http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/science_australia_dc

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Giant prehistoric kangaroos and wombat-like creatures the size of hippopotamuses were not killed off by human hunters but by climate change and starvation, an Australian study has found.


The climate changed before humans could put greenhouse gasses in the air, AND were not responsible for hunting these animals into extinction. Does anyone but me find it interesting that scientists seem too eager to blame humans for all the faults of the world, past or present?

Dear Sixee:

There's a large body of evidence suggesting that early humans *were* (and continue to be, of course) responsible for the disappearance of numerous (mostly large mammalian or avian) species over the course of our history, so the assumption that the same held true for some Australian marsupial megafauna wasn't an unreasonable one. However, Pleiocene Australia differs from the other continents in that it moved north from Antarctica at a rapid rate (well, for continental plate tectonics, anyway) and grew steadily warmer and drier (with fluctuations, of course) over a period of millions of years.

The final desertification of the interior may have happened fairly rapidly, with the result that these large fauna (with long generation times) couldn't adapt. Which, by the way, is one of the reasons why *current* scientists are concerned about rapid global warning...

And one of the nice things about the scientific method, as opposed to 'blind faith' or 'pulling opinions out of one's ass', is that in most cases the scientific community is very willing to accept conclusions that don't match their assumptions as technology improves and more accurate data comes in.

Regards,
Nydia

LOL

'pulling opinions out of one's ass',

Not Sixee...never!

Dear Nydia:
There is also a large body of evidence that 99% of the species that have ever existed have gone extinct, according to palentologist Stephen Jay Gould , with very little interference from man.
Man is a successful species. In many areas of the planet, he is the top of the food chain. Man is adaptable to many changes in climate, environment. Few species outside the insect kingdom are as widely distrubited across the planet.
Species become extinct, because they cannot adapt to the environment in which they live. Sometimes this means that in order for 1 species to survive, another must become extinct.
The planet is not a snapshot. It is a dynamic place where species rise up, and die out, all in a natural order of survival of the fittest.
Don't try and feed me the line that the planet is going to be destroyed because of humans. This planet existed long before we crawled out of the slime, and will continue to exist way after we have gone the way of the dinosaur.
While I agree global warming is a fact, I dispute the reasons the climate is changing.
It is a well known fact that the climate has changed in our planet's past. There are warming trends, and cooling trends. They are attributed to everything from sunspots, to asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions.
I also don't debate that humans tend to pollute where they exist. What I dispute is the effect humans tend to have upon thier environment.
We should conserve and not pollute because they are the "nice" things to do. I like breathing clean air. I like clean water. What I don't like is someone lying to me, telling me that I'm a part of a bad species because we don't fit into some utopean, static snapshot of the planet, when all evidence points to the contrary.

Regards,
Sixee

Thats what we call a non sequiter Sixee.

Yes, there is a cycle of life and evolution that occurs naturally. The prime difference is that humans do not live in nature, we remove ourselves from the natural cycle as much as possible. Most of the extinctions in natural history are about either natural selection, catastrophic event or the restoration of balance.

Human impact on the environment is most closely related to catastrophic event.

Here is a good article to understand how an ecosystem works and how mans influence on it can be disasterous.

http://www.yellowstonepark.com/news/archive/2004/WolvesChangeEnvir.asp
On a quiet spring morning, a resounding "Slap!" reverberates through the air above a remote stream leading to Lake Yellowstone. Over much of the past century, it has been a rarely heard noise in the soundscape that is Yellowstone National Park, but today is growing more common-the sound of a beaver slapping its tail on the water as a warning to other beavers.

Ten years ago, when the grey wolf was reintroduced into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, there was only one beaver colony in the park, said Doug Smith, a wildlife biologist in charge of the Yellowstone Wolf Project.

Today, the park is home to nine beaver colonies, with the promise of more to come, as the reintroduction of wolves continues to astonish biologists with a ripple of direct and indirect consequences throughout the ecosystem.

