Leaderboard

hmmmm my reputation is -13 I would swear it was 30something in the morning. what on earth could have caused this? how is reputation 'counted' ?

totally beer+green shit, written & recorded in 3 months time, my first attempt to serious express htrough this kind of music. I like the result DOWNLOAD NET RELEASE 2010 HERE

i honestly cant see the big prob with teotz..seriously. he seems like a good,enthusiastic kid. we all have our shortcomings personality wise so really i think alot of peeps (as the saying goes) can see the speck in teotz eye but not the log in their own. if he shits u dont read his posts! seriously!! im glad t has taken the stand with teotz as he does. i see it as an admirable quality. if theres one thing i have always detested in this world is that of bullying. i think its fucked up and stands out like dogs balls when people like to bait and have a crack at teotz then whinge and whine whenever the fella posts ANYTHING. i think its a cunt act basically, and reflects poorly on the person who likes to shitstir and slag him off. bullys are cowards, and i for one am glad that torsten sees it for what it is.

mutant, by the time I delete all of teotz's negatizes, flip all your retaliatory negatizes, and subtract all of the bulked up pity-positizes you got from this thread [yes, they are abuse too], then you're about even. You did get a lot of single negatizes from individuals for the way you handle teotz. he obviously has more friends than you give him credit for.

ok I guess I hadn't realised it was related with the neg votes so directly. It takes some devotion to vote 40 something posts of someone negative... I wonder who did it.... I'm not pissed off. I was just puzzled. Now I get it and it seems kind of funny to me. and C_T, heh , it's hard to miss man you don't have to search for it. and thing is i didn't see any of my posts negatized, even those who were a bit offensive towards teotz, so go figure ... anywayzzzzz cheers

I'm a biologist Hutch - you don't need to explain evolution to me. The simple point is that environmental shock can result in the extinction of species that would have otherwise survived. Rapidly changing climates are one such shock. Human warming of the planet is changing climate faster than any of the natural cyclical processes that the Earth encounters over time, to the point where what we are doing rivals the impact of stochastic events such as the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. Look at this graph: Many ecologists who work in the field think that we as a species would be in grave trouble if we push the current human-caused extinction event past around 20%, due to the collapse of ecosytem services upon which our complex Western society relies. At the rate we are going, and if we permit the planet to continue warming as it is, we'll be well past 20% by the end of the century. The planet will recover of course, but I doubt that humans will be able to sit on their fingers for the approximately 1-10 million year it would take for ecosystem services to re-evolve. What crazy people do is tabloid fodder, and a problem of education. It isn't science. Have I mentioned yet the logical fallacy of poisoning the well? Huh? Oh, and I've addressed the hockeystick nonsense before. It ain't broken. Nothing sinister Hutch. I meant to type it before I clicked post, but I was trying to catch up with so many posts that I forgot until I proofed my own after submitting it. I included it as an edit because I wanted everyone to know that I didn't slip it in and pretend that it had always been there. You can stop taking the paranoid pills now. Hutch, you've always been what you are. If you can't tolerate being told that you're wrong, to the point that you're being idiotic about holding on to your wrongness, that's your issue. If you believe that you are correct you will answer my questions regarding where it is that you stop agreeing with the science. There's no point telling me or the world that it is condescending or insulting - where is the science wrong? No Hutch, I'm running out of patience and time. I want to deal with the "Consultation on implementation of model drug schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences". Your nonsense here is stoppiong me from doing that, and that is why I am going to stop wiping your arse on stuff that a high school kid could figure out for herself. If you have a substantive point to discuss, I am happy to discuss it. If you don't, then as far as I am concerned this ridiculous thread can sink into an echo chamber for ideology triumphing over rationality. I know that you don't believe in science, so how about once and for all we get to what it is that distresses you so much about the science of climatology... Hutch. 1) Do you accept that gases with polar bonds are able to absorb certain frequencies of electromagentic radiation, and subsequently reradiate them in random directions? 2) Do you accept that when such absorption is of infrared radiation originating from that reflected from the surface of the earth, that the random re-radiation results in the planet's surface/lower atmosphere warming? 3) Do you accept that CO2 is such a radiation-absorbing/re-emitting gas? 4) If "yes" to the previous question, what do you understand the sensitivity of warming to be, per doubling of the concentration of pre-industrial CO2? 5) Do you accept that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing? 6) Do you accept that humans are responsible for the current increasing of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? 7) Do you accept that there is much independent instrumental evidence that the planet has been warming over the last century? 8) Do you accept that there is much phenological, ecological, and hydrological evidence that the planet has been warming over the last century? 9) Given the most robustly defensible determinations of climate sensitivity to CO2, does the current observed warming fit with our understanding of orbitally-driven warming? Does it fit with our understanding of the sun's level of activity in the past century? Does it fit with our understanding of 'greenhouse' gas physics? Don't go off on a wild goose chase repeating stories from the Sun Herald or Machine-gunners' Almanac... ...just answer the bloody questions!

