Slashdot Mirror
Humans, Not Climate Change, Wiped Out Australian Megafauna (phys.org)
"New evidence involving the ancient poop of some of the huge and astonishing creatures that once roamed Australia indicates the primary cause of their extinction around 45,000 years ago was likely a result of humans, not climate change," reports Phys.org. schwit1 quotes their report on new analysis of a prehistoric sediment core from the Indian Ocean off the coast of Australia.
The core contains chronological layers of material blown and washed into the ocean, including dust, pollen, ash and spores from a fungus called Sporormiella that thrived on the dung of plant-eating mammals, said CU Boulder Professor Gifford Miller, who participated in the study... Fungal spores from plant-eating mammal dung were abundant in the sediment core layers from 150,000 years ago to about 45,000 years ago, when they went into a nosedive, said Miller... "The abundance of these spores is good evidence for a lot of large mammals on the southwestern Australian landscape up until about 45,000 years ago," he said. "Then, in a window of time lasting just a few thousand years, the megafauna population collapsed."
The Australian collection of megafauna some 50,000 years ago included 1,000-pound kangaroos, 2-ton wombats, 25-foot-long lizards, 400-pound flightless birds, 300-pound marsupial lions and Volkswagen-sized tortoises. More than 85 percent of Australia's mammals, birds and reptiles weighing over 100 pounds went extinct shortly after the arrival of the first humans, said Miller... "There is no evidence of significant climate change during the time of the megafauna extinction."
The article adds that last year Miller also identified the first direct evidence that humans preyed on Australian megafauna -- burned eggshells from a 400-pound bird.
The Australian collection of megafauna some 50,000 years ago included 1,000-pound kangaroos, 2-ton wombats, 25-foot-long lizards, 400-pound flightless birds, 300-pound marsupial lions and Volkswagen-sized tortoises. More than 85 percent of Australia's mammals, birds and reptiles weighing over 100 pounds went extinct shortly after the arrival of the first humans, said Miller... "There is no evidence of significant climate change during the time of the megafauna extinction."
The article adds that last year Miller also identified the first direct evidence that humans preyed on Australian megafauna -- burned eggshells from a 400-pound bird.
This reminds me of cheesy old movies and TV shows about primitive "cave men" constantly on the run from predatory dinosaurs -- Land of the Lost, Land That Time Forgot, etc. Except I think now we see that it would have been the dinosaurs doing the running, while the cave women back home got the BBQ pits warmed up.
Serene, peaceful, in tune with nature, never takes more than he gives... And wipes out numerous complete (and unique) species.
Considering that Europeans still have to suffer demands for reparation for such things as slavery, colonisation, and the crusades, one cannot help but wonder if a demand for compensation for the irreparable damage to the ecosystem made by the aboriginals is also possible.
They were probably delicious.
Mostly random stuff.
Get too big for yo bitches ... some maleness is gonna put yo face in stitches. BURMASHAVE.
"Humans, Not Climate Change, Wiped Out..."
Feel like we're splitting hairs here.
The abos are not so innocent as the liberals want to portray them after all.
How long before people find a way to blame white males anyway?
No shit.
I remember all those wonderful stories back in elementary about Iroquois making longhouses and how every few year's they'd move to another one.
Those stories about the wonderful life of those Native Americans kinda left out the fact that the Iroquois had to move because they stripped the local area completely bare.
Oooopsie. We can't paint those noble savages as anything other than superior to white people - because only white people strip the world of its resources!</SARCASM>
We can look to our recent history and see the same extinction process created by man. The passenger pigeon, Tasmanian tiger, the Dodo, Great auk, Quaggas, Carolina parakeet and so on. Even today there are several species who are literally on the brink of going extinct, including the northern white rhino of which the last known male of its species is under 24 hour guard to protect it from poachers. Had it not been for Teddy Roosevelt, the American bison would most likely also be extinct, slaughtered by the literal tens of thousands as short as 130 years ago.
Man-made extinction also occurs in human populations. How many different Native American tribes were exterminated either because of Europeans or their Native American allies? How about those of Central and South America or those in the Far East?
We can see the same extinction process in places like Borneo where the habitat of orangutans is being wiped out due to illegal farming or clear cutting for palm oil trees, and similar processes under way in Madagascar where many animals exist in no other place on the planet, such as the ring-tailed lemur of which only an estimated 2,500 still survive.
