No, I actually don't give a crap. This meta discussion aside, I actually know that my time on this planet is finite and as a result my attention is finite. Whether of not the Amazon is the Earth's lungs is a pedantic point. If it is or not, it doesn't change my stance on preserving it. So, while the article is true, I can safely ignore it because it is not meaningful. Not sure how much you know about agriculture and the Fischer-Tropsch process, but the Amazon soil is not particularly fertile and requires a bunch of nitrogen fertilizer which in turn is generally produced by fracking. Further, a bunch of that soy goes towards feeding cows. So burning the Amazon down is mostly pointless and contributes to furthering the global warming crisis in several important ways. It's important I don't lose sight getting engaged in a pedantic argument over trivial details. You see the same dynamic in gun control debates when someone re-polarizes a discussion by turning it towards a misidentification of a particular gun or whether "assault rifle" is a valid categorization of guns. Polarizing the discussion is the point, so I choose to ignore true points that are used to distract people from more meaningful conclusions. It's a very basic and easy technique to resist disinformation.

> Polarizing the discussion is the point, so I choose to ignore true points that are used to distract people from more meaningful conclusions. It's a very basic and easy technique to resist disinformation.

I'm honestly kind of shocked to see someone admit that this is their intention in so few words.

What is he/she admitting? Other than they feel there are numerous reasons to keep the Amazon, whether or not the lungs, is not enough of a negative to not