Bacon. Belief and faith in a religious context are a different thing to belief and faith in science. The former operates without empirical proof, and the latter with such proof. Science is not intended for the understanding of God, because, by human definition, God is supernatural, and science only studies the natural. Many people find conflict between their beliefs in God on the one hand, with what science says, on the other. Many people refused to believe that the world was spherical, for this reason. It didn't mean that science was wrong, it simply meant that their understanding of the universe had become too limited for a simplistic faith. But this is the stuff for priests and philosophers. I can't discuss science in this context: if the fundamental premises of science are wrong, they need to be demonstrated to be wrong, and not simply taken to be so because it conflicts with articles of religious faith. Otherwise the Earth really would be flat. The question presupposes that our species actually is "a destructive ulcer on the planet". Frankly, there are many examples of our species not destroying its environment, so the question is rendered moot. If you want my best answer though, I would couch it thus: many organisms, in the dynamic equilibrium of evolution, find themselves in a context where they subsume the resources of the ecosystem in which they find themselves. Consider a bird species that flies to an island, or myxoma virus in Eurpean rabbits. The first wave of colonisation results in a heavy toll on the ecosystem - island, or rabbit physiology - in which they are establishing. The individuals that cause the greatest damage tend to die out, leaving more benign decendants. In island birds species these decendants are nearly always much smaller individuals, which do not overcrowd their niches. In rabbits, it's a myxoma virus that only makes its host sick, rather than killing it. Humans will either learn to ameliorate their impact on the planet, or they'll fuck it up for their decendants. If the latter option is followed, and if luck goes humanity's way, some may soldier on in a way that is kinder to what is left of the rest of the ecology. If the latter option is followed and the resultant the shock to the global ecosystems is sufficiently great, then maybe the collapsing Western cultures may even take unknown New Guinean tribes with them. It's just how it is. It has nothing to do with uclers, beyond the subjective value that we as humans place on ourselves and our environment. I value humanity, but I don't have a very high opinion of unsustainable Western exploitation of the environment. No, without the "guidance of an intellectual scientific community" we would not have a technological society. We would be agrarian, and we would die from TB and plague and measles and polio and any number of other diseases. But we would not have a "global climate disaster", because the tools to drive our hyper-charged economic activity would not exist. Science is amoral. It does not guide; not in an active sense. It only discovers. It is up to society itself to put those discoveries to good, or to not so good, use. Science discovered how to use fossil fuels and internal combustion engines. It discovered how to release energy from the atom. Science is a powerful analytical methodology - the best we have - but it doesn't tell us what to do. Only our governments tell us what to do. They can take the best advice, and the best advice of science says that 1) if you emit too much CO2 you'll warm the planet, and 2) if you warm the planet too much you start knocking off parts of our global ecosystem functions and our biodiverity, and 3) if you knock off too many parts of our global ecosystem functions and our biodiverity, you'll compromise humanity's ability to thrive and to prosper. That's it. Science, if it guides at all, simply guides passively by telling us what are the choices in our use of scientific discoveries. It is humanity's wisdom (or lack thereof) that guides us directly.

Bacon, I don't think that you're getting what I'm saying. What I'm saying is exactly that the rain captured in the months prior to the flood is of significance. The dam captured it and held it back, and then when a stonking great volume of rain came pissing down there was no room left in the dam to hold it all back. Some water was released from the dam to stop it from being over-stressed, but more water was held back than would have flowed straight to Brisbane. But if the dam had been emptied of old water before the rain, then much more of the water could have been held back. The dam reduced the amount of flood water reaching Brisbane - it it had been emptied beforehand it would have reduced the flood levels even more. Whether it could have been forseen with sufficient time to actually release enough water is a different question, and not germane to the matter of the cause of the flood. The science quite explicitly says that such events will have happened in the past. The thing is, in the past they would have been infrequent. The frequency of extreme events such as this is increasing, because the effect of global warming is being superimposed upon what would otherwise be less severe events. The result is that what was a 1 in 200 event before the Industrial Revolution will be a 1 in 100, or 1 in 50, or a 1 in 20 year event in a warmer world. It's simple (or not so simple) physics.

