Originally Posted By: hamilton
The article isn't about the world being a better place without humans, it's about a hypothetical situation, what the world would be like if humans disappeared. The article isn't about humans being "bad".

Sorry, but the entire slant of the article implies that the earth without humans is "natural" and somehow we are an alien species that may or may not "leave its mark".

I find it funny that the same camp that believes humans are just an evolved hairless ape also believes that humans are the only species that is not part of "nature".

Oh, and it’s obvious that the purpose of the entire article is to get to the sermon on "Carbon dioxide, the biggest worry in today's world". You gotta laugh at the statement "There will be CO2 left in the atmosphere, continuing to influence the climate, more than 1000 years after humans stop emitting it" I hope so, otherwise everything would die.

They say that it would take over 1000 years for CO2 concentration to get back to 280ppm "pre-industrial levels" as if that is the "correct" level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact the only other time in the past 600 million years that the CO2 level has been below 400ppm was the Carboniferous period, 300 million years ago. Why don't they tell us how long it will take to get back to the "correct" 7,000 (that's seven thousand) ppm of the Cambrian period?

How about an article on how long its going to take for the effect of pre-historic life to be erased. You know, all those plants sucking CO2 out the air, they dying, becoming buried and turned into fossil fuel, depleting our atmosphere of an essential gas?
_________________________
- Tom S.

"Never trust and engineer who doesn't carry a pocketknife."