Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

More Antarctic Dinosaurs

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the thing-with-feathers dept.

Science 167

RockDoctor writes "The highly respected palaeontology journal Acta Palaeontologica Polonica has published its December number for free access on the Web, with the headline paper concerning new discoveries of dinosaurs from Antarctica. (Paper here, PDF.) The first major part of these discoveries was made in 1991, when isolated bones of a sauropod (a relative of the Apatosaurus, formerly known as Brontosaurus) were found associated with a theropod (ancestor or cousin of Tyrannosaurus rex). The sauropod has been named Glacialisaurus hammeri (the reason for the genus name is obvious, and Professor Hammer led the field expeditions under 'extremely difficult conditions'). The herbivore was some 25 ft. long and weighed 4 to 6 tons; at the time of life, the area was between 55 and 65 degrees south, suggesting a climate similar to the Falkland Islands or Tierra del Fuego."

cancel ×

167 comments

I like traffic lights (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21664227)

      ##
     _[]_
    [____]
.zzzz'  'zzzz.
I    .==.    I
I   /    \   I
I   \    /   I
I    `""`    I
I    .==.    I
I   /    \   I
I   \    /   I
I    `""`    I
I    .==.    I
I   /    \   I
I   \    /   I
I    `""`    I
'ZZ.zzzzzz.ZZ'

I Like traffic lights.
I Like traffic lights.
I Like traffic lights,
No matter where they've been.
I Like traffic lights.
I Like traffic lights.
I Like traffic lights.
I Like traffic lights.
I Like traffic lights,
But only when they're green.

01001000 01100101 01101100 01110000 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110100 01110010 01101111 01101100 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110000 01101111 01110000 01110101 01101100 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00101100 01101000 01100001 01110110 01100101 01110011 01100101 01111000 01110111 01101001 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110000 01101111 01101110 01111001 00100001

Re:I like traffic lights (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665619)

Slave to the traffic light!

That's impossible (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21664281)

Nothing can live in the antarctic.

Re:That's impossible (5, Funny)

bob.appleyard (1030756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665295)

Hear that, penguins?

Out!

Re:That's impossible (2, Funny)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667127)

Nothing can live in the antarctic.

Well that's why they found dinosaur *bones* and not living dinosaurs!

Duh...

Antarctica? (4, Funny)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664285)

So that's where Jesus hid them all!

I'm ready to be modded down, now.

Re:Antarctica? (2, Insightful)

eviloverlordx (99809) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664359)

So that's where Jesus hid them all!

I think you meant the Old Ones.

Re:Antarctica? (0)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664387)

I think you meant the Old Ones.
In hindsight, probably a better choice. Nobody seems to appreciate Creationist-inspired comedy anymore. Oh well.

Re:Antarctica? (1)

Embedded2004 (789698) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666159)

How is that "joke" Creationist-inspired ?

Re:Antarctica? (1)

piedmont67 (880928) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667261)

Well well well,
I guess this kind of puts an end to the argument that the world climate was unchanged until the 20th century since dinosaurs lived in that area. Lets hear some brainmush from the global warming sky-is-falling idiots now, about how the earth was NEVER as warm as it is now.

It amazes me that new facts like this come out every week, sometimes even every day and it never penetrates the thickness of global warming idiots. Public education's moment to shine.

Eye suport publick skools!!!

Re:Antarctica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21666343)

Parent modded "Insightful"? When did Cthulu get mod points?

Re:Antarctica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21666557)

When did Great Cthulhu not have mod points?

Re:Antarctica? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21664501)

Oh come the fuck on.

Flamebait? This is a completly fine comment to make on slashdot. Its funny, very funny. I hope whatever mod did this burns in his fucking hell.

brontosaurus (4, Informative)

icebones (707368) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664341)

Why did they change the name of the brontosaurus? I liked that name better.

Re:brontosaurus (3, Informative)

eviloverlordx (99809) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664413)

Because Apatosaurus was described first. According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the first name has priority. There are occasional exceptions to the rules (Boa constrictor comes to mind), but for the vast majority of cases, the ICZN is 'The Rule Book'.

Re:brontosaurus (4, Funny)

xENoLocO (773565) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665291)

If no one else is using it, can I?

Bow before me. I am Brontosaurus. Frickin' sweet!

