Strawman 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".
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|6 years ago
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".
stinos|6 years ago
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)