How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[jeremyrh]

Does anyone actually have the statistics on the Amazon fire?  All the "news" makes it look bad.  AS usual, it's fake news because they're only giving area by how much smoke and carbon monoxide they see. 

So an article that presents a different story than the one Klein wants to read is "fake news"?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Does anyone actually have the statistics on the Amazon fire?  All the "news" makes it look bad.  AS usual, it's fake news because they're only giving area by how much smoke and carbon monoxide they see.  Well, wind blows smoke and particles over huge areas that are not burning so that proves little.  Just how many acres burned or are burning?

"NASA’s Amazon forest fire map shows just how much trouble we’re in"
https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/

Alan, the area actually on fire is constantly moving. Once an area is burnt to the ground it stops burning, you get the idea.

Satellite imagery has a rather accurate picture of where the fires are at the moment the satellite passes over that area. The MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Radiospectrometer) offers twice daily an overview of Thermal Anomalies/Fire:
https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/dataprod/mod14.php

If you spend the time, their tools allow getting to the on-line datasets themselves, and the Amazon can be seen in 1 kilometer resolution to be on fire at many places.

Here are two dataset visualizations of a small area of the Amazon fires;

but one would need to spend more time on layering it with the visual imagery of the land surface to view its location and extent.
I'll leave that as homework for you. 

But hey, those are just datasets from conspiring scientists, so who's to trust ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

Does anyone actually have the statistics on the Amazon fire?  All the "news" makes it look bad.  AS usual, it's fake news because they're only giving area by how much smoke and carbon monoxide they see.  Well, wind blows smoke and particles over huge areas that are not burning so that proves little.  Just how many acres burned or are burning?

I guess, as in the climate change discussion, they're failing to look at the benefits.

You have adopted the habit of referring to any information source that gives you news you don't like as "fake news." This is what your President does. You get it, I assume, that it's a well-known propaganda tactic and that everyone sees through it. 

[jeremyrh]

I guess, as in the climate change discussion, they're failing to look at the benefits.

Well if the place is covered in thick smoke, think of the of reduced level of sun burn!  But the communist press never tell us that :-(

[Alan Klein]

Alan, the area actually on fire is constantly moving. Once an area is burnt to the ground it stops burning, you get the idea.

Satellite imagery has a rather accurate picture of where the fires are at the moment the satellite passes over that area. The MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Radiospectrometer) offers twice daily an overview of Thermal Anomalies/Fire:
https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/dataprod/mod14.php

If you spend the time, their tools allow getting to the on-line datasets themselves, and the Amazon can be seen in 1 kilometer resolution to be on fire at many places.

Here are two dataset visualizations of a small area of the Amazon fires;

but one would need to spend more time on layering it with the visual imagery of the land surface to view its location and extent.
I'll leave that as homework for you. 

But hey, those are just datasets from conspiring scientists, so who's to trust ...

Cheers,
Bart

That's a better more realistic map of where the burning is.  The map I looked at, linked again here, shows "fake news" as if the whole Amazon is on fire.  It's that kind of thing that this thread is all about.  It creates skepticism when phoney news is presented as the whole truth.  The whole point is to excite and titillate and sell newspapers rather than provided meaningful and realistic data.  It's fake science and more political than newsworthy.

Now I still don't know how big the fires are.  Your map is interesting, but I don;t know how to figure out the acres on fires.  Since it's only a small portion, and not scaled even at that, there's no way to tell.  Even with the zoomed in view, there doesn;t seem like a lot of acres on fire compared to overall.  You think with the whole world's press on the case, you could find someone who's got a handle on the actual fire size in acres.  Just like global warming, one media just copies what the other media is reporting. 
https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/

[jeremyrh]

That's a better more realistic map of where the burning is.  The map I looked at, linked again here, shows "fake news" as if the whole Amazon is on fire. 

https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/

The map in the article linked didn't claim to show where the burning is, or how many acres had been burned. Nor did it purport to show the price of beef in Idaho. Those would be different articles. Probably you can find them on this Internet thing they have these days.

HTH

[Alan Klein]

I guess, as in the climate change discussion, they're failing to look at the benefits.

You have adopted the habit of referring to any information source that gives you news you don't like as "fake news." This is what your President does. You get it, I assume, that it's a well-known propaganda tactic and that everyone sees through it. 

When the media report that the whole Amazon is on fire, that is fake news, exactly what this thread's title is all about. All I'm asking for is for some enterprising journalist or scientist to do his work. Maybe a climatologist could take a day off from researching global warming and do this calculation for us.    How many acres burned out of a total number of acres making up the Amazon?  I don't think that's too much to ask.  Isn't that better then making the assumed fake claim, "The whole Amazon is burning"?