Re:brontosaurus (4, Interesting)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664457)

According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , the apatosaurus had been known well before the brontosaurus ever came around. When the paleontologist who discovered the brontosaurus assembled it, he concluded that it was different from the apatosaurus and named it accordingly. Upon further study, they discovered that they were the same type of dinosaur, and since the apatosaurus was already established when the brontosaurus came around, they decided to use that name and just make "brontosaurus" a synonym.

Re:brontosaurus (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665409)

According to wikipedia, the apatosaurus had been known well before the brontosaurus ever came around.
Yes, but that wikipedia article doesn't cite sources. So quoting it is worthless.

Re:brontosaurus (1)

mattmatt (855592) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666411)

So quoting it is worthless.
[Citation needed]

Re:brontosaurus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21666445)

what a load of crap - there are at least three sources linked on that article that explain it.
Now whether or not _those_ sources are any good is an entirely separate question.

Re:brontosaurus (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21664479)

'Brontosaurus' is someone's intellectual property. In fact, someone will be along shortly to kick in our doors and arrest us.

Re:brontosaurus (1, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664735)

Why did they change the name of the brontosaurus? I liked that name better.

C & D letter. It was too close to Brontesaurus, a collection of references to the works of Charlotte Bronte, which though never actually published, might be some day and in the spirit of things as they are these days, they had to give it up rather than fight a long, costly legal battle with Bronte's heirs.

Re:brontosaurus (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665085)

I thought it was because of the Brontethesaurus, where all the words mean the same as what Charlotte wrote.

Re:brontosaurus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665279)

I predict you will change your sig next year.

Re:brontosaurus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665695)

It was actually misheard, and the name stuck:

rather than fight a long, costly legal battle with Bronte's heiress.

They said she was a mean mutha'

Flintstones Bar and Grill Re:brontosaurus (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664935)

They had the name first for their Brontosaurus Burgers. They sent a guy named Barney around to rough up some professors till they changed it.

Re:Flintstones Bar and Grill Re:brontosaurus (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665021)

Ah Flintstones humour, I wonder how many will get the jokes (without me spoiling it right here). I have to say it has been years since I last saw a free-to-air showing of this particular classic!

Re:Flintstones Bar and Grill Re:brontosaurus (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666423)

when I am really hungry I dream of those ribs that tip over cars. Hmmmmmm

Still funnier is that a lot of the Flintstones ideas showed up in Larry Niven's known space series like Gift from Earth.

Re:brontosaurus (1)

AzraelW3X (1038620) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665345)

The "Brontosaurus" was actually a fake/incorrectly constructed dinosaur - I believe the scientist who put together the original skeleton put the wrong head (one from a Camarasaurus) on the skeleton he found. Since the Apatosaurus was discovered and described independently and, more importantly, correctly, the name Apatosaurus is the accepted one.

Re:brontosaurus (1)

Samah (729132) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665777)

Why did they change the name of the brontosaurus? I liked that name better.
Political correctness. Apparently it was offensive to Charles Bronson.

Erm... (-1, Flamebait)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664349)

Dinosaur bones in Antarctica, shellfish on Everest. Congratulations, you found the remains of something that died a while back. Good job. I personally found the remains of a Nintendo in my storage shed the week before last... I intend to publish my findings sometime early next March. I'll keep you posted.

Re:Erm... (1)

icebones (707368) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664611)

If i had mod point I'd have used funny not troll.

Re:Erm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665413)

Which, of course, is why you no longer get mod points..

Pop goes the theory (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21664355)

Hm, Dinosaurs ... in the Antarctic. Kinda throws a big ol' monkey wrench in the THEORY of evolution ... wouldn't you say?

Re:Pop goes the theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21664427)

Nope, I wouldn't say that at all.

Re:Pop goes the theory (-1, Flamebait)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664473)

No, but it throws a BIGGER monkey wrench in the theory of (global warming) == (bad for life on earth), unless of course mankind existed before dinosaurs, and we drove our SUV's until they all died from CO2 overdose and the SUV's disintegrated completely (even the plastics) but the dinosaur bones remained... Which means Al Gore has reincarnated to save the poor dinosaurs agai... oh wait, they're not around. Tough tamales, eh?