A flourishing beaver population is just one of those consequences, said Smith.

A beaver's tale of elk
What happened, said Smith, is that the presence of wolves triggered a still-unfolding cascade effect among animals and plants-one that will take decades of research to understand.

"It is like kicking a pebble down a mountain slope where conditions were just right that a falling pebble could trigger an avalanche of change," Smith mused.

So how did this avalanche of change work out for the beaver?

To answer that, you have to go back to the 1930s, when the wolf was killed off in Yellowstone. Even though Yellowstone elk were still preyed upon by black and grizzly bears, cougars and, to a lesser extent, coyotes, the absence of wolves took a huge amount of predatory pressure off the elk, said Smith. As a result, elk populations did very well-perhaps too well. Two things happened: the elk pushed the limits of Yellowstone's carrying capacity, and they didn't move around much in the winter-browsing heavily on young willow, aspen and cottonwood plants. That was tough for beaver, who need willows to survive in winter.

Healthier willow stands
This created a counterintuitive situation. Back in 1968, said Smith, when the elk population was about a third what it is today, the willow stands along streams were in bad shape. Today, with three times as many elk, willow stands are robust. Why? Because the predatory pressure from wolves keeps elk on the move, so they don't have time to intensely browse the willow.

Indeed, a research project headed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Ft. Collins found that the combination of intense elk browsing on willows and simulated beaver cuttings produced stunted willow stands. Conversely, simulated beaver cutting without elk browsing produced verdant, healthy stands of willow. In the three-year experiment, willow stem biomass was 10 times greater on unbrowsed plants than on browsed plants. Unbrowsed plants recovered 84 percent of their pre-cut biomass after only two growing seasons, whereas browsed plants recovered only 6 percent.

With elk on the move during the winter, willow stands recovered from intense browsing, and beaver rediscovered an abundant food source that hadn't been there earlier.

As the beavers spread and built new dams and ponds, the cascade effect continued, said Smith. Beaver dams have multiple effects on stream hydrology. They even out the seasonal pulses of runoff; store water for recharging the water table; and provide cold, shaded water for fish, while the now robust willow stands provide habitat for songbirds.

"What we're finding is that ecosystems are incredibly complex," he said. In addition to wolves changing the feeding habits of elk, the rebound of the beaver in Yellowstone may also have been affected by the 1988 Yellowstone fires, the ongoing drought, warmer and drier winters and other factors yet to be discovered, Smith said.

Research bonanza
Biologists are often faced with the grim task of documenting the cascade effects of what happens when a species is removed from an ecosystem, by local extirpation or even extinction. In Yellowstone, biologists have the rare, almost unique, opportunity to document what happens when an ecosystem becomes whole again, what happens when a key species is added back into the ecosystem equation.

"In the entire scientific literature, there are only five or six comparable circumstances," Smith said. "What we're seeing now is a feeding frenzy of scientific research."

Scott Creel, an ecology professor at Montana State University, is hip-deep in that feeding frenzy.

"My research has been in the Gallatin Canyon," said Creel, where elk inhabit four drainages. Wolves come and go, he said, enabling him to study what elk do in the presence and absence of wolves.

"Elk have proven to be pretty adaptable," Creel said. "When wolves are around, they're more vigilant and do less foraging."

Elk move into heavy timber when wolves are around, Creel added, but return to the grassy, open meadows when wolves go away. Creel and other researchers are still working out what that means in terms of the elk's diet and whether there are costs associated with this behavior.

Rather surprisingly, elk herd size breaks up into smaller units when wolves are around, said Creel, who had expected herd size to get bigger as a defense mechanism. "I think they're trying to avoid encounters with wolves," he said, by being more vigilant, moving into the timber and gathering in smaller herd units.

Food distributors
Researchers have also determined that wolves, in the recent absence of hard winters, are now the primary reason for elk mortality. Before wolf reintroduction, deep snows were the main determinant of whether an elk was going to die.