Anyone who says man doesn't and can't have an effect on the environment is simply blind to reality.
Your Catholicism is showing
Volcanoes co2 emissions lessen as planet still cools, plants who depend on rich co2 die back, less o2 emitted, less breathable air, animals tend to have a small air inway, o2/fuel requirements to keep a 1000lb animal active > available resources = most don't make it
Humanity Duck Yeah!
How could white males have made it to Australia so long ago?
I would've eaten them big animals too. It's a lot of meat for not too much work. You also get hides, bones, sinews, bladders, all kinds of useful stuff.
ok how the hell this got attached to the above post rather than #53715357, I have no idea, maybe it's lack of coffee. I'll slink back to my cave and rot.
Christophobe bigot.
Those stories about the wonderful life of those Native Americans kinda left out the fact that the Iroquois had to move because they stripped the local area completely bare.
As long as it's a moderately small area that's affected, and it regrows after the humans have moved to a new area allowing people to return again after some years, that's a perfectly sustainable approach.
but there is no prove that it was people. People are just a strong possibility when you eliminate the other choices are been less possible. But it should be noted that humans live in African for hundreds of thousands of years and Africans mega fauna survived. It is possible that a short lived disaster could have caused the die off. Something like a nearby super volcano or an asteroid impact.
Tell that to the mammoths and sabretooths.
So there's species where there one last creature standing on the edge of a cliff ready to cast over the edge and with its own death rendering its species extinct?
No. "On the brink of going extinct" is a perfectly good idiom describing what I think you meant to describe. Adding "literally" to it makes it just silly.
The Crusades were about rape, pillaging, burning, land-grabbing and money.
I know that.
Why don't you?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Thanks for the new word. New to me, anyway. I'm going to be finding opportunities to use this one in casual conversation. Especially at work.
I am also going to admit to being a bigot on this front. I have spent a lot of time inside churches (having been raised there), and the dominant theme among churchgoers really does seem to be stupidity. I was also always stuck by the clearly artificial joy that they tried to express while singing their stupid songs...most of them clearly didn't want to be there, but were there because they were afraid that God was going to torture them in fire forever if they didn't go.
Anyway, I think it is wise to be a little bit afraid of people who would believe evidence-free, foundationally-important statements about reality that come from thousands-of-years old books, of dubious authorship, delivered by one of the most powerful political organizations in the world.
The Crusades were religious wars, fought to maintain control of land that had special religious significance.
What was that you said about rewriting history for you own motivation?
Gorilla deserved it!
That's a ridiculous statement.
The crusades were the response to muslim invasions of various christian holdings, in combination with an attempt at weakening the muslim hold over trade from asia, and also simultaneously gaining favor with Rome.
If any persecuted people were saved by the crusades that was purely incidental.
Bull. The crusades were a reaction to economic conditions in Europe. The pope at the time suggested invading the holy land would be a nice solution to the problems. There are records of it even.
Good to see racially insulting names are totally accepted here. But cowards are as cowards do.
So he wasn't "lying", he just wasn't saying what you were meant to think he was.
As a member of staff under the administration of our fearless leader Donald J. "The Ratings Machine" Trump I call BS on this story.
The first idea was nonsense, I mean climate change? come on! but now you're blaming innocent people.
For the 100th time. It never happened! -scientists are in cahoots with journalists to invent stuff that never existed only to claim extinction for some ratings and drama.
Who are you going to believe?? The POTUS or fake news?!
Here's the thing: the upside of inventing a writing system is world domination; the downside is finally having to admit in public that you are a real ass (and always have been).
In the above, "you" is a set of nesting dolls, innermost being the fifty-year-old white male technocrats of western European origin who treat Wikipedia as their private, personal playgrounds (thence to aging white European males, white European males, white males, whites altogether, etc.)
Here's the second thing: after a society invents writing, soon the society has written myths (with serious legacy entrenchment) that innocence preceded the current sad state of affairs (how-far-I-have-fallen porn, not that the larger consequences can't be remedied by kneeling under the right cumulus cloud for a thoroughly abject sixty seconds).
Society will re-invent writing over and over again (movable type, Movable Type) before the reversal of true illumination makes the least headway: that the human asshole apogee was attained circa the advent of the original edged weapon.
