I really cannot take seriously an article that tells me I'm the cause of global warming because of an increase in the number of ocean areas devoid of oxygen because:

1. the author indicates records only began in the 1850's
2. that such a phenomenon is not new and had occurred naturally
'In the biggest of the lot, the Great Death of the Permian around 252m years ago...'

and then goes on to tell us

'What triggered it is still a scientific mystery...'

without any schintilla of scientific proof that says such a natural phenomenon isn't the cause of current hotspots ... which may have or have not occurred between 252 million years ago and the 1850's when records were first utilised.

I thought acts of faith were the realm of religious people.

Julian C - You should read what I actually said. I said USUALLY from extra terrestrial sources AND volcanoes. I didn't say exclusively from extraterrestrial sources.

1. K-T extinction- probably asteroid or comet.
2. End Triassic extinction - probably vulcanism
3. Permian Triassic extinction- probably vuncanism
4. Late Devonian extinctions - Cold snaps, probably caused by ash and dust kicked up by either astronomical impacts or massive volcanism.
5.Ordovician-Silurian extinctions- possible due to plant growth reducing the temp.

http://www.livescience.com/1752-greatest-mysteries-mass-extinctions.html

So science tell us a quite different story from yours. Extinctions didn't occur because of your so-called dead zones (whatever they are).

Poirot- you said "How can dead soil - devoid of microbes - "recover" when man persists in pouring pesticides on it?"

Well the Earth has recovered from 5 Mass extinctions and a whole lot of smaller calamities. The pesticide issue is not going to cause a mass extinction.

In fact despite the current bizarre claims of a 6th mass extinction caused by man, VERY FEW species have been declared extinct in the last 150 yrs. Many of those which have are due to habitat loss not caused by man or by natural causes such as changes to local environments.

There are up to 50 million species on earth very few have become extinct in the recent past. More species are discovered each year than actually become extinct. Hardly a Mass extinction. Our estimation of the number of species on earth is actually growing.

Julian C - Your claim that 30,000 species a year are being lost is complete nonsense. Really? What eco looney masquerading as a Biologist said that?

The UN red list lists a grand total of 801 extinct species many of which simply haven't been seen for some time or are extinct only in a local area. 801 out of 50 million??

Mass extinction?... only in your dreams

Listen, let's be clear, the Israelis, assisted by the U.S., are in charge of mass extinction!

The nutrient bomb is not as powerful as the nuclear bomb or as fast-acting. View photographs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima if you don't believe me.

Kiss your children every night. The stars are approaching the midnight hour.

Oh well, regardless of whether the science is correct (can science in an area this complex ever be "correct"? Why can't we just accept that some pretty compelling evidence points to the fact that it's a worrying trend, and do whatever we can to prevent it?), this presents an interesting conceptual phenomenon: economic development doesn't just produce obesity in individuals, it occurs on a global scale as well!

It also reminds me of a novel I enjoyed reading a few years ago - Cloud Atlas - in which, centuries from now, vast areas of the world are "deadlanded" and people are confined to small areas. Not beyond the realms of possibility.

Good article Julian, thanks.

'Scientist ' who speak of stories 250 million years ago really are a joke. If you really want to learn from history go back about 4000 years ago when all but a few were wiped out by a flood. Next time it will be fire and n ot because we don't look after the enviroment but because mankind including scientist are to arrogrant to see the correlation between our inward corruption and diaster. Instead they self righteously sprout off about being 'concerned ' for the environment as some noble cause. If man becomes clean on the inside then the enviroment will certainly be better off.