Original Post
Bismarck Tribune link.
In addition to the world-class source rock for oil (the Bakken), it turns out North Dakota may have the best place to find dinosaur fossils.
Standing Rock's paleontology director Allen Shaw said what the tribe has in the remote setting along the river is like few others.I assume it's just a matter of time before the Feds step in to save the endangered edmontosaurus.
"A world-class eco system is preserved here," Shaw said. "I'd hate to say it's the best, but it's definitely one of the best places to find Late Cretaceous fossils, the last time there were dinosaurs on Earth."
Shaw took over the tribe's paleontology department two years ago, bringing experience and an endearing, almost boy-like wonder to his work.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of edmontosaurus dinosaurs died on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in the Late Cretaceous Period, a mere 65 million years ago in geologic time, give or take a few million on either side.
Oh, my bad, they're already extinct, one of the few extinctions that can't be blamed on man, I guess (if one ignores several other mass extinctions, including ones that wiped out nearly all life on earth).
I can't resist: one of the possible causes of mass extinctions being studied by scientists is the effect of sea-levels falling. From wiki:
Sea-level falls could reduce the continental shelf area (the most productive part of the oceans) sufficiently to cause a marine mass extinction, and could disrupt weather patterns enough to cause extinctions on land. But sea-level falls are very probably the result of other events, such as sustained global cooling or the sinking of the mid-ocean ridges.It should be noted that global warming will raise sea levels, thus making mass extinction less likely based on this theory.
I can't make this stuff up.
You are kind of a bore about global warming, and it makes you look silly, peevish, and ignorant. Quit reacting to every anecdote you see as a grand rebuttal to climate change.
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking time to comment.
ReplyDelete1. I was not aware that dropping sea levels was one of the hypotheses regarding mass extinctions. I love this blog because I come across things I would never expect. This is an educational site and I throw these things in for a number of reasons, including eduction. Until I stumbled across this, I was not aware that rising sea levels might protect loss of species, as opposed to a great Ice Age lowering sea levels. The global warming crowd has conveniently never mentioned that.
2. I notice that you have moved from global warming to climate change. I have no argument with climate change. I don't think we are experiencing significant climate change now, but I know we are not experiencing anthropogenic global warming to the extent that it amounts to anything.
3. Even if true, a one-degree change over 100 years hardly gets me excited when I learn that the worse it will result in a few islands going under due to rising sea levels. This hasn't happened yet. There is a peer-reviewed article out there (posted somewhere on my site) that revealed thousands of new islands have been discovered in the past decade. No islands have disappeared. Earth Day was 1970. It's now 2011 -- 41 years later.
4. I'm waiting for the faux-environmentalists to step up and publicly support unlimited golden eagle and whoopoing crane killing by the wind turbines.
5. I'm waiting for the faux-environmentalists who support global warming to step up publicly saying that increased trucks on the road and increased diesel trains are the right answer to killing the Keystone.
6. I have said over and over that folks who don't like my rants on global warming or anything else should simply skip them.
7. I have probably received 100 comments about my views on global warming similar to yours; I think yours was one of the few I have posted, just so I could remind folks that if they don't like what I write, to just ignore them. I generally only publish comments that add something to the discussion about the Bakken.
8. Oh, about that "silly, peevish, and ignorant" statement: if I come across as being silly, peevish, and ignorant with regard to unlimited slaughter of golden eagles and whooping cranes for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, then so be it. I will continue to be silly, peevish, ignorant. I'm not sure what to call folks who have no problem with the unlimited slaughter of the whooping cranes and golden eagles (and sage grouse) by wind farms, but will do whatever they can to stop oil companies from operating in areas of sage grouse. I guess "hypocrites" come to mind.
Speaking of "greenies", I have yet to hear even one advocate more manual transmission in USA cars and trucks. That's a proven 10% reduction in fuel usage and emissions.
ReplyDeleteBTW: Don't you love the way that the people who never seem to have factual information describe the people who do as "ignorant"?
Good rebuttal Bruce, I would not of taken the time.
ReplyDeleteWow just because one doesn't believe as they do then they are described as "silly peevish and ignorant". All I can say is such a off the wall attitude suggests the individual is obsessed with control and brings absolutely nothing to the table. Sticks and stones may hurt my bones but stupid name calling hurts no one but the one making them.
Oh by the way I don't consider you a bore either. I find your blog very educational and it stimulates the thought process in several ways.
Keep up the good work.
That's interesting about manual transmission (I knew it but had forgotten it), and the sad thing is, some manual transmission cars are a lot more fun to drive (and meant to have manual transmission).
ReplyDeleteWith regard to "ignorance," that's why I don't post most of those comments; nothing is learned. I doubt one scores many points in a debate contest by calling one's opponent "ignorant."
Thank you for your support.
ReplyDeleteThe "crazy" thing about all this is that the entire post (about extinct dinosaurs) was done tongue in cheek. I do that to a) liven up the blog a bit; b) tweak faux-environmentalists; and, c) have a stock answer ready to use in the future for similar comments if needed.
Removing the comments feature for a week gave me a sense of freedom or liberation from holding back on what I was really thinking in some cases.
Just reporting on the Bakken can get a bit old and dry. I am a pro-growth, pro-jobs, strong states' rights advocate; and, a strong social conservative (like Bush II was trying to convey, albeit unsuccessfully); I wear the passion for a few things on my sleeve (North Dakota, oil, capitalism, level playing fields, rule of law, etc).
Again, folks who stumble upon my site for Bakken-related stuff and happen across my rants, will just have to learn to ignore them like the rest of the folks who have learned to ignore them.