Here are just two articles making that claim.
The blazes in the Amazon are so big they can be seen from space. One map shows the alarming scale of the fires.
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-fires-satellite-images-map-of-rainforest-blazes-2019-8

NASA’s Amazon forest fire map shows just how much trouble we’re in
https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/

[Alan Klein]

The map in the article linked didn't claim to show where the burning is, or how many acres had been burned. Nor did it purport to show the price of beef in Idaho. Those would be different articles. Probably you can find them on this Internet thing they have these days.

HTH

Jeremy, It's title is: "NASA’s Amazon forest fire map shows just how much trouble we’re in".  The map then shows half of South America in red.  What is the average reader suppose to think?  It's this kind of biased  reporting we get on global warming.  I guess the fake news media is used to this kind of sloppy reporting. 

[jeremyrh]

Jeremy, It's title is: "NASA’s Amazon forest fire map shows just how much trouble we’re in".  The map then shows half of South America in red.  What is the average reader suppose to think?  It's this kind of biased  reporting we get on global warming.  I guess the fake news media is used to this kind of sloppy reporting.

Don't know what to suggest Alan - maybe reading the actual article would have helped you understand the issue more fully?

[Alan Klein]

Don't know what to suggest Alan - maybe reading the actual article would have helped you understand the issue more fully?

I know what they were saying.  They were hyping the news, making it more dramatic.  It was fake news.  The average reader is going to take the headlines and the implication that the whole Amazon is on fire.  Most people have lives to live.  They can't spend all day on this forum analysing their navels.  Then they turn on the evening news and see lots of smoke and fires with people telling them the Amazon is on fire and we're destroying the "lungs of the earth".  By tomorrow.  This is not real journalism.  It's yellow journalism.  It's sensationalism and crude exaggeration.  And politics. Making excuses that people should read everything in the article and weed out the BS is not the answer. 

[jeremyrh]

I know what they were saying.  They were hyping the news, making it more dramatic.  It was fake news.  The average reader is going to take the headlines and the implication that the whole Amazon is on fire.  Most people have lives to live.  They can't spend all day on this forum analysing their navels.  Then they turn on the evening news and see lots of smoke and fires with people telling them the Amazon is on fire and we're destroying the "lungs of the earth".  By tomorrow.  This is not real journalism.  It's yellow journalism.  It's sensationalism and crude exaggeration.  And politics. Making excuses that people should read everything in the article and weed out the BS is not the answer.

Got it - so the media are bad because they assume that people will read an article to find out about a subject rather than jump to some totally illogical conclusion from looking at a headline. Yes. Right. Makes perfect sense. No, honestly, crystal clear.

<Backs nervously out of the door >

[Alan Klein]

Got it - so the media are bad because they assume that people will read an article to find out about a subject rather than jump to some totally illogical conclusion from looking at a headline. Yes. Right. Makes perfect sense. No, honestly, crystal clear.

<Backs nervously out of the door >

It's not just the headline but the whole article.  If the news is overhyped and exaggerated, yes, that's poor journalism.  Maybe none at all.

[jeremyrh]

It's not just the headline but the whole article.  If the news is overhyped and exaggerated, yes, that's poor journalism.  Maybe none at all.

Truly absurd. It's an article about carbon monoxide. If you wanted to read an article about needlepoint, you should have picked up Woman's Weekly.

[Alan Klein]

Truly absurd. It's an article about carbon monoxide. If you wanted to read an article about needlepoint, you should have picked up Woman's Weekly.

I'll let others decide just what is the implication of the article.

[jeremyrh]

I'll let others decide just what is the implication of the article.

That's a good idea.

[Peter McLennan]

Most people have lives to live.  They can't spend all day on this forum analysing their navels.

[Alan Klein]

Not only is the media engaged in fake news about the Amazon fires, now celebs like DiCaprio are joining in with fake fire photos on social media.  This is why people just don't trust the "left" and climate change.  They talk about Trump lying but meanwhile the left deceives the public with fake photos.

"Celebs keep posting misleading photos about Amazon wildfire to social media"
https://nypost.com/2019/08/23/celebs-keep-posting-misleading-photos-of-amazon-wildfire-to-social-media/

[Alan Klein]

Another phoney statistic.  The Amazon does not provide 20% of the world's oxygen as the fake news media has been reporting.  We won't be suffocating anytime soon.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/23/as-the-amazon-fires-spread-so-did-this-unfounded-statistic/#66d73c0a1ea9

[Alan Klein]

I finally found the source of the Amazon fires.

[faberryman]

Not only is the media engaged in fake news about the Amazon fires, now celebs like DiCaprio are joining in with fake fire photos on social media.  This is why people just don't trust the "left" and climate change.

People don't believe in climate change because movie stars don't know what they are talking about? That seems rational.