Researchers from the University of California at Berkeley determined that the combination of less snow and more wolves has benefited scavengers both big and small, from ravens to grizzly bears.

Instead of a boom and bust cycle of elk carrion availability-as existed before wolves and when winters were harder-there's now a more equitable distribution of carrion throughout winter and early spring, said Chris Wilmers in the on-line journal Public Library of Science Biology. He added that scavengers that once relied on winter-killed elk for food now depend on wolf-killed elk. That benefits ravens, eagles, magpies, coyotes and bears (grizzly and black), especially as the bears emerge hungry from hibernation.

"I call it food for the masses," said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He said he was genuinely surprised by the vast web of life that is linked to wolf kills. "Beetles, wolverine, lynx and more," he said. "It turns out that the Indian legends of ravens following wolves are true-they do follow them because wolves mean food."

Awesome article L2 but it does lack some real time info.

They reintroducing of the wolve to our local YellowStone has had some dire effects as well.

It's now vastly overpopulated by said wolves and they are pouring out into the local area. See the wolves don't recognize the Yellowstone bounderies and as such the cheeky bastards are now killing livestock in a widening area.

So while yes man might have threatened/decreased critters at one time it's also becoming rapidly apparent that we don't have a dern clue when it comes to repopulating said areas.

Fandros

Well, at least I got my new word of the day. "Megafauna."

Human impact on the environment is most closely related to catastrophic event.


Yes, that's true both ways apparently.

So while yes man might have threatened/decreased critters at one time it's also becoming rapidly apparent that we don't have a dern clue when it comes to repopulating said areas.


We should conserve because it's the right thing to do. But we must also face the facts that while some species have met extinction at the hands of man (the dodo, the Tasmanian wolf), others thrive in spite of our impact (squirrels, crows, Ect.)
Why does 2 species thrive, while 2 others don't?
The ability to adapt to the changing environment, it would seem.

They introduced wolves into Wisconsin as well and about the same time they introduced Elk. Elk is doing horrible ..brain worms and other problems..and the wolves are spreading like wild fire. They are increasinly becoming a problem thats pissing off a lot of people. I see them from time to time while out hunting. Some day I'll get one of those fluffy pelts to hang on the wall. Consequently the beaver population hasn't changed.

Yea. The balance is really really delicate. But so much is hinged on it. Healthy water, healthy forests. And when we destroy the balance, we dont, even with all our modern science, have the depth of knowledge to restore the balance.

Yes, my war with the squirrels is going poorly.... even as we speak I can see them outside prancing gleefully, teasing me with there ability to run straight up a tree.... damn them!!!! Damn them all!!!!!

Awesome article L2 but it does lack some real time info.

They reintroducing of the wolve to our local YellowStone has had some dire effects as well.

It's now vastly overpopulated by said wolves and they are pouring out into the local area. See the wolves don't recognize the Yellowstone bounderies and as such the cheeky bastards are now killing livestock in a widening area.

So while yes man might have threatened/decreased critters at one time it's also becoming rapidly apparent that we don't have a dern clue when it comes to repopulating said areas.

Fandros

Which is where wildlife management through hunting by humans comes in.

Which is where wildlife management through hunting by humans comes in.

But then we are inserting ourselves into the "Delicate Web", replacing the wolf as the natural predator.

Which is where wildlife management through hunting by humans comes in.

True Rover, however due to decades of happy happy joy joy the local legislation is loathe to move on that just yet.

Fandros

Sorry Sixee...but your ignorance is beyond measure. To refute man's effect on this planet is beyond inane. To ignore global warming is suicidal....if not completly caused by greenhouse gases it is at the very least being made worse by them....we need to get off them quickly...and not JUST because of global warming (though that should be enough for any rational thinking being).

/rant off

Was rereading something in L2's quote and it struck a chord in me with what I know to be true in the park.

The Grey Wolf feeds primarily on deer and elk...but also on rabbits...and beaver.