Synchro, seriously bro', read carefully Greenfyre's initial take-down of Morano's piece. Seriously mate - I mean it! It'll take time, and it's still only an initial look at Morano, but a lot of what you've referred to has already been discredited. Listing so many quotes doesn't automatically invalidate any of the science, because Morano is not actually tackling any point. Look carefully at the selection, and in fact look carefully at the whole document. You'll notice that there's not actually any serious science in it - as Greenfyre observes, "utterly absent is any trace of of actual science or any reference to it except in the most abstract and meaningless ways". The scattergun method of listing this sort of quoting without carefully putting forward the context, a favourite technique of Morano and his mates, is hedging toward the fallacy of plurium interrogationum, and it only serves to tie up an argument without actually getting to the meat of the disagreement. If you have a sincere problem with the actual science of global warming, rather than a shivery fear that's the result of the words of people such as Morano, please detail it to me and I will try to address the specifics. Trying to address the quotations in a list like the one above is like trying to put out burning garbage bins along a street whilst the school on the other side of the fence is blanketed in smoke. Neverthless, I'll try to give the potted version of my knowledge of each quote, with the proviso that you shouldn't believe me any more than you should believe the quote in isolation - you need to go back to each and explore them in detailed context. 1) Tom Tripp is a metallurgist, who: and who misrepresents his status with the IPCC. 2) Leonard Weinstein is a former engineer who has produced no credible work that actually refutes any of the basis of climatology. Greenfyre has more. 3) Robert B. Laughlin? Oh, Morano must mean this Robert B. Laughlin, who earned a lot of scorn from scientists by publishing his nihilist views without actually producing any climatological science at all. 4) Christopher J. Kobus. Mechanical engineer (climate change deniers are notorious for being engineers or geologists - can you figure out why?). Note how his quote does not actually contain, nor does it refer to, any, you know, science? 5) Anatoly Levitin. Oh god, his quote is just so stupid that I can't believe that even Morano put it on a list. No, actually, I can... The physics of climatology is not about how much energy humans release, but about how much energy-absorbing 'greenhouse' gas we release. The CO2 that we release absorbs and re-radiates back to earth far, far more energy than we actually directly release from fossil fuel. That energy comes from that stonking great ball of thermonuclear-fusing fire of hydrogen in the sky - the sun. We don't need to release energy ourselves to warm the planet, all we need to do is to put a big blankie around it and the sun will do the job for us. This nonsense is so priceless that any science graduate should laugh, if they didn't cry first at the sheer idiocy of it. 6) Geraldo Luís Lino. Geologist. (Heh, I should do astrology...) One of a fat cadre of people who are threatened by the fact that their profession is implicitly tied with the extraction of the materials that are causing the current warming, and in this case someone who makes quite some money, thank-you-very-much, selling books reassuring people that the science is a fraud - although he produces no useful science to back up any of his claims. 7) Mary Mumper. Who? Sorry, never heard of her, but her quote is a huge non sequitur. It matters not if she considers herself an "environmentalist" (so do the Japanese whalers - truly!), or if she "disagrees with Al Gore". What she needs to do is to produce some science - either her own original work, or a credible analysis and summary of someone else's. No sign of that. 8) William C. Gilbert. Well, he's ashamed, but what else is he? I can't find anything remotely climatological by him in the scientific literature, and the fact that he published in Energy and Environment (see my earlier post) instantly tells me that he is either incompetent, or completely clueless, or speaking crap, or all three. Seriously, E&E is no better than Woman's Day for scientific cred. 9) Hans Jelbring. Another 'who'? Apparently he has a PhD thesis about climate and wind, which was a hopeful start, but as it's only 111 pages I started to grow a little suspicious - that's a bit limp, but as it's not available for reading, I'll let that one go to the keeper. Next clue is that he's another star of E&E (a paper titled "Greenhouse Effect as a Function of Atmospheric Mass") - uh oh... And guess what, it seems that he's one of the curious folk who doesn't actually understand gas physical chemistry or thermodynamics, when he really should. From his E&E paper: This is true if there are 'greenhouse' gases (water, CO2, methane, etc) in the atmosphere. Otherwise, if the theoretical atmosphere simply contains gases such as nitrogen or oxygen, incoming and outgoing radiation will go their merry ways in spite of any atmosphere, as these gases are completely transparent to infrared radiation. No difference in temperature variation, in spite of any non-'greenhouse' gas variation - not unless the atmosphere is so bloody dense that it actually absorbs heat kinetically from the planet's surface. And that's a different kettle of fish. Another of his quotes: is so hilariously, screamingly wrong that I am amazed that even Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor (and another geologist ), allowed this to go to print. The thermodynamics is too complicated to go into here, but there are sources for discussion if anyone is really interested. Actually, thinking about it a little, I recall that Science of Doom had something to say about this a while back, and sure enough... Just search for "Jelbring" on the page. 10) (Fuck, double digits, and I'm still going) So, Burt Rutan. Engineer. Right. Experience in climatology? None. Reading of the science? None, apparently. Claim? .Ah, he's one of those simplistic twits... Yeah, some plants grow much better in a high-CO2 atmosphere. That's trivially understood. What he doesn't say is that many crop species are outcompeted by weeds, when grown in a high CO2 atmosphere, and that their nutritional content decreases to more than offset the productivity gain. And pest species that eat crops chew through them so much more too, because they can't gather efficiently the nutrients they need. Oh, and with a high CO2 content comes a higher temperature and thus a higher soil evaporation rate, so if you're not in an area that benefits from regular increased rain, you're screwed. Oh, and many soil symbionts are screwed by higher CO2, as are many plants in natural plant association, so those parts of the global ecosystem can go belly-up too. A lot of this is covered in the second half of .Combine the effects of increasing CO2 and increasing temperature on ecosystems, and you'll FUBAR the current state of the biosphere before any decent substitute for the productivity that we rely upon reappears. We certainly won't be here to see it, and it's unlikely that future humans would either, for centuries or even for millenia. [Edit: Another thing that is worth pointing out is that until human activity went berserk with the Industrial Revolution, biodiversity was greater in the current epoch that it ever was at any time in the Earth's history. And this biodiversity was achieved with an atmospheric CO2 concentration of around 280 ppm - plants did not "starve" from CO2 "scarcity" during this time, and they are indeed exquisitely adapted to such levels.] Oh, and have I mentioned ocean acidification yet? Fuck this for a joke. I'm just torturing myself I've wasted an hour and a half of my life picking at the lame-arsed claims of people who don't present any real, factual science to the public, and that's an hour an a half that I'll never get back. What pisses me off even more is that I just found a review similar to mine - my only consolation is that I lasted for one more than he did. One of the things that characterises most of the people in Morano's list is that they have very different reasons for saying that there is no global warming - to the point that they have contradictory and often mutually exclusive views. Some people say that there is no greenhouse effect; others say that there is but that it is negligible, and others say that CO2 in not a greenhouse gas. Some of the people on the list claim that CO2 in the atmosphere is not increasing, or that it comes from volcanoes (humans produce more than a hundred times more CO2). Some of them say that there is no temperature increase, and others say that there is but that it's not caused by humans. And it just goes on and on and on: it's a dog's breakfast of denial, and nowhere in there is there actually any real science to support their case. And in petitions such as this some otherwise-credible people are in fact misrepresented, or were asked trick questions in order to get the answer that the lobby group wanted so that they could use their names on a list. The one thing that climate change denialists have in common is that they know how to sound all sciency to lay people, but they never actually engage in any real science, and certainly not in exchanges with real, professional climate scientists. There are only a handful - literally - who do, and almost to a man these people admit that there is a greenhouse effect and that the planet is warming: their take (or the public face of it, at least) is that it is not warming as quickly as physics, instrumental data, and empirical evidence indicate. And sadly, most of these blokes have obvious ties to the fossil fuel industry or similar lobbies. Syncro, I'll say again - if you have a specific point of science where you believe that the issue of anthropogenic global warming falls down, elucidate it here and I'll try to tell you what the best understanding on the area is. But first, please - I'm begging you - take the stuff from the denialists with a huge dollop of salt, and think about trying to track down some of the science yourself. Googling won't bring it up immediately because denialists spend more time on the web spreading their gear than do scientists, but if you start with Google Scholar, or even go down to your local uni library or to the Physics/Physical Chemistry departments, you'll be able to find folk who would be happy to talk to you. It breaks my heart that otherwise clued-in dudes don't seem to have their minds open about this. Look past the screaming headlines of the denialists, and don't pay any attention to the overly-hyped stories from the media either. Learn the science, the real science. The truth is out there, and it's not nearly as conspiratorial as you might think, and sadly the end result if we get it wrong will be worse for future generations than just about all of the hyperbole that the media currently bath us in - it'll just be a slow and inexorable path there, and fortunately (or otherwise) none of us will be around to see the worst of it...