Re:Pop goes the theory (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664537)

I'm not following. How do bones in the antarctic effect theories around climate change? If nothing else it is an example of (massive climate change) == (most stuff really dead)

Re:Pop goes the theory (1)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665157)

How about... "if dinosaurs existed long enough ago that they're fossils now, then perhaps the planet warming up is merely a return to its original conditions, when our ancestors were food, rather than the apex predator"... who knows, maybe the dinosaurs should've burned more hydrocarbons so maybe the globe would've warmed and they would still be alive chomping on those poorly evolved mammals.

Re:Pop goes the theory (1)

piedmont67 (880928) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667477)

You dingalings have everything wrong again. Evolutionists claim dinosaurs and man never existed together in the same time period. So if you do believe them then you have to disregard your own comments here.

Re:Pop goes the theory (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665233)

If they think the earth is only 6000 years old becuase they have only read the first half of a book then they will think there is no time for continental drift. Ignore them, they don't believe in education in general and think dinosaurs are a hoax anyway.

Correction (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665445)

"becuase they have only read the first half of a book "
should be:
"becuase they have misunderstood the first half of a book "

Re:Pop goes the theory (2, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664583)

Actually, the dinosaurs lived there before the continents moved to their current locations. It was quite a bit closer to the equator at that time, so whether or not the antarctic heating up is a good thing or a bad thing is still up in the air. Also, you seem to have switched your attacks from "global warming != bad" to "humans aren't causing it", which is somewhat confusing and makes your post harder to understand.

Re:Pop goes the theory (1)

Enrique1218 (603187) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667343)

Don't forget to add, that the CO2 levels were also predicted to be higher as Pangea was breaking up and the resulting vulcanism released large amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The climate in that region was more closer to tropical- something akin to the climate in Miami.

Re:Pop goes the theory (4, Insightful)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664597)

From the article...

"This was probably due to the fact that major connections between the continents still existed at that time, and because climates were more equitable across latitudes than they are today," Smith said.

Can we just go one discussion without bringing up global warming? While it's midly related, this is more about Pangaea and where Antarctica was 190 million years ago.

"climates were more equitable across latitudes" (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664999)

By what mechanism?

Sure, it is easy to understand that Antarctica might have been closer to the equator and moved, but if the atmosphere etc was the same as todays (or similar) then surely the global climate would have been similar to todays and the polar bits (that have moved out of the way now) would have been frozen, as they are today.

So the big question: what is so different bad then that allows such sweeping statements to be made?

Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665141)

"By what mechanism?"

The planet sat at an entirely different angle on it's axis - placing areas we now consider 'poles' much closer to what would have been near equatorial.

Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" (3, Informative)

pokerdad (1124121) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665265)

By what mechanism?

The same mechanisms that are said to cause globabl warming today; CO2 levels for earth peaked in the triassic period at about 3000ppm (currently at 381ppm, under 300ppm pre-industrial revolution). The higher CO2 levels led to higher levels of water vapor, and the two together made earth a big greenhouse.

Reference [bris.ac.uk]

On a bit of a tangent, I saw an interesting documentary about four years ago where a group of scientists tried to deduce of all the things needed for life on earth, what would run out first. They came to the conclusion that CO2 levels would continue to fall, till Earth became incapable of supporting plant life, and as a result any higher life form.

Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665273)

but if the atmosphere etc was the same as todays (or similar)

It wasn't.

Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" (3, Informative)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667243)

then surely the global climate would have been similar to todays and the polar bits (that have moved out of the way now) would have been frozen, as they are today.

Actually no. The only reason we have ice at the poles is because we are coming out of an ice age. There have only been four known ice ages in the planets history and outside of these (which is the vast majority of the time) the planet, even at the poles and highest latitudes has been ice free.

The planet has ben changing from completely ice covered to completely ice free long before people ever showed up.

Re:Pop goes the theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665705)

Sounds to me all the continents must have been at the equator.

Have they slowed down? One must be able to calculate exactly where they were and when. Does that coincide with the dinos?

Re:Pop goes the theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21664733)

The earth surface was once molten rock and from the way you people talk, it would be just fine if it was again.

Re:Pop goes the theory (2, Interesting)

jythie (914043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664495)

ahm, how so? The Antarctic used to be in a warmer region so it should have all sorts of remnants on it.

Formerly Brontosaurus?? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21664423)

When & why did we stop calling a brontosaurus a brontosaurus?

Next thing you'll tell me we only have 8 planets!