I wager that the beaver population is no longer going to hinge on the Willow's but upon being destroyed by the overpopulation of the now growing packs of the Grey Wolf.

http://www.kidsplanet.org/factsheets/wolf.html

For the record, its of note that this experiment in Yellowstone is under scrutiny. See the Grey Wolf is not endangered world wide with over 200k population in 57 different countries. But it's ranges are being changed due to human expansion.

So now that a fragile balance has been potentially destroyed by short sighted and feckless ne'er do well what now? Hunting in Yellowstone is likely the only response.

We dabble and we pretend at being Godlike with our knowledge in nature. But more times than not it seems we do more damage than was prevelent at the time.

Fandros

See the Grey Wolf is not endangered world wide with over 200k population in 57 different countries.
Which works to an average of ~3500/country, which suggests endangerment on at least a few local levels.

The balance of predator and prey is one that nature is accustomed to sorting out, so it may be that a few wolf generations will change the balance to a more ideal state.

Oh I don't know..wolves in Yellowstone make a hell of a lot more since than northern Wisconsin. They thrive and for the most part on everyones land, including farmers animals and our pets..namely our dogs. Hate to turn this into a wolf debate but its a pretty hot topic in Wisconsin. At least in Yellowstone its a fricken humungous state park. The wolfs in Wisconsin are let go basically in our back yards.

Sorry Sixee...but your ignorance is beyond measure. To refute man's effect on this planet is beyond inane. To ignore global warming is suicidal....if not completly caused by greenhouse gases it is at the very least being made worse by them....we need to get off them quickly...and not JUST because of global warming (though that should be enough for any rational thinking being).

/rant off

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

Obama Warns of Gas Guzzling Cars in Town Hall Meeting
Tue Aug 15 2006 21:47:08 ET

Illinois Senator Barack Obama warns citizens at his 50th Town Hall meeting about gas guzzling, WPSD-TV reports. (http://www.wpsdtv.com/articles/stories/public/200608/14/0DDC_local_news.html)

It was among many points made to the standing room only audience at the Metropolis Community Center. Obama spoke on everything from DC politics to global warming.

He says part of the blame for the world's higher temperatures rests on gas guzzling vehicles. Obama says consumers can make the difference by switching to higher mileage hybrids.

Today the Senator said, "It would save more energy, do more for the environment and create better world security than all the drilling we could do in Alaska."

"After the meeting... Obama left in a GMC Envoy after admitting to favoring SUV's himself," claimed local News Channel 6.


Guess Obama isn't "Rational thinking".

Just a further example of politicians being beyond hypocritical Sixee. Neither side knows no bounds to hypocracy on many levels.

Guess Obama isn't "Rational thinking".

...and wtf does that have to do with anything I said Sixee?

That you can't comprehend what I said. I never mentioned Obama...in fact I'm not sure I've ever mentioned anything about Obama in any post I've ever written. At least he's saying the right things...maybe there's some hope he'll vote for, or down the road put in legislation to get us off of crackoil.

...and wtf does that have to do with anything I said Sixee?

That you can't comprehend what I said. I never mentioned Obama...in fact I'm not I've ever mentioned anything about Obama in any post I've ever written. At least he's saying the right things...maybe there's some hope he'll vote for, or down the road put in legislation to get us off of crackoil.

LOL..it has nothing to do with anything you said...as most of the posts by Sixee have nothing to do with anything in the discussion.

Sorry Sixee...but your ignorance is beyond measure. To refute man's effect on this planet is beyond inane. To ignore global warming is suicidal....if not completly caused by greenhouse gases it is at the very least being made worse by them....we need to get off them quickly...and not JUST because of global warming (though that should be enough for any rational thinking being).