As far as the abos go, they all need to repeat to themselves "there but for the grace of God go I", unless they think their ancestors truly enlightened enough to not have had even the most remote possibility of inventing any form of written record, whatsoever (best if you're not much past the wreathie leafy loin cloth, because any loose thread threatens to quipu a long record, and then immediately you're on the outie asshole train along with every other post-prehistoric posse of mugs, pugs, and thugs).
Care to jive that with the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Pretty much my experience of having to go to church as a kid. There were a few fanatical true believers, and everyone else did it because of some variant of Pascal's Wager. I finally dropped out of the whole thing when I was sixteen, not for any noble reason but mainly because I wanted to smoke and have sex, but even at that age at least part of the reason for my rejection was that my family's church had absolutely absurd beliefs, in particular their view on evolution. I had secretly accepted evolution since I was nine years old and had read a book in the school library on the evolution of humans from Australopithecus onward, but nine year olds don't have the personal authority to tell their parents and their religious authorities that they're all full of shit, whereas a sixteen year old has the right combination of hormones and hubris to brazenly tell everyone "Your beliefs are beyond absurd, and border on the criminally idiotic."
It might have gone a bit differently if I were raised in a more mainstream church like Catholicism, Lutheranism or Anglicanism, where they do try to keep the idiocy to a minimum, but in the more wingnut Protestant churches, the maniacal stupidity just drove me away. At the end of it I became I guess what one would describe as a "weak atheist" bordering on agnostic. I know the existence of Yahweh can never be disproven, but I see absolutely no reason at all that such a being need be invoked, and whenever I see Yahweh invoked by Christians, Muslims and Jews, it's often to justify something noxious, or to prop up the weak-minded who need constant reminders that prostrating themselves to the deacon now means eternal salvation.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Then as now, Muslims were murderous expansionists. The Crusades, in part, were a response to aggression.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Congratulations. Only had to go back 45000 years to find something that wasn't your fault.
Yet, you got lied to and believed that climate change wiped out the Australian megafauna. So it's really just jumping from one religion to the other without any fact checking (which is admittedly hard). But let's see if you extend the same negative feelings to Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, socialism, etc.
Some days you are the adaptee, some days the adapter.
When were aboriginal people portrayed as innocent? Aboriginal people were portrayed as living off the land which is factual. Some of them were nomadic, too so agriculture is probably not how they survived.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This story is a bunch of hog wash. There wasn't a human population large enough to destroy the megafauna.
>Muslims were murderous expansionists.
And Christian empires weren't/aren't? Naive Xstian shill.
The problem isn't religion, it's human nature. Get that through you head.
Yet, you got lied to and believed that climate change wiped out the Australian megafauna.
Lied to? By whom? Seems like Human impact has been the favoured explanation since before the turn of the century: Pleistocene Extinction of Genyornis newtoni: Human Impact on Australian Megafauna. Largely on account of the fact that climate change was modest over the period of extinction: "More than 700 dates on Genyornis eggshells from three different climate regions document the continuous presence of Genyornis from more than 100,000 years ago until their sudden disappearance 50,000 years ago, about the same time that humans arrived in Australia. Simultaneous extinction of Genyornis at all sites during an interval of modest climate change implies that human impact, not climate, was responsible."
Most people were probably not aware of this one way or another before reading this Slashdot post. Those that looked it up on Wikipedia would have found that Humans are thought to be the cause: "Analysis of oxygen and carbon isotopes from teeth of megafauna indicate the regional climates at the time of extinction were similar to arid regional climates of today and that the megafauna were well adapted to arid climates.[5] The dates derived have been interpreted as suggesting that the main mechanism for extinction was human burning of a landscape that was then much less fire-adapted; oxygen and carbon isotopes of teeth indicate sudden, drastic, non-climate-related changes in vegetation and in the diet of surviving marsupial species. However, early Australian Aborigines appear to have rapidly eliminated the megafauna of Tasmania about 41,000 years ago (following formation of a land bridge to Australia about 43,000 years ago as ice age sea levels declined) without using fire to modify the environment there,[7][8][9] implying that at least in this case hunting was the most important factor. It has also been suggested that the vegetational changes that occurred on the mainland were a consequence, rather than a cause, of the elimination of the megafauna.
