Is it scaremongering for me to tell you that the roof of your house is on fire?
scaremongering is NOT scaremongering if it is true.
The fact that an entire ecosystem worldwide is dying should scare the begeezus out of you. The fact that this ecosystem is tied to the ocean and that the entire world ecology is intimately tied to the ocean should literally keep you up at night with worry.
Isn't that a bit extreme?
No. Because the stakes are too high. If the scientists are wrong and it isn't a big deal then life will go on. However, if the scientists are right then we are talking about the end of life on earth. So lets say there is a 95% chance the scientists are wrong and a 5% chance they are right... given then stakes involved, you error on the side of scientists being right simply because the stakes are too high. Very basic mathematical reasoning...
..the reafs are dying, so what it the cycle of life, animals go extinct all the time, so what?
environmental science, biological systems, and ecology are more complex than our current level of scientific understanding. However, much like a doctor in 678 A.D. nows that a lump growing in your neck is "bad" we too in our current state of science can/should easily deduce that when an entire ecosystem and organism on the planet dies out, it is bad.
If all the bees on the planet died, guess what? Then most of the animals on the planet including mankind would die in a few years as well...
So dont' dismiss what happens when some supposedly insignificant organism/ecosystem goes extinct...
Is anyone here going to actually do anything to save the coral reefs besides talk about it? Can anyone do anything? If I get concerned will the coral reefs get better? Lecturing on environmental degradation is like lecturing on the evils of tobacco while smoking a cigarette.
Understand that in the course of human events, it was "talk" and the exchange of ideas that led to real change. In this regard, 30%-ish of the population for whatever reason is anti-science and the extent of their "anti-science" sentiment ramps up to Hulk levels of rage when discussing anything related to the environment. This enables politicians who are anti-science to have tremendous power when crafting legislation that guides the world economy.
So, if we can change the hearts and minds of those 30%-ish who are anti-science, then we remove the power and base of the anti-science politicians. And the way you change hearts and minds is by shining the light of knowledge on willful ignorance.
Therein lies the rub...
There's certainly evidence of all of these negative ecological things happening, however, what the scientists don't have are prescriptions for things to stop or reverse the damage that's being done.
Thus far, all of the viable solutions would require worldwide participation, and as long as the countries of India and China exists (and don't seem to show any interest in changing their policies), The US & Europe implementing these things isn't going save anything if 40% of the planet's population isn't going to participate.
I would argue that things can never change unless the US, Europe, Japan, and all the other high tech nations lead the way. If we don't start the race to a better tomorrow then we will never make it to the end of the finish line.
Sure there is a "lag" between the 1st world and 3rd world nations, but eventually they will catch up, so we need to be first.