The author has some freedom to choose how to define death in this case, yes. But then he should include the definition he used. Otherwise it's just fear mongering.

It seems like attendant readers understands what the author was doing. They didn't say the definition explicitly, which would violate pep20 (explicit is better than implicit), but, considering this is an article in Outside Online magazine... I think we can accept this violation.

I can understand that you might think other people would be misled by the rhetorical structure... but I encourage you to not get upset at imagined misunderstandings on behalf of others. (Not that it's wrong, it's just makes your life a little less happy)

> but I encourage you to not get upset at imagined misunderstandings on behalf of others

The problem is, global warming is largely an issue _because_ of the "misunderstandings on behalf of others", so in this case, it is a real issue.

We are in agreement. My comment was to the effect of "the author took literary license, most (native speakers) probably knew that, don't beat a dead horse."

I know you said its rhetorical - but there can only be one answer to that question else we are all dead :p

So we should wait until the last polyp disapears?