For women only. This is your social species social responsibility. Well, some men, too, should play a part.

Growing up in America at one time, it was possible to learn about survival and mechanisms therein. One of the Laws of Human Survival went like this: "Women get to choose their mates; and men get to mess around." Yeah. That is how it works. Or is supposed to work. It assures a genetic diversity mankind's legal pronouncements and secular laws can not provide.

Well this survival mechanism is now endangered - - as is our species . . .

Matt Kaplan's ScienceNow article in the 30 November 2007 issue of Science "Female Fickleness May Split a Species" is an interesting look at choices females make to select the course of species direction.

In our species, are women even aware of their responsibility? Or are they chattel as in some societies dominated by misanthropic men. What is this equality thing? Where does it exist -- and where not? Many women can tell you -- and it doesn't occur to most men that women select the direction in a free and equal society -- and that you can let men think they choose the directions in the free societies -- but some of the rest of these fickle women in non-free cultures, have no real choices or freedoms. Would they choose species survival? If they could get out of their rut would they think about the chances for the species to survive? Hmmmm?

Ah, but in the animal kingdom...there we can talk about speciation, a taboo in homo sapiens, though just as effectively constructed. . . If you are a woman, are YOU an intelligent woman? This survival thing is what you need to be concerned with. . .so to survive, bone up on what you have allowed the species to confront...and address it!

Science's Matt Kaplan posits what an ideal man looks like to women. He suggest some women like personality and charm, others want nice looking abdominals. Female Yellowthroats might be more like "women" in their fickle approach at species direction through mate selection.

Image: USGS Common Yellowthroat

This article addresses the fickle idea approach of speciation -- females choice of mates.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?fulltext=&datetype=rangeweeks&rangeweeks=4&hits=20&sortspec=date&searchtype=allfree

Take heart. Read the article as a Guest!

Image: USGS Western Meadowlark. Will these birds survive the next 100 years? Will sub-speciation save them? Can they find the needed plants farther north? Plants just don't run very fast.

Think about choices. If you are a woman, think about the direction you would like to see the species traveling.

Oh..... Yes. Women!

Right now the choices you have made may lead us and 90 percent of the life on the planet to extinction, simply by letting your society be driven by Big Carbon -- you know Big Oil, Big Natural Gas, Big Coal. You need to take the time to read the Fourth Assessment from the IPCC at:

www.ipcc.ch

You may have to change direction if you want your children's children's children to survive to have their own children's children. But quickly, you have to voice your support for addressing the issue. How fickle will you be? There is less than a decade to change the path drastically. Study the issue. Learn. Choose your mate accordingly.

You only worried about health care? This is the wrong issue. Sure health care is an issue. It really is a "dodge" the real issue, issue. The most important issue is the AGW sponsored by BIG Carbon. Of course, the Bush Regime is throned on Big Carbon, Savings and Loan thefts (Silverado), Dubai Port management, illegal immigration, NAFTA, and other Trade agreements. But these are all "dodge" issues. Seriously, see if the truly honest press pushes on the most important issue? The dishonest press just sidelines the issue. F?x is a rally good example of slanted tainted truth. Like Pravda.

Health Care? Credit Card Debt? Banks being rescued? An economy going down the tubes because Fed Chairman is not still Greenspan? All of these important issues are dodge issues -- and the nation and world have little time. In fact the tipping point is behind us. We have no wiggle room ahead. We have to get this right this time. Women might be able to help -- it will have a lot to do with them.

So, Health Care?

That seems to be an American "election" issue. I guarantee, the issue of survival is Not health care -- but it is coal, oil, natural gas and global warming and looming extinction. I know some of you fickle women just get mixed-up and confused and well, fickle. I wrote a xomba poem about many of you -- kidding about your fickle nature -- look up Damn It, Woman! on xomba. But the issue is species survival not individual health care. But species Health Care. Future health care.

Temp Rise---Result
----C. --- F.
0.6C -- 1.1F -- Amphibian extinctions in mountains
1.0C -- 1.8F -- Polar ecosystems increasingly damaged. (Goodbye Polar Bear)
1.2C -- 2.2F -- Loss of ~8% of freshwater fish habitat in North America.
1.5C -- 2.7F -- ~10% to 15% of species committed to extinction.
1.7C -- 3.1F -- Coral reefs bleached.
2.2C -- 4.0F -- Loss of ~10% to 80% of various fauna in South Africa
2.4C -- 4.3F -- Major(20% to 80%) loss of Amazon rainforest.
2.6C -- 4.7F -- More than 15% of global ecosystems transformed.
2.7C -- 4.9F -- ~20% to 30% of extant species are committed to extinction.
3.0C -- 5.4F -- Widespread coral mortality.(Most coral dies.)
3.4C -- 6.1F -- Extinctions of 15% to 40% of species in biodiversity hot spots.
3.6C -- 6.5F -- Few ecosystems can adapt.(Perhaps only the ocean depths.)
3.8C -- 6.8F -- 40% of global ecosystems transformed.
4.0C -- 7.2F -- 4C and above major extinctions occur entire globe.

The above is a written rendition of a graphic accompanying Richard Kerr's SCIENCE article, "How urgent is climate change?" The graphic at Science above is a rendition of IPCC Working Group II's 2007 technical summary, figure TS.6. below.

Image: IPCC

On this page, the choice is table 1.and you can click to enlarge it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/gr-ar4-wg2.htm

Images: Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
educational use.

The most pessimistic view has the temperature rising above 4C well before 2100. The most optimistic vision suggests the temperature will only reach 2.5C by 2100. Meaning their optimistic acceptance of the loss of most of the Amazon rainforest -- the largest absorber of CO2 on land. . .

Don't take my word for it. Don't take any "Man's" word for it. You are smart enough and you can read and visit with females who you can trust who are experts in fields related to climate of in climate science themselves -- or just read Rachel Carson.

This is figure 1. It goes together with table 1.

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/gr-ar4-wg2.htm
Download and enlarge, read the 4-partition block to understand how well researched this is.

Ladies! this should scare you. If it doesn't you are cheating your kids out of their existence and future. Changes have to be made immediately, soon, very soon.

I can name some women who are not scientists, who are basically industry tools, or political tools who are not experts in the climate field but who use every sound byte they get to denigrate those who are experts in their fields of climate study. Talk to those they try to denigrate or downplay. Learn.

You can trust your own instincts for species and offspring survival, can't you? Or can you? Dig into it, forget about "fashion" and feathering, the fluffy stuff that females don't exhibit in the animal kingdom because to be smart and plain is safer for species to exist. In the animal kingdom, it is the dressy male that wins the females but the females choose them probably for talents we humans do not detect. We seemingly see the reversal of that in humans.

Ladies, I would caution not to choose the "pretty ones" unless they have clear survival skills for you and the offspring. Otherwise they are playing the "fashion game" and not the real game of species survival. They are like fluff, no real substance. You can see many of them. See if their survival instincts are like yours. . .

Fickle are you, eh?

Choose wisely.