/rant off

Those are your words Ailwon. I just applied them to the situation that Obama was in, as far as Greenhouse gasses and SUVs were concerned.
Now comes the part where you say not all Democrats believe the same thing, yadda yadda yadda.
Ever stop to think thats 1 of the reasons the American Public doesn't get the message that Democrats are trying to sell?
Some of the ideas from the Democrats are quite good. But if you can't make them understandable, then no one will listen.
Heck, even the Republicans appear to be lockstep on 90% of the issues. Even if it is "dumbed down" for the American Public.

Your not getting it Sixee...

I never made this a partisan issue...this needs to be a human/US issue. Fuck democrats and republicans. You trying to make this partisan just shows your ignorance of the problem.

Mixed message :rolleyes: ......the only message from the republican side is whatever reaps more profits...fuck the environemt, fuck the future of this planet.....I've got my millions, embryos aren't being killed, and gays can't fucking marry.

This reminds me of a biology professor I had in college. He had a massive website and was out campaigning to prove to people through scientific methods that global warming was not the bad thing people made it out to be. Had all sorts of fun facts about how plants would grow more and produce more oxygen, and we'd all be healthier. Had a great website for it too.

A few years later he was dismissed from the university under charges he was taking massive amounts of cash from several oil lobbies.

I never made this a partisan issue...this needs to be a human/US issue. Fuck democrats and republicans. You trying to make this partisan just shows your ignorance of the problem.


You made it an intelligence issue. A "rational thinking" person, in your mind should obviously see the detriment of using fossil fuels.
I just pointed out a person, who after making a speech denouncing the same fossil fuels, got in his SUV and drove off.
Doesn't that make him not a "rational thinking" person by your definition?

Again.....that has nothing to do with statement....I could name plenty of politicians who are dumber than a box of rocks.....and it still wouldn't relate to the original statement...

The fact that Obama said we need to get off crackoil then drove off in an SUV is immaterial....and just partisan BS. I'd bet you wouldn't find too many politicians driving Priuses.

Both parties need to agree that that it's imperiative that our transportation, no our economy, no our entire way of life is wholely and completely based on a resource that could contibute to global warming, does pollute the enviornent, and, too a large degree, is controlled by our mortal enemies. This isn't a Partisan issue...and it's much, much bigger than stupid shit like abortion and gay fucking marriage....and is closely tied to our failed policies in the Middle East.

They wouldn't have to drive a Prius.
Heck, a regular 4 door sedan would be ok in my book. It's the mentality of "other people need to follow these rules, but I don't." that needs to be fixed.
The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around.
We should hold all politicians accountable for thier actions or inactions.

Both parties need to agree that that it's imperiative that our transportation, no our economy, no our entire way of life is wholely and completely based on a resource that could contibute to global warming, does pollute the enviornent, and, too a large degree, is controlled by our mortal enemies.

Probably the smartest thing I've seen you write, espically the bold part.

You made it an intelligence issue.

Which is exactly why you need to go back to the shallow end of the pool, Sixee. You are in over your head, once again.

Probably the smartest thing I've seen you write, espically the bold part.


The real question is...when are you going to write something smart?

Wow, Personal attacks, yet again.
I can say this much, at least you guys are consistant.
And you still don't sign your Negative reps.

Wow, Personal attacks, yet again.
I can say this much, at least you guys are consistant.
And you still don't sign your Negative reps.

I see I have gotten a neg hit for personal attacks, which shows that you still don't get it. As long as you continue to boost a post count with meaningless drivel, you are open to anyone to point out the inane nature of your "contributions".

That's true Bly.
You have the right to point out my "meaningless drivel".
As a matter of fact, I almost can set my watch by you and Thor.
All I have to do is post something, and within 3 replies, you 2 will be there saying how it's just crap, that I'm an idiot, ect.
It would appear all you 2 want is either:
1.To have everyone on the board agree with your line of thinking, a la Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini.
Or:
2. You argue for arguement's sake. Which is fine by me, but at least stick to the topic, rather than making it into a personal attack.
Tell us which 1 it is. I'm sure your response will be telling.

Funny...I pointed out meaningless drivel and asked whether you would write something smart, didn't call you an idiot and you gave me a neg hit for a personal attack....so much for that huh.

