Extinctions?

[observer]

Watched a prog about the extinction of the mega-beasts, extra large mammals that existed up to the arrival of humans. But what was interesting, was the number of "ice ages" that have occured during their spell on the planet - around 27, some occuring within 150 years of each other - so what's new about climate change?

[Lt Kije]

Nothing is new about it they are natural events, what is new is "has man kind added to the problem and also made them more extreme."

[Peter T]

Nothing is new about it they are natural events, what is new is "has man kind added to the problem and also made them more extreme."

 

 

We will never know as each generation destroys a bit more of the planet by plundering the forests etc.

It is impossible to compare like with like, so it is not proven.

[observer]

Yer can't get much more "extreme" than an ice age - history shows it's a natural cycle of events and nothing that puny humans can do will change it.

[Peter T]

We will be having one soon as the sun is acting up.

 

Perhaps the Government can come up with a tax.

[observer]

It seems the Ozzy PM is pushing a carbon tax, against popular opinion - so I guess she won't win her next election - such is the political reality.

[Lt Kije]

We will never know as each generation destroys a bit more of the planet by plundering the forests etc.

It is impossible to compare like with like' date=' so it is not proven. [/quote']

 

And not proven is the way you like it Peter, but I am glad that you have now admitted that we are having an effect though, and on that alone should we not slow down what we are doing till we know what effect we are having and what we are leaving for future generations

 

The Victorians polluted in complete ignorance, we have not got the same excuse we know better, we know we are having an impact :!:

[observer]

Again, your totally divorced from reality; do you think folk here are going to do without all their material trappings, do you think the new Chinese and Indian middle class are going to forgoe their progress? The bottom line is, that this world is overpopulated, and will continue to exploit it's dwindling resources like a plague of locusts. So either we control population or we'll eventually become extinct.

[Peter T]

Kije,

How is it proven in your world?

 

The greatest natural asset that we have left are the oceans. I would be very happy if this country rectified the problem of sewers going into the sea and polluting the beaches and the sea. That is something that is proven. Not some hypothetical case that cannot be compared or measured conclusively.

All these green and carbon taxes will have the country back in the dark ages anyway, as people won't be able to buy stuff and a lot will struggle to eat, so it doesn't really matter.

[observer]

Interestingly, the prominent theory was that humans wiped out these mega-beasts. Fossils also suggest, that over-kill occured in some cases, with more Mamoths being killed than could possibly have been eaten. So why did they do it - cos they could. So I guess we've not changed much have we?

[Lt Kije]

Not heard that theory Obs,tell me more about it. I did not say proven,I said it suits you that it is not enough proof yet.,and any proof that comes along you will try to rubbish so you can carry on regardless. If there was 100% proof, you would continue on in denial. My mind is still open yours is made up,and no amount of evidence will ever change it

[Peter T]

Kije,

IF your mind is not made up, why do you defend the theory and refute any other?

[observer]

Obviously Kije, you don't watch educational and informative TV programmes - the program in question discussed three possible theoretical causes of the mega-beast extinction: 1) KILL theory:- that early humans hunted them to extinction. 2)CHILL theory:- that climate change (ice ages) destroyed their habitat. 3)ILL theory:- that disease (possibly introduced by man) wiped these slow reproducers out. From these evidenced based theories, one can then use common sense to deduce the most likely cause - then make a judgement call. Now I know that's difficult for your ilk as you would require another 150 years for "absolute facts" to become available before making up your mind - you luvvies turn prevarication into an art form.

[Lt Kije]

Obs, I watch them all the time, but I do not have the head in the sand channel

 

Peter I think their is enough evidence to act, and if your mind is made up as it is why bother to post is their a glimmer of hope that you have not shut your mind

[observer]

Obviously you don't watch them with an open mind, as you are stuck in the Al Bore theory; huge fluctuations in global climate have occured throughout Earth's history, and Man (despite his arrogance), can't fight nature, nor control it, nor prevent it's cycle of activity.

[observer]

Interesting that this period of extreme fluctuations in the European climate, also coincided with the demise of our Neanderthal cousins - again probably due to the advent of our human ancestors. Some interesting theories based on forensic evidence - Neanderthals were apparently smarter than we were first led to believe, with larger brains (allowing for better vision) and more robust bodies, that required twice the daily calorie intake of a human to sustain. They were powerfull enough to physically attack and grapple with their prey, which incured a high risk of injury. However, they had poorer communications skills and were restricted to family groups of around 10 -15, where as Humans could form tribes of around 150, with increased specialisations and thus productivity.

[Lt Kije]

Obs what channel do you watch :lol:

[observer]

Any informative and educational one (few and far between these days) - think that one was on Beeb 2!

[Lt Kije]

Must have missed it,some of the Discovery channels are Ok, they do have the added advantage if you miss it first time round, it will be re shown 1000's of times

[observer]

Which should be good for you Kije, in case it doesn't sink in the first time round!

[observer]

Watching the Tony Robinson prog, about life on Earth - it's suggested that Homo Sapiens may not have come into contact with Neanderthals, and may not have been responsible for their extinction. The theories go:- during the period of fluctuating temp extremes (10oC variations/ mini ice ages) Neanderthals living in Europe were gradually worn down by famine, due to the loss of forest which supported their close contact ambush hunting strategy, until eventually a "Heinrich Event" (a 1,000 yr ice age that arrives within a decade) saw them off. Meanwhile, in the steppes of S/Russia, Homo Sapien resorted to the use of Mamouth bones for building shelters and for burning as fuel, in lieu of wood. Thus, it was the ingenuity, wider social communications and abilty to adapt that allowed our species to survive.