Okay..... I disagree Edufer, I would suggest this methodology is, and has been, exclusive to traditional scientific method. You made reference to "statistical twisting" several times throughout your argument, basing many of your assertions on this claim. Well, that is why statistical information is gathered in the first place, to prove or disprove anything whatever. So yeah, twisting statistics is no more an oxymoron then the phrase running fast.. That is it's purpose, any entry level statistics course will teach you that. So, discrediting Tuxil and Brights book through this discourse oozes hypocracy and is misleading. The same web site you provided, to my amusement, also provides statistical proof of dramatic increases of CO2 emissions in our atmosphere since the modern era began. A DIRECT correlation has been made between the advent of asthma in developing lungs and CO2 emissions, so don't bother arguing it... I'll offer the "Human Experience" in support of what I claimed earlier. As I sit here writing this, in my inner-city appartment, vehicles are continually driving past. I can hear and see them day and night. Now, knowing there is a correlation between CO2 emissions and asthma I would presume raising a child, with developing lungs, in this area would dramatically increase their chance of developing asthma, because of the high traffic volume and the CO2 emissions they produce. Now i know this claim is not a scientifically proven fact but, as I suggested earlier, it is common sensical and a result of the human experience.. Believe me, the human experience IS valuable! As far as sustainability goes I am in support of it. 100%. The multi-billion dollar question is, "what does sustainability mean?" Allow me to propose my position on this definition debate. First of all i will refer to sustainability within the context of natural resource extraction. With that said, my belief is that EVERYONE has a right to participate collectively in making decissions regarding resource exploitation. After all, it DOES affect EVERYONE! I am disgusted that, at present time, decissions regarding resource extraction are unilaterally made through economic considerations without public input. Do we not have a right to participate in decissions that concern our natural environment? Consider this; the NRA in the USA has successfully lobbied for the rights of gun owners. Whether or not you agree with their efforts is immaterial, the point is people are provided an avenue to exercise their democratic right. It's funny that when people like me speak out against environmental destruction we are classified as granola eating tree huggers who don't understand the issues but, when a person who owns a machine gun speaks out we say it is their democratic right to do so..Don't you think our natural world deserves that same scruitiny? Or are people afraid of the human experience? I got one question, these millions of variables you speak of, and to some extent science has placed a lot of faith in them, can they be proven to exist, and better yet can they handle the increase of pollutants caused by human activity? I may be out of date on this subject but as recently as two years ago I researched that exact topic, and I found that it is a very misunderstood theory.. That theory is exactly that, theoretical. I don't know about you but I am not willing to place the health of the planet on some unproven theory. Especially since we regard these processes as naturally occuring, and the pollutants they must deal with are, for the most part, non-natural occuring. Again, common sense! Okay, you have a good point there. I will concede that I have appeared to be very anti-science up until this point. Let me say for the record that I am not anti-science.. I can't be, otherwise my comfortable existence would be conducted in vein. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I would NEVER go so far and say that knowledge equals science, or vise versa. To demonstrate this I will provide a scenario that is derrived from both the human experience and anthropology.(not science) Aboriginal Peoples have existed, and continue to exist, for more than 3,000 years. They have done so without any traditional modern or antiquated scientific influence. Everything they knew -- I say knew to mean traditional -- was through experience. And they thrived for thousand of years until incursion, where the popular scientific community viewed them as savages and inept. Our own society, which has been dominated by scientific review and discovery, is barely 150 years old and the issues we face are grave in nature, for all mankind.(Arguably some of those issues are naturally occuring, but equally some are the result of human activity through scientific discovery) I think we could learn something from a society that didn't place a lot of stock on scientific method and relied instead on the Human Experience. Can you see the irony? All I'm saying is that human experience is valuable and should be taken into account when decisions and actions are made with regards to our natural world.. Don't you agree? P.S. Fraggle, yes I am extremely patient and aware of everything I say. Maybe that virtue and awareness is something you should put into practice. Oh yeah, MARS = EARTH! lol Come on guys, I've heard better theories in support of your argument from mediocre minds.. There are a lot of variables with that argument which you conveniently ignore, and you know it! PSS I think this debate is actually going somewhere. Thanks Edufer!