It has been proven that DMT exists as an endogenous chemical, that's part of the reason Strassman got funding, it's just not in psychoactive amounts most of the time. The argument goes that at some times the body is capable of producing more than it can process as part of it's daily functioning and people have UFO, religious experiences etc. as a result. I think the evidence that people were using these plants proves it was part of our evolution, I'm not sure about physiologically but certainly culturally. DMT and other chemicals can produce visions not unlike the petroglyph's and hyroglyphic's used as a basis for communication by past civilisations. I too have been looking into this area but just recreationally, there's no book coming, I think people's use of various active plants enabled them to exponentially access their already capable imagination. Similarly cooked food enabled the brain to become larger, as seen on TV recently, quite a compelling argument. These plants played a part but were not the sole reason IMO for the subsequent direction of human societal evolution. ©

I've already got the keys to heaven

For the past ten years we have been listening to fanatics preaching our doom....We are listening to the wrong people here folks..too much money has been made in the name of this new religion and now, we can attribute some deaths to that wrong advise?... http://www.theaustra...v-1225991369355

I'm some what religious not in the sense of following any strict doctrine but enough to feel science doesn't explain everything. I'm very much one of those people that feel beliefs dictate reality. If you want answers bad enough you will find them..... I've made things come true. I've refrained from adding my religious views to this topic but whats to say they are any less valid then a scientific standpoint? Science seems to have no room for my beliefs as they are not measurable and to me only seems to move us further away from understanding god. Hence my stubbornness to accept scientific fact.

GOT >> yeah, I had in mind something like that as 'knuthianus', beautiful plant! Is this the ozzie variety you meant Michael? If so, please show us a knuthianus = cuzco

Maybe we should start a thread about things science got wrong? Why do I read this so often in one form or another every where " It is the best science of the day" How many times are those "best scientists of the day" proven so wrong so often?...should we start another thread highlighting them here? How many examples could be so easily brought up of when scientists and elitists have got it so wrong.... The science gets trashed by poor scientists who are chasing big money! Simple as that..They are supported by those who love fluffy animals

Mine went from +30something, to -19 over a weekend. Why? Because one child here on the forums disagreed with my disagreeing with SOME of his puerile and juvenile posts and negatised them. I also told him I'd positised a couple of posts for HIS side of the argument, but he obviously either can't or refuses to read what has been written and then went back through my posts and negatised a whole bunch of mine just for shits and giggles. I'd be annoyed if I were a regular seller onsite but since I mostly just buy from here (and have always paid up, to the point of being ripped off twice) it doesn't really affect me too much. The sheer immaturity of it just blows my mind though.

ROFLAO.......Straight out of science journal weekly....you really expect me to answer those questions or are you just showing off again? Here goes... #1 Yea I can see that...could do...I will have to ask them though. #2 Well maybe but it got me thinking...lets put a big pool blanket over the ocean...made my pool fucking cold... #3 Yes #4 0000.2% #5 Maybe #6 No to that sorry mate... #7 No...I see a lot of data rigging going on.. #8 Nope...fudged figures and all... #9 Most likely not because we only THINK we know it all...next year you will tell me something different. There you go and I didn't even go near one of Australia's largest newspapers to get my answers...As I have continually read in that paper the very things you wish me believe then I should ignore them too because they have no idea either, based on your logic. It shouldn't be about the source...it should be about the information. Anyway...back to the constitution....

BRISBANE was being placed at a greater flood risk because authorities preferred to hoard water in Wivenhoe Dam rather than use more expensive alternatives, according to a leading resource economist. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/debate-heats-up-as-expert-calls-for-dam-levels-to-drop/story-e6freon6-1225991407676

