This feels like a simple strawman. Maybe feels like it, but the argument being attacked here is just the false 'amazon = world's lungs' claim, not something e

This feels like a simple strawman. 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)