From: "Geo." 

"John Beckett"  wrote in message
news:ku23q2dmfn2r74qn0kut3oe5klnvlu5hkp{at}4ax.com...

> The principle is simply that there are billions of ways to change a
> complex but stable system into a mess, but far fewer ways to change it to
> something that suits current life.

Yes because life follows the system, change the system and life adapts, not
the other way around. Any change is always bad at first but that's not a
true measure of the change. It takes time to see the full results.

But I was trying to explain that if you measure life by bio-mass, then
warmer periods produce more life.

> I then asked:
> 3. Is it likely that a change will be good or bad with regard to its
> effects on current life?

Any change will be bad for current life but could easily end up being
better for future life in that there would be more of it.

> If global warming does significantly alter the climate, it is likely that
> the effect will be bad for current life, simply because there are many
> ways to make a complex system bad.

It is a self correcting system that is in constant change. This planet has
never experienced a static system, that in itself may be the change that
ends up bad for life.

Geo.

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