Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Being precise is hugely important. When people use hyperbole, the majority of the public believes it.
What percent of people believe the oceans are turning to acid and will boil? What percent believes we're going to literally burn, and that's if we don't wake up tomorrow with oceans above our house or flattened by a tornado.
Most of earth's history had an ocean that was less basic than it is today, and that's where life thrived. There's plenty threating populations of creatures humanity cares about in the ocean, and that mostly is the result of the effectiveness of our hunting techniques.
It's like polar bears; if you want more of them, hunt less of them.
|
Saying the oceans are becoming more acidic is not a hyberbole, and isn't even untrue. It's a scale like heat, one way is more acidic, and the other is more basic. What scientist says their base became "less basic" or their acid became "less acidic"? An acid that's now less acidic has become more basic, and a base thats now less basic has become more acidic. The scale is logarithmic anyway.
Plus the point at which there start to be problems has nothing to do with the exact center point where acidic and basic meet. Not being basic enough is already bad. The term "too acidic" is 100% correct, not a hyperbole.
Making up speach technicalities that don't exist to minimize or completely ignore a problem on the excuse that you believe you're being precise, when you're not, is also misleading.
True, overhunting is a problem. But that's no proof that it's the only problem. In no way have you demonstrated how many polar bears are being killed by humans compared to their overall decline in population, which ignores the possibility that humankind could be doing something else far more destructive than directly killing these animals one by one.