@AnnemarieBridy So on the one hand, this article is discussing a **very** real, very grave, very concerningly likely scenario regarding the forest. On the other hand, the recently elected president Lula isn't going continue the same policies his predecessor had regarding the forest, and from what I have heard from other reports, the forest could be saved or made more resilient via restorative efforts.
I feel like it would have been better to balance this article with *something*
about what can be done than simply implying that it is necessarily too late. We need a path for action alongside the warnings of doom, and obscuring the former while only focusing on the latter is a bad idea.
@AnnemarieBridy So, @MichaelEMann, do you have any thoughts on the original WaPo article? I generally defer to climate scientists on matters like these, and have come to respect your take on things like this.
