Newly released data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) refutes claims made by climate alarmists that forest fires are becoming more prevalent as a result of climate change and that the world is losing its forests.
"Any reader of the New York Times and other mainstream media outlet would be forgiven for believing that fires globally are on the rise, but they aren't," Forbes reported. "In reality, there was a whopping 25 percent decrease in the area burned from 2003 to 2019, according to NASA."
"For the last 35 years, the world has been re-foresting, meaning new tree growth has exceeded deforestation," Forbes continued. "The area of the Earth covered with forest has increased by an area the size of Texas and Alaska combined."
Forbes reports that the main reason that forest fires are declining is because of economic development and urbanization since less land is being converted into ranches and farms, as technology continues to advance which allows farms to grow more food on less land.
The Forbes' report, authored by energy reporter Michael Shellenberger, also examined how many in the media push manufactured narratives that lead people to believe that the climate is on the verge of collapse.
A separate report from The Atlantic last week debunked a narrative pushed by Hollywood, CNN, and The New York Times that the Amazon was the "world's lungs."
Shanan Peters, a geologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, "wanted to know what would happen to the atmosphere if you burned down not just the Amazon, but every forest on Earth, every blade of grass, every moss and lichen-spackled patch of rock, all the flowers and bees, all the orchids and hummingbirds, all the phytoplankton, zooplankton, whales, starfish, bacteria, giraffes, hyraxes, coatimundis, oarfish, albatrosses, mushrooms, placozoans—all of it, besides the humans."
Peters found that if that happened, "the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere dropped from 20.9 percent to 20.4 percent. CO2 rose from 400 parts per million to 900 — less, even, than it does in the worst-case scenarios for fossil-fuel emissions by 2100. By burning every living thing on Earth."
"Virtually no change," Peters concluded. "Generations of humans would live out their lives, breathing the air around them, probably struggling to find food, but not worried about their next breath."