The article contextualizes the truth in terms of the pro-climate narrative,

> "Losing the Amazon, beyond representing a planetary historic tragedy beyond measure, would also make meeting the ambitious climate goals of the Paris Agreement all but impossible. World leaders need to marshal all their political and diplomatic might to save it."

So what exactly are you calling out? Better the Atlantic be the one to call out this falsehood, than Fox News. No?

The article does not explain why losing the Amazon would have an large effect on global climate, it just makes this assertion. Why would it?

Because of the sequestration of carbon in the forest. If you burn the forest down, all of the carbon in the forest is released into the atmosphere in the form of smoke.

I was thinking it must be that, but I was too lazy to try to quantify it. Thank you.

Why does it matter who calls out the falsehood?

Otherwise, while the article may come out acknowledging climate change, the headline comes across as click-bait that could easily be pushed into a climate-denier narrative. Better to have a more neutral title like "The Amazon's Role in Global Oxygen Production". That stops the facts from being decontextualized.

"Why does it matter who calls out the falsehood?"

Because facts aren't usually discussed in isolation. If a climate change denialist were the one to point out the fact, they would frame it with something like: 'Lies the climate establishment are telling you!' If it slows down the process of convincing people of the seriousness of climate change for The Atlantic to report a headline like this, it doesn't slow it down as much as a climate denialist group beating The Atlantic to the punch.

"Better to have a more neutral title like "The Amazon's Role in Global Oxygen Production". That stops the facts from being decontextualized."

Maybe. But the more direct headline helps with the issue listed above. Many (but not all) climate change denialists do not argue in good faith, and it's more important to head off any claim of a cover-up or bias that they might have than to keep the narrative pristine.

Realistically, the alternative to the OP's headline is not something more neutral, but something like this real headline from Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/26...

The title initially appeared to be clickbait, but as soon as I saw it was The Atlantic I knew it was going to be a serious reply. The title is a direct reference to all the meme journalism happening recently.

This. But who cares in this attention hunting, consumerist world -- More clickbaity(and controversial) the title is, more shares all leading to more profit.

> Why does it matter who calls out the falsehood?

Because if Fox News were to call out this particular falsehood, they may very well sum it up with some bullshit like "and that's why liberals are dumb and we should burn more coal." With the Altantic, we instead have reasonable pleas to remember that climate change is a very serious issue.

As for the matter of the given title: https://twitter.com/PeterBrannen1/status/1166446298897289216

Hah, yes, good to know it at least wasn't the writer's fault for the headline.

As for who calls out the falsehood, I was thinking more in the vein of "all else being equal", but I suppose you're right and all else wouldn't be equal between the various news sources.

Probably the clickbaity title -- It's only partial truth. How many do you count would read the entire article? Losing Amazon is a disaster, and as the OP mentioned it will eventually lead to diminishing oxygen supply sooner or later(though not much later).