2 ms·

The headline is a factual statement. Also, the data says globally Earth is seeing a reforestration, not deforestration. That doesn't mean there's no localized d

The headline is a factual statement. Also, the data says globally Earth is seeing a reforestration, not deforestration. That doesn't mean there's no localized deforestration, nor we should stop fighting against deforestration everywhere. But it also means it's not all doom-and-gloom. The article is exactly the kind of anti-sensationalist article that brings the proper context and data to the forefront and highlights the actual challenges. EDIT: Per advice, removed unnecessary part.

richrichardsson 7y ago
> Have you actually read the article ? I would edit this part out of your reply, it's unnecassary to your point, goes against the rules of HN and will invite downvotes.
dictum 7y ago
> I don't see how trying to tell the truth about something can be equated with trying to downplay the situation or encouraging people not to bother about it. Because it's a red herring. It's a very common form of red herring, to be precise: taking averaged measurements of a whole set to infer information about a single element. The converse is also a red herring; inferring information about a set by analyzing only a single, cherry picked member. "Fires Globally" includes "Fires in the region X of country Y", but doesn't take into account the specific importance of that region, the trends over time, what's going to happen to surrounding regions in the future... (For a quick metaphor: You have 99.5%~99.8% of your body in perfect working order when your eyes have just been gouged.)
- drivebycomment 7y ago
  It's not a red herring if we're discussing a global trend, and contributing factors to it. And we are discussing a global trend, or at least the article is a criticism against other sensationalist trends to make everything look like doom-and-gloom globally. A global trend and a local trend contradicting with each other doesn't make the global trend a red herring, and putting forward the global trend to better understand the local trend in the context is not a bad thing. Nowhere in the article suggests we should stop doing things in Amazon.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  The fires and deforestation were actually way, way worse prior to 2003. I saw charts for the Amazon in the 80s and 90s and throughout those decades the forest fires were more than 5x greater than any point since 2003.
gridlockd 7y ago
> The article is exactly the kind of anti-sensationalist article that brings the proper context and data to the forefront and highlights the actual challenges. The article is a spin. It takes the fact "number of fires has gone down" and sells it as "forest fires are not that big a deal as you may think". In fact, forest fires are a bigger problem now than they were in the recent past. See my other comment on this topic.
labawi 7y ago
Note that planted regularly cut commercial tree plantations are quite different from centuries old forests in their ecological potential and effects.

richrichardsson 7y ago

> Have you actually read the article ? I would edit this part out of your reply, it's unnecassary to your point, goes against the rules of HN and will invite downvotes.

dictum 7y ago

> I don't see how trying to tell the truth about something can be equated with trying to downplay the situation or encouraging people not to bother about it. Because it's a red herring. It's a very common form of red herring, to be precise: taking averaged measurements of a whole set to infer information about a single element. The converse is also a red herring; inferring information about a set by analyzing only a single, cherry picked member. "Fires Globally" includes "Fires in the region X of country Y", but doesn't take into account the specific importance of that region, the trends over time, what's going to happen to surrounding regions in the future... (For a quick metaphor: You have 99.5%~99.8% of your body in perfect working order when your eyes have just been gouged.)

drivebycomment 7y ago
It's not a red herring if we're discussing a global trend, and contributing factors to it. And we are discussing a global trend, or at least the article is a criticism against other sensationalist trends to make everything look like doom-and-gloom globally. A global trend and a local trend contradicting with each other doesn't make the global trend a red herring, and putting forward the global trend to better understand the local trend in the context is not a bad thing. Nowhere in the article suggests we should stop doing things in Amazon.
chrisco255 7y ago
The fires and deforestation were actually way, way worse prior to 2003. I saw charts for the Amazon in the 80s and 90s and throughout those decades the forest fires were more than 5x greater than any point since 2003.

gridlockd 7y ago

> The article is exactly the kind of anti-sensationalist article that brings the proper context and data to the forefront and highlights the actual challenges. The article is a spin. It takes the fact "number of fires has gone down" and sells it as "forest fires are not that big a deal as you may think". In fact, forest fires are a bigger problem now than they were in the recent past. See my other comment on this topic.

labawi 7y ago

Note that planted regularly cut commercial tree plantations are quite different from centuries old forests in their ecological potential and effects.