> The discourse would be more effective if we stick to the facts without end-of-world proclamations.

Your complaint is with science journalism, not science. Let’s look at the actual quoted scientists:

“It came as a surprise,” said Ralf Schiebel. . . “We’ve never seen something like this before.”

Andrew Sellers. . . “major repercussions throughout the food web.”

“The climate is warming, that’s putting coral reefs at risk,” said Dr. Aronson. . .

But if [the current] disappears repeatedly, then “it’s cause for grave concern,” Dr. Aronson said.

Dr. Schiebel said. . . “Our fear is now that it would also happen to other upwelling systems,” he said.

With the exception of “grave concern,” these are statements of fact and falsifiable predictions, not “end of the world” prophecies.

As to why the New York Times indulges in such histrionics, well, how else are they going to maintain relevance in the digital era, by which I mean, how else are they to extract value from their advertisers & subscribers? We’ve proven at this point that the only thing people click on en masse is clickbait.