3 ms·
I really don't understand why this distinction matters. If the ecosystem collapses because development is hindered, that's just as bad as the scenario where the
by jryb 7y ago
I really don't understand why this distinction matters. If the ecosystem collapses because development is hindered, that's just as bad as the scenario where the animals were outright killed after developing just fine. It's a huge problem either way.
The headline is technically wrong, but the broad point, "things that we rely on are dying because of the changing pH of the ocean", is correct and meaningful.
- Godel_unicode 7y agoScience doesn't operate on the theory that we can disregard the actual words and just go with the general flow, and when people report this way the inevitable corrections lend fuel to the "science doesn't work" fire. For the sake of getting people to take science seriously, let's try and leave that kind of "ignore the words and listen to the sound of my voice" to marketing.