From: "Phil Payne" 

"Geo."  wrote in message
news:45a38005$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "John Beckett"  wrote in message
> news:gnq6q2l9qj7o82o72cdb2p7o1t24sm2nud{at}4ax.com...
>
> > I outlined the fact that changes to our weather MAY have significant
> > effects. Further, if any significant effect occurs, it is likely to
cause
> > a BAD result (I'm not saying "74 yards of water", I'm
saying that if you
> > change a complex system, it's very likely you will not improve on it as
> > far as current life is concerned).
>
> And I'm saying that with a complex computer system you may be right but
with
> self correcting natural systems you define change as bad, not basing it on
> the amount of life but basing it on simply change is bad.

By definition, any change at all is bad for current life, since it has
evolved to suit precisiely the current conditions.  The polar bears are a
great example of a life form incredibly exposed to changes - but just as
they do badly, other forms of life will do better.  Mass starvation is
likely in Africa.

Was it Mark who said the corn harvest was a record?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/09/nfood109.xml

"Shoppers were warned yesterday that the price of a loaf will soon rise past œ1.

Poor wheat harvests across the world have led to shortages and a sharp
increase in the cost of flour for the second time in four months."

I don't know where these people are buying their bread - I paid 39p in
Woodhouse Co-op last night, and it's not a cheap shop by any means.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5