This thread should be moved to sandbox.

And mailed to Sixee's mother and most recent English teacher.

Funny...I pointed out meaningless drivel and asked whether you would write something smart, didn't call you an idiot and you gave me a neg hit for a personal attack....so much for that huh.

Yeah, you are right, asking if someone is going to post something smart, isn't calling them dumb at all...

You are the only one with any potential to prove them wrong when they say that, go for it.

Sixee do one of two things.

Stop posting, you're hurting the side you're trying to help by your innane posts.

or

Quit whining about being smacked down for showing all the intelligence of a lost Pet Rock from the 70's.

Fandros Finglaflin

Yeah, you are right, asking if someone is going to post something smart, isn't calling them dumb at all...

Calling someone out on doing something dumb is not the same as calling them dumb ... we do that on repeated evidence :> It's likely that in about five years that if you chance back on your posts here you'll shake your head and wish you could slap yourself now (this is not a personal attack either, nearly everyone has a few of those "What was I thinking!" moments in life).


Also, please, read this at least twice:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

The best tip I can offer is this:


If you are going to bet in the sports thread...bet the same way that Taleran bets...don't bet with Fandros....the vCash proves it!

But but but Rover they were sure things!!!


ugh

Fandros

the only sure things I bet on were when I bet specifically against what Fandros bet for!!!

Here's something smart:

http://leiwen.tripod.com/unified_theory.htm

And Fandros, I have no idea whose side you think I'm trying to help.
Any light you could shed on the subject would be helpful.

Here's something smart:

http://leiwen.tripod.com/unified_theory.htm

And Fandros, I have no idea whose side you think I'm trying to help.
Any light you could shed on the subject would be helpful.

Posting someone elses writings does not make one smart...it just means you've figured out how to link a web page from here.

I thought you gave up on me Rover?

Unified Field Theory:
An unfinished equasion in which Albert Einstein attempted to resolve the 4 basic forces of the Universe.

If that's not smart, and in my own words, I don't know what is.

It's not necessarily a single equation, but a framework that relates the four fundamental interactions to each other.
Albert Einstein was hardly the only person to seek a unified field theory.

Edit: Removed reference to Standard Model--it describes but does not unify three of the four fundamental interactions.

No, but he was the 1st, so many attribute the framework that relates the four fundamental interactions to each other to him.

Not exactly; he built upon Maxwell's work which unified electricity and magnetism.

If I remember right, Einstein was only trying to unify electromagnetism and gravitation (general relativity). A modern unified field theory needs to include the strong and weak forces as well.

Yes Sixee...I was wrong, you are so obviously brilliant. What is the level of degree you have from the university of web page linking? Or is this something you've learned from years of experience?

Not exactly; he built upon Maxwell's work which unified electricity and magnetism.

If I remember right, Einstein was only trying to unify electromagnetism and gravitation (general relativity). A modern unified field theory needs to include the strong and weak forces as well.


Sixee = PWNED

Not exactly; he built upon Maxwell's work which unified electricity and magnetism.

If I remember right, Einstein was only trying to unify electromagnetism and gravitation (general relativity). A modern unified field theory needs to include the strong and weak forces as well.



No, but he was the 1st, so many attribute the framework that relates the four fundamental interactions to each other to him.


I didn't mean to say he was the 1 to create it, I meant to say many attribute it to him.

Sixee = PWNED
Only in your mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/science_australia_dc




The climate changed before humans could put greenhouse gasses in the air, AND were not responsible for hunting these animals into extinction. Does anyone but me find it interesting that scientists seem too eager to blame humans for all the faults of the world, past or present?

Egocentrism at work. Their line of thinking has gotten past the point of "maybe we did this" and has evolved into "How can we not have caused this". Forget that it's happened many times beforehand...the answer must be us.

It's just more liberal guilt for "having" things and their built in need to find fault within themselves.

Wow...talk about post delay...