So do *you* care to jive the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople with your statement?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Here is a recent contrary view, where they dated a mega-wombat fossil to 17000 years after the arrival of humans at that location. (However, if web search results are anything to go by, the human-caused-extinction hypothesis seems much more popular.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Maybe the noble savage really is "serene, peaceful, in tune with nature, never takes more than he gives", precisely because their ancestors learned such a hard lesson and taught their descendants "don't mess up like we did". (I'm not saying it is so, just that it is consistent with the observation of prehistorical extinctions.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
The abos are not so innocent as the liberals want to portray them after all.
How long before people find a way to blame white males anyway?
With a post like this I'm blaming you already.
My Dad never liked doing it, and when he figured out that I was strong enough, he asked if I liked church, which I didn't particularly, and the stories made no sense at all to me.
"Fine," he said, "you don't have to go then, but if you stay home you'll have to get that lawn mowed".
I really didn't mind, I've always liked doing that job.
Oh, and Rev. Johnston, if you're reading this, if you want kids to accept your faith, don't tell them the story of the burning bush. It just makes your god out to be a total dick.
Sorry, but your ignorance is screaming out loud. Maybe using your spare time to read a history book (or 10, to average out the bias) will help you avoid spouting such stupid drivel in the future.
To give you a hint, look for what interesting event with very long-lasting consequences happened in 1204...
Took the aborigines thousands of years, we've done worse in a couple of hundred years
Go well
There was some climate change occurring as a result of the widening gap between South America an Antartica at Tierra del Fuego. The increase in water flow of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current helps with the deforestation of Australia. There was a major event that widened the gap about 100,000 to 50,000 years ago which might have led to the migration to Australia. As the water flow increases, southern Australia will get drier.
Because burnt eggshells proves humans did it! Never could they have been burnt by a forest fire. HERP DERP for science. Dem humans be to blame.
Huge hootered cavewomen! At least Ringo was a better actor than he was a drummer.
Zugzug you.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
In this case the conclusion is both right and wrong. They are right to claim Native Australians (not the adjective people), did cause that extinction. However they were societies under stress due to the ice age onset and so, while they were once stable in their ecology, that stability was disturbed by an ice age.
Lets see how modern humanity copes with massive flooding or massive freezing before the judge members of the original Australian nations (not the adjective people).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Reasonably good science work, horrible assumptions, junk conclusions. We know that there are fossils of huge mammals (and humans, not the hoaxes but actual fossils) that still live today only much smaller, not just Australia but all over the globe. What caused these mammals to get a lot smaller? Given the fact that physics says that many of these mammals were so large that they would barely function on today's atmospheric density and composition, it is highly likely that at some point in the past the atmosphere was much denser and/or much higher in oxygen than it is now, which would support the cardiovascular systems of the fossils we find (dinosaur and mammal). Couple this with the fact that almost the entire planet has sedimentary rock and fossils within those sedimentary layers, and that sedimentary rock can be deposited rapidly under cataclysmic conditions and things begin to fall into place.
The best theory that I have heard goes something like this:
Before 6000 years ago, there was an ice shell around the outer atmosphere, which at the time only extended up 10-20 miles instead of 60 miles. Atmospheric pressure was higher and the ice shell filtered out most harmful radiation that now comes down to the surface. Because there was no radiation getting through, there was zero C14 [C14 is generated in the upper atmosphere by ionizing radiation; C14 decays at a constant rate; EVIDENCE AND OBSERVATION (not speculation) points to a continuous generation rate of C14]. We have observed that C14 rates are still increasing, and based on the rate of increase and the current levels, C14 production began around 6000 years ago and will reach equilibrium in around 24,000 years. Thus we know reasonably well that the planet was significantly different before 6000 years ago.
Oxygen content was maybe 30%. The planet was roughly flat with the largest mountains being only a few hundred feet or so and the tectonic plates all had massive underground water pockets supporting them, similar to all continents today with trapped underground reservoirs, only much larger. Around 6000 years ago, a nitrogen comet struck the planet (mostly broke up in the atmosphere due to the nature of nitrogen ice) somewhere around Siberia, crushing the atmospheric ice shell and causing massive shear on the planet and a planet wide temperature crash. Mammoths in Siberia found frozen solid with green food in their mouths and stomachs support this hypothesis, seeing that it takes temperatures around -180C to flash freeze an animal of that size, where attempting to freeze it in the coldest sustained polar temperatures (-50C) would cause the insides to rot before they froze. The comet diluted the oxygen atmosphere to 20%, and the cold caused immediate global rain.
