Nice story, but...
Sorry if I sound boring, probably I am.
As it is, the article is really nice to read, but it sounds more like a funny story than an encyclopedia article. Not that I want all articles to sould technical, but I suspect this is not such an article ought to be.
For example sentences like this one:
Look closer, however, and Earth becomes more interesting. An observer who could survive the heavy pollution in the atmosphere would discover that Earth is home to millions of species, with the human being the dominant species.
Are in my view inaccurate and non informative.
Should the language here tuned to a more technical register? Could we drop potentially inaccurate or wrong sentences, especially where they are not much to the point, as in the example above? I suppose readers of Earth are looking for information, so the more the text is relevant, the better.
I'd like to do the changes myself, but I am scared to start a war over style, which I really don't want! --Nereo Preto 11:34, 26 January 2008 (CST)
Cut from article:
- ..., warming the Earth in the process. As a result, flooding, drought and extreme weather seem to be more common today than in planet's recent past.
This claim is contradicted by many sources, such as hurricane researchers who provide evidence that the warming trend of the last 10 to 15 decades has not caused an increase in frequency or severity of hurricanes.
Better to say that there is a dispute, in the scientific community, over how increased warmth affects the environment. (Along with that, we might point out the connection between advocacy regarding the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) and regarding the Kyoto Protocol. --Ed Poor 12:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)