Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: odiousgambit

The whole video is good, but might threaten some preconceived notions ... so to avoid knots in panties, perhaps some here should not see it... however, I invite you to at least check in on some sea level changes you might not have heard about

I've set the YouTube video to start at the right time

https://youtu.be/jgivtoYVdNs?t=831

I looked at the channel itself
They definitely have an agenda questioning climate change. 163 videos questioning climate change. This isn't science, it's a business.
Looks like youtube a nice cash cow for them
I try to go to sites without an agenda and not making a profit such as Wikipedia
It's a complicated subject so I go with this instead of YouTube BS. Don't get me wrong, YouTube is great for entertainment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Quote: terapined

I looked at the channel itself
They definitely have an agenda questioning climate change. 163 videos questioning climate change. This isn't science, it's a business.
Looks like youtube a nice cash cow for them
I try to go to sites without an agenda and not making a profit such as Wikipedia
It's a complicated subject so I go with this instead of YouTube BS. Don't get me wrong, YouTube is great for entertainment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

fair enough. I like Wikipedia as you probably have guessed, but I can't say they aren't often partisan on anything with a political component

I have sympathy for environmentalists, as I like the outdoors and see good reason to want any kind of pollution reduced. I think listening to dissent, though, keeps us away from alarmism. If this place in Alaska is the only one in the world showing reduction in sea level, we can call it an anomaly, but we can also ask why anywhere should be showing such a thing if it's time to go around screaming the sky is falling

Quote: odiousgambit

fair enough. I like Wikipedia as you probably have guessed, but I can't say they aren't often partisan on anything with a political component

I have sympathy for environmentalists, as I like the outdoors and see good reason to want any kind of pollution reduced. I think listening to dissent, though, keeps us away from alarmism. If this place in Alaska is the only one in the world showing reduction in sea level, we can call it an anomaly, but we can also ask why anywhere should be showing such a thing if it's time to go around screaming the sky is falling

I know I take extreme views on something like this but, most people agree the earth is only going to survive a few millions years anyway, what does adding a few years really do in the big picture?

If you want to be an expert to debunk an entire field, go into it and compete with your peers in research. That's the way it's supposed to be done.

Quote: DRich

I know I take extreme views on something like this but, most people agree the earth is only going to survive a few millions years anyway, what does adding a few years really do in the big picture?

I did no know that.

Do you mean a fraction of he 66 Million years since the last extinction event?

66 Million years ago - Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (K–Pg extinction). About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera and 75% of all species became extinct. In the seas all the ammonites, plesiosaurs and mosasaurs disappeared and the percentage of sessile animals (those unable to move about) was reduced to about 33%. All non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time.

Wow
I can't remember Alaska being in the news due to weather

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has declared a state of disaster Saturday as a powerful storm threatens huge swaths of the state's western coastline.

Quote: Pacomartin

I did no know that.

Do you mean a fraction of he 66 Million years since the last extinction event?

66 Million years ago - Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (K–Pg extinction). About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera and 75% of all species became extinct. In the seas all the ammonites, plesiosaurs and mosasaurs disappeared and the percentage of sessile animals (those unable to move about) was reduced to about 33%. All non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time.

I may be mistaken, but I think the usage 'non-avian' is relatively recent. When I took biology in the 70s it was not used regularly anyway, I'm pretty sure it wasn't just that I missed it. Anyway the question is whether it reflects a change. It may be that paleontologists in that day argued whether the evidence of early birds, reptile-like fossils with feathers, merely showed that birds came from reptiles, or in fact came from dinosaurs specifically. I do remember textbooks saying 'from reptiles', not hinting at a debate. Today I think the evidence is considered overwhelming, and you often see it said that birds are the only living descendants of the dinosaurs.

I remember this and that about 'archaeopteryx' very well, even how to spell it. I just don't think 'non-avian' was used for the other dinosaurs and I just wasn't aware of it.

For most of the 20th century the reigning theory was that birds descended from "socket teeth" (the codontia) repites.

The tide began to turn against the 'thecodont' hypothesis after the 1964 discovery of a new theropod dinosaur in Montana. Theropods are dinosaurs characterized by hollow bones and three-toes and claws on each limb. Birds seem to have descendants from a subgroup of theropods known as Coelurosauria from Greek, meaning "hollow tailed lizards".

Quote: odiousgambit

I may be mistaken, but I think the usage 'non-avian' is relatively recent. When I took biology in the 70s it was not used regularly anyway,

In the 1970s the theory was not yet widely accepted and is unlikely to have been taught in a biology class. Today it is considered the standard theory.

Term of the day: cryptic biodiversity

Quote: rxwine

Term of the day: cryptic biodiversity

Never heard of it but I did write some software called Island Biogeography about 40 years ago.