The shear imparted by the impact caused massive earth quakes that caused a catastrophic failure of many underground oceans, which came jetting to the surface very hot and very fast, with the pressure of entire continents behind the flow. If these jets occurred on an ocean floor, they instantly killed the animals around the jet for miles, from whales to microorganisms, which fell to the ocean floor by the ton and formed diatomaceous earth deposits. Ask anyone who has ever worked at one of these mines, they constantly find all manner of sea fossils, including whales and other huge fossils sometimes buried vertically down through the deposit. The collapse of the ice shell, global drop in temperature and massive release of underwater reserves caused the entire planet to be covered in water. Almost everything on the planet died except for one man and his family and a baby pair of every kind (not species, kind: i.e. wolf/dog/coyote/dingo etc are all one kind).
There are over 200 flood legends globally, and nearly all of them describe a global flood (95%) where one family of 8 people survived (88%). In one of the oldest languages, early Chinese, the word for boat is pictographic and is literally a vessel with 8 people. These people survived on this boat for about a ye
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
They knew it would eventually turn into Istanbul. They were just ahead of the curve.
Bizarre thing. Until a few years ago I thought it was Istamul. Nobody ever called me on it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Where the hell did you get that? Yes, there were people driven by religious zeal and whatnot, but for most of the European nobility the crusades were a chance to conquer a land for themselves, for as second born they had no claim to the land the firstborn got.
If you go down the list of noble participants of the various crusades, you will come up with a handful of landed leaders who wanted to ensure that the new "owners" will swear fealty to them and a huge number of landless nobles who wanted some.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Also to note the Crusades were not really about saving Jerusalem from those evil Muslims as some would like people to think. Jerusalem was under Arab rule starting in 638. The first Crusade was 1095. While news in the old world didn't travel fast, do you believe it took 400 years for the Christians in Europe to learn their beloved holy city was under Arab rule? Another thing to note: Jews fought along side Muslims against Christians in the Siege of Jerusalem in 1099.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Politically incorrect facts like these are not taught at school. So they do not exist.
And the muslim attack of Vienna and conquering of Spain was natural migration?
FTFY.
Like what? How is any of this political?
Aboriginals lived an idyllic life of peace and harmony with nature until the evil white man cometh.
(Not to say injustices were not done to them, but there is a strong political correctness about all of this.)
Isn't climate change caused by humans too?
An often overlooked side effect from the megafauna extinction is the increase in drop bear numbers which followed the
extinction of their natural predators. It has been suggested that the aversion of drop bears
to the odor of vegemite was an early behavioral adaption to avoid the giant wombat, whose fossilized feces show a chemical composition very similar to vegemite (remarkably, whether fossilized or not).
It's commonly accepted narrative is that Aboriginal people were caretakers of the land until the white man turned up and "ruined" it.
The suggestion that the Aboriginal people caused the extinction of multiple large species, probably by over hunting, or through large scale burn offs, conflicts with this narrative, and would largely be treated as sacrilege by some.
If your species can not out run, out breed, out eat, or out live what wants to eat you, the worst survival strategy your species can have is to be tasty.
Tasting good is not a survival strategy.
Ausfag here. Despite the 'Noble Savage' rubbish that comes out of academia today, dutifully lavishing praise upon the Australian Abo for his 'kinship with the land', reality is vastly different: the Abo was (and still is) a tremendously destructive force upon Australian flora and fauna as this article demonstrates clearly. Truth has given way to political correctness in the modern era, however, and in academic circles today the Abo can do no wrong. Going back just three decades one can find a wealth of information to counter today's narrative, but today it is nowhere to be found. Anything not strictly positive about the Abo has been suppressed, in a manner truly Orwellian: the unspoken rule being that it is not to be spoken of.
While academics from Monash University contributed to the findings, funding for the research came from the U.S. National Science Foundation and the German Research Foundation, meaning that, unlike purely Australian-funded research, they were unable to paint it over with an explicitly pro-Abo narrative. The article was clearly written from the perspective of the human element of climate change, and the non-Australian co-authors didn't know (or didn't care) that they were treading upon sacred ground.
