I figured we agree on quite a bit! I think that we agree on nearly everything except the “mechanism” for explaining ATS/refugium success/failures.
I have been doing the discussion you are having for 15 years or so (or however long ATS has been around), and for me most of what you are saying is a given.
I am more interested in practical/useful/actional discussion
I trust your, and others’, experience with the reality of refugiums and ATS. It appears, like most things, that there is mixed success; some who see it working and some who don't. Truthfully, I have no skin in the game for whether they work or not, but as part of this discussion, I very much care that we get the mechanism right!
Most of my professional career as a computational molecular biophysicist has been to develop complex models to explain phenotypic data. You might not think that dealing with the theoretical is actionable, but it's remarkable that nearly every time I've seen a better model generated, obstacles and confusion around a topic seem to disappear. We then change our actions based on our new understanding of the problem. In my work, this has led to the development of novel drug candidates (happy to DM you some of my non-proprietary successes haha)
There is an extreme benefit to merging experience with theory, because the experience tells you what actually happens, and the theory explains how/why and provides models, which can be used to obtain novel results. We need both.
In this instance, my understanding of your model is that ATSs can't affect algae growth in DTs and that conditions that can grow corals can always grow algae. Presumably, this leads you and others to not use ATSs for this purpose. However, if this model is wrong (which I think is the case, as the data does not seem to support it) we can dig into why and potentially develop a better model that allows us to turn knobs to work more efficiently, more generally, and in new contexts. Fixing an incorrect model will lead to actionable outcomes.
Now, I'm not saying I've got all the answers (yet ;) ) but the first step in getting a new model is critically analyzing and identifying issues with the old one. This requires being honest with a model's shortcomings.
A little anecdote: There's a common attitude in academic research, that nobel laureates (and other high profile researchers) suppress new research in their fields because they often have dogmatic views; disagreeing with someone of their status doesn't look favorably in grant reviews. We often see explosions of new research and progress in fields after the established researchers pass away.
Honestly though, I feel we're making some progress here :)
I'll end with: always push for better models!