and doing whatever we can to reseed the areas which can be recovered.
i'm not a fan of this kind of "debunkery" because it's counterproductive and doesn't debunk much of anything. this crisis is real, whether or not the media has cared about it in prior years. our planet is dying because of our actions. the details are less relevant than the big picture.
finally, i suggest that you look at the titles of the author's other published articles. he appears to be repeatedly arguing heavily in favor for nuclear power while often trying to undermine the prospect of renewable energy sources. i am pro-nuclear power, and agree that many renewables are imperfect. but consider that he has an agenda of some sort which makes him vastly less trustworthy regarding these matters of climate change, because his agenda is in favor of a specific industry (nuclear power) rather than the planet.
- changchuming 7y agoHow does him arguing for nuclear power over renewables makes him less trustworthy? You completely lost me there. Sounds like you're just trying to find something to attack his motives.
- padseeker 7y agoThe author has another article with the following headline: "Republicans Can Own The Libs on Climate Change By Defending Nuclear Plants On The Brink" That's troll language. This guy is not a legit journalist.
- mc32 7y agoThat raises the question who in today’s media doesn’t get involved in trolling or clickbait headlines anymore?
- dahfizz 7y agoThis is a low brow ad-hominim attack. The article he has written is worth discussing, and by dismissing it out of hand because of your politics you are adding to the problem. We're supposed to be intelligent people on HN. Let's discuss ideas, not who or who not might be trolls. A "troll" who has genuine and substantiative ideas backed by facts aren't trolls IMO, so by focussing on the content the trolls get weeded out anyway.
- RealityVoid 7y agoWhile I appreciate your sentiment and in principle agree with you, I have a hard time arguing points of people who do not argue in good faith. And it does seem like the author is trying to persuade more than he is trying to make a logical and/or correct point.
- rand0mbits 7y agoHe didn't dismiss the article out of hand. He debunked its points and then pointed out that the author seems to have an unstated agenda.