I can't wait to see how the ABC and other progressive Australian media will try to spin this one. It will prove most entertaining - if indeed they try. More than likely this research will be consigned to the memory-hole. Then we Aussies can happily go back to worshiping the Abo, and hating ourselves, per usual.
You're a ridiculous cunt of a revisionist making modern day bullshit from whole asscloth.
You are confusing the belief with the believers. That's what racists do.
Maybe the headline should read, "Researchers confirm tradition theory of megafauna extinction - "We ate them.""?
Commonly accepted by who? The science has favoured Human impact as the explanation since before the turn of the century. Even Wikipedia shows this as the consensus view.
Maybe this is an Australian thing? This idealized view of the native community would probably be considered mildly racist elsewhere.
be gone bigot.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Where the hell did you get that? Yes, there were people driven by religious zeal and whatnot, but for most of the European nobility the crusades were a chance to conquer a land for themselves, for as second born they had no claim to the land the firstborn got.
If you go down the list of noble participants of the various crusades, you will come up with a handful of landed leaders who wanted to ensure that the new "owners" will swear fealty to them and a huge number of landless nobles who wanted some.
Yes, religion was just the excuse used. As Napoleon sad "A man does not get himself killed for a piece of ribbon or a petty distinction, you must speak to the soul to electrify him". Men fought the crusades in the name of god, but the benefit of a few leaders, of course people being people, if told the truth would never have travelled half way around the world to fight and die for a few rich arseholes who were just being greedy, so they turn it into a holy war to get the peasantry whipped up into a frenzy.
You know what, in the intervening 500 odd years, little has changed. Religious wars are still fought for the benefit of a few powerful arseholes. There is no such thing as a innately violent religion, only men who twist it to their designs. The only real change in this method is that some leaders have been forced to use newer justifications to get people to go to war for the benefit of rich arseholes, religion having fallen out of favour with the local populace.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The best Australian megafauna name ever: the Demon Duck of Doom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullockornis
This is one of those situations where there really was a difference between "climate change" and "global warming". The default position about 200 years ago was what Inhofe has reiterated: that humans cannot change the climate, and more generally that the climate has regular periodic cycles which even out in the long run. That was even the default position when Mr. Inhofe was schooled -- there are textbooks printed in 1950 that say as much. The one I saw was by Addison Wesley, and it explicitly assigned CO2 to a minor role.
However, about 200 years ago, there was a growing body of evidence that the climate *had* been different in the past, and specifically for large Ice Ages. So our early theories of climate change, from say the 1830s to the 1930s, were mostly trying to explain Ice Ages, and that is actually what the originator of the CO2-based theory of climate change was studying. He based his study on the laws of atmospheric gases revealed by Tyndall in the mid-19th Century. His theory was completely discredited for a couple of reasons that were later overturned, but other lines of evidence and better observations eventually overturned both the theory that climate could not change and that humans could not change it. If Mr. Inhofe has not learned anything since his schoolboy days about climate, then he should be ashamed. If he is knowingly repeating falsehoods he should be removed from office.
I'll tell the bison it's not our fault if you tell the passenger pigeons.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Hmph. Fossils show that fauna have been becoming extinct for millions of years, therefore it can't be anthropogenic. It's just part of cyclical nature. Did these so called scientists ever investigate whether the sun was the cause of these extinctions? No, that would be too simple and obvious and would not fit their predefined liberal antihunting agenda. This is just a ploy by the paleontologists to keep the grant money coming in. They can't explain why there has been a pause in the extinction of megafauna for 16 years now.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The ideas behind "three strikes" laws have approximately nothing to do with the reasons doctors want patients to take an entire course of antibiotics, and I don't see what either has to do with the Crusades.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The answer is that they were made into Ribwiches. Delicious, euphoria inducing, pupil dilating, Ribwiches! That is all.
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Ribwich
Mmmmm... Ribwiches!
I doubt it. To fear christ one would have to believe in him. And believe very strange things about him to boot.
Of course they were caretakers of land, or do you think they engaged in regular bathing? We are still ruining it for them, but they are replying with IR faucets impossible to wash even your hands with.