The media are running away with a narrative
saying
#1 "That the Amazon is the lungs of the world and supllies 20% of the world's oxygen"
#2 "That this seasons fires in the Brazilian Amazon fires are the worst ever
..and #3 That is all to do with Bolsonaro who they hate cos he doesn't toe the metroliberal groupthink

Paul Homewood has a couple of threads

#1 Amazon Fires–Latest BBC Fake News
#2 Bolivia’s Wildfires Ignored By The BBC

Today's Radio 4 More or Less added some analysis
This year’s fires in Brazil have been the worst in 10 years,
but are they really 85 percent worse than last year?
Many media reports also mention that the Amazon is the lungs of the planet
– producing 20 percent of the Earth’s oxygen.
Tim Harford speaks to Daniel Nepstad,
President of Earth Innovation Institute, to analyse what we know about the fires.

@MCourtney commented
More or Less made the point that the fires in virgin rain-forest are not being detected by the satellites.
So they are looking at that fires in the land that has already been cleared for agriculture.

That being so, you would expect an upwards trend in fires as with each year more land has been converted to agriculture.
... A point they surprisingly did not make.

The fact that the fires were greater in extent under the socialist government
... is probably just a reflection of the greater economic prosperity under Lula's regime than Bolsonaro's. (I guess that is 'sarcastic)

@IDAU said
Those interested in making comparisons on the fires might find it illuminating to go to the EOSDIS source and have a play.

https://go.nasa.gov/34hprUj

You can change the date a day, month or year at a time. Zoom in and out too.

MCourtney not Sarcasm
.. well then your theory seems bonkers to me
95% of the Braziliian population are not edge of Amazon farmers
..and I would have thought when there are more jobs in the cities you get less farmers
but then on the OTOH if the cities are booming perhaps there is a bigger demand for the farmers food so they burn more fields.

link to the More Or Less prog
but *Monday's podcast will be more detailed*

#1 Media entertain by comparing fire extent to last year and say wow 84% up
.. that's a CHERRYPICK cos last year was particularly low
#2 Media lie by omission, fail to mention that satellites are counting edge of forest burning cos they can't see under canopy
#3 Virgin forest is not immediately harmed much cos the forest is wet only low down is burnt
#4 Could cos on to damage virgin forest if the fire damaged the tree bark
..too early to say

#5 MoL deceived cos they didn't mention the Bolivia fires and point out Brazil is not the top in this years fire extent
so MSM coverage is poitical

================
"Lungs of the planet" = bad analogy
D-Abbott : The prophet of Hackney said "10% of London's breather air has passed through the Amazon"
..expert said that's rubbish the Amazon is neutral in Oxygen output

but then he made the claim that without the Amazon the planet would be warmer .. it has a cooling effect , cos it influences air patterns
.hmm dunno know about that ..winds coming off the poles would cool the planet

Lungs of the World ..myth
which MSM journos spoke up
...err None
https://climatechangedispatch.com/science-goes-up-rainforest-smoke based on GWPF work

OK I mis-spoke I didn't mean that zero journalists had spoken up
..well I wouldn't have heard every voice .

I meant that
#1 Lungs of the World myth is such an extraordinary weird thing
that it must be PR trickery something that is Guardianlalaland vs the actual world*
#2 That being so, why were almost media repeating it
instead of calling it out

* The people concerned about the fires are NOT concerned about world oxygen balance
The fires hardly change it
.
They are concerned about carbon sequestration, carbon locked up in big trees etc. and also scrubland vegetation on the edge of the jungle /farm land

I'd guess that carbon volume loss is difficult to calculate
eg some areas might have a huge amount stored in peat ..and others NOT

So like a stopped clock the Guardian was rightish on point #2
and even Steve Milloy of @JunkScience cited it on Twitter

Look the Amazon is big, and important but it is still only 1% of world land area
So of course the 20% of earth's oxygen claim is ridiculous
But I wouldn't take the 6% claim at face value.
For a start I don't know how much of Oxygen respiration is land greenery, vs sealife, vs land fungi and ants
I do wonder if CO2 could be sequested cheaper by looking at the sea instead of planting trees

On point #1 The Guardian article is rather mild in calling out the media, "shouting lungs of the world"
it just puts it mildly "Although some reports have claimed the Amazon produces 20% of the world’s oxygen, it is not clear where this figure originated"

My typo there :..On point #2 The Guardian article is rather mild

A debunking article in Forbes has a lot of context
\\ But both publications repeated the claim that the Amazon is the “lungs” of the world.
“The Amazon remains a net source of oxygen today,” said CNN.
“The Amazon is often referred to as Earth’s ‘lungs,’ because its vast forests release oxygen and store carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas that is a major cause of global warming,” claimed The New York Times.

I was curious to hear what one of the world’s leading Amazon forest experts, Dan Nepstad, had to say about the “lungs” claim.

“It’s bullshit,” he said. “There’s no science behind that. The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it’s a wash.” //
Why Everything They Say About The Amazon, Including That It's The 'Lungs Of The World,' Is Wrong
by Michael Shellenberger