3 ms·

I know it’s easy to crap on people believing whatever is shared on social media and then laugh about how everyone got it wrong.. But I just don’t like this art

by rcconf 7y ago

I know it’s easy to crap on people believing whatever is shared on social media and then laugh about how everyone got it wrong.. But I just don’t like this article. I don’t see how a 7% increase in forest fires in the Amazon is nothing to care about and something about the tone of the article doesn’t sit well with me. It’s somehow trying to convince me that deforestation is going down, this is an overreaction and it’s hurting farmers. I don’t know about that... i’ll just side with I want to remain living on this planet and I want my children to as well, more power to environmental viral hits, even if they got the facts.. a bit wrong.

legacynl 7y ago
I agree. The whole breakdown of this article is this: - Celebrities used wrong pictures in combination with amazon forest fires - Amazon is not the lungs of the earth because Dan Nepstad (who is he?) says so (even tho you would find it hard to find any biologist that thinks trees DON'T produce oxygen.) - There were forest fires in the amazon in the past - And there is only a small puny 7% increase anyway (is this small? is this big? ) (how many 7% increase-years can we have before the whole forest is gone?) - Soy plantations and (cow) pastures ALSO produce oxygen so it doesn't even matter anyway (although in light of global warming its ofc more about carbon storage and production, but the writer conveniently forgets about this part) - Coutinho makes the argument that since there has been next to no outrage in previous years, there is no reason for outrage now (or it's unfair towards bolsonaro? I don't know what point Coutinho is trying to make here ) The writer of the article molds all these claims into a conclusion that doesn't follow logically from the actual statements. At best this writer is clueless, at worst he is personally benefited by spreading this falsehood. It's a whole lot of fingerpointing and whataboutism. EVEN IF both sides were evenly wrong, there is one side that's trying to save the rainforest without personal gain, while the other side doesnt give a shit and happens to make money of it. Just based on this, who'd you think be more inclined to lie?

by rcconf 7y ago

legacynl 7y ago

I agree. The whole breakdown of this article is this: - Celebrities used wrong pictures in combination with amazon forest fires - Amazon is not the lungs of the earth because Dan Nepstad (who is he?) says so (even tho you would find it hard to find any biologist that thinks trees DON'T produce oxygen.) - There were forest fires in the amazon in the past - And there is only a small puny 7% increase anyway (is this small? is this big? ) (how many 7% increase-years can we have before the whole forest is gone?) - Soy plantations and (cow) pastures ALSO produce oxygen so it doesn't even matter anyway (although in light of global warming its ofc more about carbon storage and production, but the writer conveniently forgets about this part) - Coutinho makes the argument that since there has been next to no outrage in previous years, there is no reason for outrage now (or it's unfair towards bolsonaro? I don't know what point Coutinho is trying to make here ) The writer of the article molds all these claims into a conclusion that doesn't follow logically from the actual statements. At best this writer is clueless, at worst he is personally benefited by spreading this falsehood. It's a whole lot of fingerpointing and whataboutism. EVEN IF both sides were evenly wrong, there is one side that's trying to save the rainforest without personal gain, while the other side doesnt give a shit and happens to make money of it. Just based on this, who'd you think be more inclined to lie?