[FierceDraka]

One thing the greenies seem to conveniently forget when issuing their screeching screeds, and that's that species come and species go. And that goes for entire orders, families, and even phyla.

If the corals go out, something else will come along to fill that ecological niche.

[cogitator]

If the corals go out, something else will come along to fill that ecological niche.

Right to a point, except -- coral reefs are the ocean's equivalent of rain forests in terms of biological diversity. Having something "fill" that ecological niche could be akin to replacing a rain forest with a field of grass. There is a net loss. (I.e., the diversity of corals on a coral reef creates a diversity of environments, with a subsequent diversity in coral reef fauna. If the diversity of environments is loss, there has to be net loss in the diversity of the associated biota.)

[ChemistCat]

Well, a coral reef is more than just one kind of creature. It's a collection of interdependant beasties of thousands of kinds that all need each other--especially the "skeleton" provided by dead and living coral. To lose so much coral reef at one time is very much like losing almost all of the life on a whole continent. If Australia were to be wiped out, life would go back to it eventually, but you probably wouldn't get a koala population to thrive there again. It'd be a different mix.

Anyone who dives will tell you that it WOULD be a loss to lose the current "mix" on coral reefs. And what came back might not be as nice for us, or for fish.