I get where you are comming from, though had this been a BBC link or something more acceptable within social-media TLD's for source, would the response be the s

I get where you are comming from, though had this been a BBC link or something more acceptable within social-media TLD's for source, would the response be the same. But yes, it may be a case of over-positivism as I call it, being so optimistic that a natural disaster is viewed from the prism of - that's good news. More so when one natural disaster can be perceived as a solution to another disaster, albeit one in which we played a part. Heck, it's even possible to say that this volcano underwater would not of erupted had we not changed the climate. But however we look at it, it would be nice to see some more balanced perspectives without the over-positive spin. Will this heat up the ocean in the vicinity due to it absorbing more heat, will it starved of oxygen as it blocks photosynthesis in the area it travels. Those tangents of thought get overlooked, yet have just as much plausibility than latching onto how this is the saviour of the coral reef. But one question I have - pumice volcanic rock, what gas is trapped in that rock?