Atman,

"...untrained people with fertile imaginations...."

Not the only thing that's fertile.

Some nice images here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/pictures/110725-algae-china-beaches-qingdao-swimming-science-environment-world/

You appear to be remarkably selective, Atman.
“That is that now, people cannot separate opinion from fact and real experts have no greater standing than amateur, untrained people with fertile imaginations.”
And you are?

“Yes E O Wilson is an eminent biologist but...”
His opinion just doesn't stack up against an untrained amateur with no imagination?

“The UN red list lists a grand total of 801 extinct species many of which simply haven't been seen for some time”

You might be interested in this article published in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/07/extinction-species-evolve

but then again, probably not. Here is a relevant extract:

“Only 869 extinctions have been formally recorded since 1500, however, because scientists have only "described" nearly 2m of an estimated 5-30m species around the world, and only assessed the conservation status of 3% of those, the global rate of extinction is extrapolated from the rate of loss among species which are known. In this way the IUCN calculated in 2004 that the rate of loss had risen to 100-1,000 per millions species annually – a situation comparable to the five previous "mass extinctions" – the last of which was when the dinosaurs were wiped out about 65m years ago.”

“More species are discovered each year than actually become extinct.”
Yes, the operative word here is 'discovered'. These species aren't suddenly appearing or evolving to replace extinct species; we just didn't know about them or haven't yet gotten around to classifying them.
It seems a majority of 'real experts' agree that extinctions are occurring faster than evolved replacements, and there is no denying humanity has made and is still making egregious changes to many, indeed almost every ecological niche, world wide.
Since we are deliberately modifying the very atmosphere of the entire planet, how can every environment not be affected?

Continued...
“Apart from that the Earth has recovered at least 5 times from Mass extinctions from major catastrophic events...”
This quote from Atman I find the most peculiar. “The Earth”? Are you referring to the rock circling the Sun which is 2/3rds covered in water? It would survive nuclear holocaust or massive bolide impacts.
The biosphere has recovered at least 5 times, but each time it was massively altered, and significant numbers of species were gone for good, to make way for new species.
Hardly a consolation to those species wiped out.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html
another extract:
“Though it is true that life, so incredibly resilient, has always recovered (though after long lags) after major extinction spasms, it is only after whatever has caused the extinction event has dissipated. That cause, in the case of the Sixth Extinction, is ourselves — Homo sapiens. This means we can continue on the path to our own extinction, or, preferably, we modify our behavior toward the global ecosystem of which we are still very much a part. The latter must happen before the Sixth Extinction can be declared over, and life can once again rebound.”

This is I think is the most significant point. After Humanity causes the 6th mass extinction, will we just go away and let “the Earth” recover?
A process 'real experts' agree takes millions of years?
I think it needs to be understood that Mass Extinctions, even those caused by cataclysmic impacts, don't occur in human time frames. The geological record indicates they occur over thousands of years. Even the most recent and famous end of Cretaceous impact wasn't an overnight phenomenon. Recent studies indicate dinosaurs were already declining in numbers when the singular event occurred, as only an estimated 17% of all species were lost (including a virtual 100% of dinosaur species.)
Since we are only at the very beginning of the most recent event which will take hundreds of years to unfold, naturally the Denialist camp will say “why worry? We're alright, Jack. Not our problem, even if we are the cause.”

Correction:
for "17% of all species were lost", please read 17% of 'families'.
(a family may contain a number of species.)
Oops.

Atman said "Sam Jandwich, your post-modern view that no-one can know the truth about Science while concurrently accepting internet opinion as factual and a book you read as prophetic, reflects society's real disaster. That is that now, people cannot separate opinion from fact and real experts have no greater standing than amateur, untrained people with fertile imaginations. That is truly a disaster."

Atman, your rather transparent and undignified bad faith in misreading my comment marks you out as someone who is simply not worth engaging with - though I'm sure Julian C, and anyone else who is able to separate fact from fantasy already knew that.

Grim - In answer to your question, I am a trained person ...I have a Science degree from a prominent university in a period where facts were actually important not computer projections or alarming guesstimates from bloggers or activist/scientists. That doesn't make me an expert but it can make it easier to distinguish fact from fiction.

Secondly, You're right,I wouldn't read The Guardian as it employs unqualified eco loons such as George Monbiot to argue its Green Left agenda. As for the quote, its again all about estimates and estimates with a massive error range. I've heard quotes from 2-100 million as the estimated number of species on the planet. The error range here is over 90% therefore so will be the extinction rate error.

Your quote about the Earth is just pedantic and silly. Most people would include the biosphere when talking about planet earth, I'm not sure why you wouldn't.

The whole extinction argument is conjecture, projections and assumptions most of which are catastrophic and blamed on man. I cannot see evidence for a 'mass extinction' particularly as there are only 800 or so species documented extinction.Some were declared extinct only to be rediscovered to still exist later elsewhere. Many of the already document extinctions were NOT caused by man.

So while there are only 800 or so apparent extinctions (this also needs to be qualified) documented, we are being asked to believe there are actually 30,000 a year occurring without any actual evidence other than the projections made on estimates with a huge error rate. No thanks, I'll stick to real science not pop science.