i full agree with most of that. the thing i am attpempting to point out is that there is stronger evidence that just one of two piece of, or imprints of, plants. its the animals that are there. lets take for example, the dinosars. there were basically two types (as most things are), plant eaters, and meat eaters. few things are like humans and eat anything there is around. they have found remains of plant eaters with part of the they seemed to eat in the same area.
those dinosaurs were huge, and that meant that the plants they ate had to be huge to feed the numbers that appearantly existed. plants in colder low co2 regions and times dont grow that big.
i remember the discussion about jurastic park. one of the things that came out was that the island could not feed the animals that were there. a single one of the big eater would delude a sizeable portion of the island in a matter of a couple of years, and one of the larger meat eater would not last long without a large supply of plant eaters. according to the movie, there were lots of the meat eaters running around.
the ferns the dinosuars ate were strictly high tempature, high co2 plants. considering how many of them existed the plants had to be fast growing and very big.
the corrilary of this is that the co2 had to be high as did the tempature.
what this means is that the earth will not be harmed by higher temps and co2 lvls. yes cold temp animals like the polar bear will have to adapt, like turning dark and learning to eat other sea going animals than seals. on the other hand seals will likely adapt to accept higher temps, what this means is that specices will go on even if individual classes of the animals (white polar bears) will disappear.
humans are even more adaptable than bears. man has adapted to ever single clime on this planet, and i cant see our children being less adaptable that our ancestors.
