5 ms·
This feels like a simple strawman. The problem is called global warming, not global deoxygenation.
by dejaime 7y ago
This feels like a simple strawman. The problem is called global warming, not global deoxygenation.
- stinos 7y agoThis 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)
- wutbrodo 7y agoStrawman of what? The article isn't titled "there is no problem with deforestation, go nuts". The first paragraph describes the hypothetical loss of the Amazon as a "planetary historic tragedy beyond measure", and says that it'll make the Paris climate goals impossible to reach. None of this contradicts the premise of the article, which is that a commonly-held and - expressed belief about the Amazon's role in our oxygen supply is not supported by the science. Strawman doesn't mean "talking about a different topic than I'd prefer".