Well yes Woody..I think we can. We would do what I hope they are planning on now, though I doubt it... We will make those who wish to live in flood prone area's like on the banks of the bloody river move to higher ground! As well as the poor people of this country who have been forced into cheap land deals that now obviously put lives at risk. We should resume that land for communal vegetable gardens and parkland instead....You need a permit to site a house. Those who signed that permit and approved that estate should be responsible...That is the government. But were they listening to the wrong scientists.... We have been spoon fed that we would never see rains like that again and now we are told "every things alright people...we new that was going to happen...nothing to see here, move along" That just don't cut it with me. For a couple of years this country needs to focus a little more on itself...Our infrastructure in QLD is fucked as it is every where else. I and another 350 or so people have been isolate for over 7 weeks since March because of lack of infrastructure. We call ourselves the lucky country but are we really? Foolish and gullible more like it...I am all for helping those around the world that are a little worse off than me and we should. Those tradesman and companies that would benefit from the building of those 2000 schools in Indonesia for example will not be worse off. Why do we give money to dictators around the world to buy more guns? Spend the money here and get this country up and running and much more productive. We are starting to lag behind... So in answer to your question, YES we can deal with that. We will get smarter Woody...that is my hope....

hutch... I think like Slybacon was alluding to re: the power of our beliefs, We DO play god with our conscious/subconscious wish fulfillment or nightmare creation. Now our betters in the scientific community can once again prove their infallible authority on truth by building a global consensus and having all of us help manifest their apocalypse, their own self fulfilling prophecy... of course such metaphysical machinations of physical causality are impossible to explain scientifically so must be untrue. Now we can believe the scientists doom predictions, but no way in hell will we really believe that a carbon tax or any political action will save us. As far as we're concerned all politicians and corporations do is lie cheat and steal from us (we might hope otherwise but subconsciously we know this to be the case), so we have only one choice, believe we're doomed and know that our governments won't save us either. What a great mental path we're on. If we don't act soon who knows what sort of toxic memes will ruin our childrens mental environments. hehe fear mongering is great! Science can describe the box and what's in it, but cannot think outside it. Science describes nature but cannot explain the supernatural the Supra-natural, which supersedes mere observation of nature, and actually creates the phenomena observed. Knowledge of the chains that bind us, as detailed and precise and correct as these observations are, doesn't make the decision to be chained by such beliefs. If St. Peter gave you the keys to heaven would you believe him? Or do you need a consensus to prove it? I agree that if you believe in anything strongly enough it will prove itself to you. The calculations of a doom hypothesis powered by the feedback loops of the imagination accelerating towards oblivion would reach it's inevitable end. It seems such mechanical or logical thought processes lack the rejuvination of the never ending fountain, not contained in any book or peer reviewed journal, do you know where to find it? Science cannot be a basis for understanding the truth without also maintaining a connection to the divine. A balanced perspective is the only way to see the big picture. I feel for people with children that get into some kind of fear based "need to save the world for my kids" delusion that perhaps through their own subconscious fear facilitates the destruction of it (the whole, "you lose that which you fear to lose" self directed destiny paradox). [sarcasm]I think we should all jump on board these fear based thought loops![/sarcasm] but then I'm probably not taking this seriously enough! [edit]spelling

Can I ask you a question WD..... Do you think it is healthy to view our species as a destructive ulcer on the planet?, Do you think that without the guidance of an intellectual scientific community we would meet our end in global climate disaster?

Why did you slip this in as an edit...would have missed it if I didn't go back.......Suddenly not being hailed a hero so you will take your bat and ball and go home....fine, but I will continue on with the challenge you basically set for me with your insults.... You created me! You and your condescending and insulting nonsense in your links...Most don't click on them after time but I have....

My wife just called it good...your running out of links

And there in lies the dispute Woody. Is human warming of the planet changing climate faster.....You have not yet convinced me of that....As I and others have already pointed out all species on this planet have been evolving and going extinct since the dawn of time. What we have now is a species of this planet who thinks it can play god! One asteroid could wipe us off the face of this earth as it did other species. And you call minor fluctuations in the earths temp an environmental shock that can (glad you said can) wipe out some species! And I just don't believe it. You don't have much of an opinion of people do you. We are to blame for everything and we wont be smart enough to adapt. We will adapt...we will most likely be zipping around the galaxy by then...It would happen a lot sooner but we are wasting billions and billions of dollars employing people like you to convince us of a fantasy dreamed up by those who seek to control the rest of the people. And this time they have taken some of the earths wisest peoples and made them into (dare I say it) IDIOTS. I am in no way stopping you from doing anything....I don't ask you back here each day...you do it cause you cant stand to see your religion being trashed by the likes of me. It is just like Scientology...pick on them and your in for it.....I am trying to rewrite the Australian Constitution at the moment so I do understand your issue with time though...next week I plan on studying the mating habit's of fossils... Never enough time hey Hutch

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/67321_air20.shtml sorry. i figured most people would be smart enough to google, toxins in air. i was terribly wrong. my mistake.