I have just a little, well maybe allot of trouble believing this article. As usual the writer assumes a whole bunch of information to be truthful fact. We are looking at, as this article states, a time in history that is from 63 to 67 million years ago.
Do you think some decay has taken place in that amount of time? Or maybe a whole lot of changes that have taken place unnoticed to this research which they claim to be new.
Even studying fossils, or DNA that just happened to be preserved enough to be examined 63 to 67 million years later seems a bit of a stretch to me. Look at how quick they are claiming the ice shelves are melting. Do you think that this episode will be remembered 63 to 67 million years from now?
Its too bad that people who are supposed to be educated and even trained for special studies such as these could find better ways to convince me than to use speculation, which is tomorrow's fact, and enormous amounts of time to justify their research.
Honestly, to me when these kind of excuses are used I can't help but feel there goes another education sold out to the lust of money and fame. Honesty is a rare commodity these days among these kinds of researchers.
Volcanoes could have caused dinosaur deaths - LiveScience- msnbc.com
