Yes. Voting patterns, for example, how do those change people's opinions? It would seem that the most they could do is give an impression of what comments are and are not well received. Do people base much of their opinions on that? In which direction?
The claim that, for instance, the Great Barrier Reef is dying due to massive bleaching is based on selective data and contradicts the evidence: "Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009. Subregional trends (10–100 km) in hard coral were diverse with some being very dynamic and others changing little. Coral cover increased in six subregions and decreased in seven subregions. ... Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease ... we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10–100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery." [1]
We have scientific observation of corals, and of coral reefs, that goes back just a few decades. We also have their fossil record of the last 500 million years, including huge climate changes and the documented extinction/rise of various coral subspecies. And then we have people who claim to know with dogmatic certainty that corals are massively dying right now, that they cannot adapt to any climate change -- regardless of the full scientific context.
If we know so much as to make such gloomy, specific predictions -- please show me detailed scientific documentation of the diurnal cycle of corals and their symbionts, with exact minute-by-minute measurement of the day-and-night changes in the photosynthesis, the amount of CO2 in the water, and the productivity of each coral and symbiont. Then provide the same for each day across seasonal changes in water temperature, abundance of sunlight, and CO2 fluctuations. After that, can you indicate this: what are the specific concentration of atmospheric CO2, global sea levels, and ocean temperatures that you will accept as the standard to declare there is no risk of extinction? can these numbers ever change over time and corals would continue to thrive?
The actual science directly contradicts the alarmist speculation spread by unscientific media reports and professional purveyors of modern eschatology.
There are wide varieties of corals and of their symbionts. To claim that they are all simultaneously going extinct in all seas and microclimates is absurd, and contradicts the evidence of their repeated adaptations to past climate variations over 500 million years as well as ignores the observation of their thriving across countless local seasonal and weather variations.
Straw man, no one claimed that there will be a complete extinction of coral, only that it will be 2 million years for coral to recover to pre-industrial levels.
Indeed. Coral reefs are important nursery's for many fish species, and reducing the areas for fish to safely grow up puts yet another pressure on declining fish stocks. Not to mention marine crustaceans that are also affected by rising acidity, and the overall warming trend of the ocean itself is pressuring all kinds of marine life that humanity depends on as a major food source.
Not only that, but the ocean is rising due to land-based glaciers/ice melting, the continental rebound involved from the reduced ice load, and yet more: the warming ocean is less dense and expands. The rising seas along with other factors mentioned also puts pressure on coral reefs, as they often cannot grow fast enough to catch up with that sweet-spot near the ocean surface!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_accent