DF_Eagle1-01 -- Oct 2014 -- Food production suffers as a result of drought

[Balsa]

Balsa, that was something I never thought about but, it makes so much more sense than anything I have seen.
I so enjoy your ideas and explanations.

Thank you, but the theory has many enemies and they can make convincing arguments.
Here is one. http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/index.html

This is a very conventional opponent, who's extremely intelligent, and is quite sure about his conclusions. However, despite my many handicaps, the author ,who seems to be like everyone else that has had some advanced education in physical sciences, and likes therefore to label themselves a scientist, when they evidently are nothing more than a walking database of corrupted ideas with good math skills, still has no real understanding of what science actually is.

I am especially repelled by this statement in his dinosaur solution. http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/solution.html
"The correct solution to any scientific problem should fulfill the following general guidelines: It should be a simple solution. This is often stated as Occam's razor,"

Occam's Razor idea is an engineering design principle, not a methodology for investigation. If a detective was to embrace Occam's Razor in the same vein these  people have, then almost no real criminals would ever be caught. Trained Criminal Investigators, use a form of null hypothesis theorem. This is considerably different than the ideas presented as logical by dinosaur theory as steps to accurate deductions. Null hypothesis theorem is a very old and well understood procedure which is almost the reverse of what dinosaur theory proposes as logical ways to conduct a so called scientific inquiry in order to establish a viable hypothesis.

In Null hypothesis theorem, the investigator develops a hypothesis about how something might have happened and then they try to disprove that hypothesis, this is repeated over and over until what remains is the strongest set of hypothesis. That's not what you see presented by dinosaur theory. Instead you see what amounts to a mountain of planted evidence to support an allegation, which would likely get you arrested just on the basis of suspicion if this were a murder case, and this so called evidence is another issue. It's a serious one because it is the chain of evidence; or, as I pointed out to one marine biologist, just because you're not used to crabs and salmon plotting behind your back, doesn't mean they haven't started, nor does it mean that someone else might be using them in order to use you and your conclusions.  This actually kind of shocked him to his senses for a while.