Re:Formerly Brontosaurus?? (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664553)

The Brontosaurus had a dispute with his record company, and the name change was his "first step toward the ultimate goal of emancipation from the chains that bound" him to that record label, since the label owned all the trademarks to the name. After first changing his name to an unpronounceable symbol, he later changed it to "the Artist Formerly Known as Brontosaurus" before finally settling on "Apatosaurus".

Honestly, didn't they teach you anything in school?

Re:Formerly Brontosaurus?? (2, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664623)

It was changed by a group of jobsworths who decided sometime after we left school that all these things needed changing.
Incidentally one of their former classmates invented the gibibyte.

Re:Formerly Brontosaurus?? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664899)

wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurus [wikipedia.org]

"though it was recognized as a species of a previously-named genus, Apatosaurus, in 1903."

Re:Formerly Brontosaurus?? (2, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665031)

Hang on there, don't post half a sentence..

The species Brontosaurus excelsus was named by its discoverer Othniel Charles Marsh, in 1879 and the designation persisted as an official term in the general public's literature until at least 1974, though it was recognized as a species of a previously-named genus, Apatosaurus, in 1903..

which backs up what I just said (though I was born in 1975 so in England we must have been slow to change books).

We shall both be right :)

Re:Formerly Brontosaurus?? (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665213)

and don't bold the wrong part.

"The species Brontosaurus excelsus was named by its discoverer Othniel Charles Marsh, in 1879 and the designation persisted as an official term in the general public's literature until at least 1974, though it was recognized as a species of a previously-named genus, Apatosaurus, in 1903.."

So yes, we both learned the wrong name from poor school literature.

however, I had a brief flirtation with paleontology so I had learned the proper name in high school and I should have recognized that I was pretty unique in that matter.
For the record: paleontology was an interest for the same reason everything else was an interest in high school. There was a hot chick in the class.

Image (5, Interesting)

sc0ob5 (836562) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664433)

There is an image of the thing on this blog if you are interested. http://thedragonstales.blogspot.com/2007/12/hail-glacialisaurus-hammeri.html

Re:Image (1)

anzha (138288) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664711)

Thanx for the link, but Bryan has a better article [scienceblogs.com] .

Re:Image (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665147)

Mostly off road logging trucks in this part of the world. 100 ton+ 14' wide and driven by madmen. Huge water tanks so the brakes don't melt.

  The bones are often crushed and scattered before mother nature makes them ... "litter".

watch (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664453)

watch for dino DNA in the bones. it's not that long ago

Re:watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21664517)

Only 6000 years (max), in (ID) fact.

Re:watch (1)

Robowally (649265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665379)

In fact, most ID'ers are not young earth creationists. Interesting though that the dino bones found not long ago perhaps contained blood proteins. A short article (incl. contrary link) on a creationist site here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/606/ [creationontheweb.com]

To the tune of the Oscar Meyer song... (1)

brassman (112558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667155)

I have a fav'rite movie
It's called "Jurassic Park"
It has velociraptors
Eating lawyers in the dark

I'd like to watch it every day
And if you ask me why I'll say
"'cause Steven Spielberg has a way
With fossil dino D.N.A!"

Headline: Antarctica (4, Funny)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664549)

Scott Polar Station (DevNull): Today, Researchers have discovered the remains of what appears to be a long-sought-after ancient creature. Labelled Minix Tannenbaumis, or just "Minix" this creature is thought to be the direct descendant of the modern-day Penguin (Linux Sapiens Sapiens).

Researchers have still to uncover this creature's habitat, but they did find the petrified parts of a corpse belonging to a rather large creature, which is referred to more commonly by its Latin name, Nix Quintis, as well as remains of another animal known as Distriae Berkeleyus; the latter was known to have been wiped out approximately sixteen million years ago due to the Netcraft epidemics, which gives us a rough idea as to how old Minix is.

A lean predator, Minix was known to be a vicious and somewhat egotistical creature, prone to fits of foaming anger and long diatribes, with which it used as a means to kill its prey.

While we do not yet know the full extent of Minix, it is well studied by previously found fragments, and today's discovery should present a far clearer picture in the years to come as it reveals its secrets.

Meanwhile, paradoxically, no trace has yet to be found of the species known as Bloatasaurus, or Vista Microsoftae. A large, slow-moving creature, this dinosaur was well known to have been a common victim of predatory attacks, and yet very few have been found. Archaeologist Steve Ballmer is heading the team searching for Bloatasaurus, though his peers still doubt his claims that "They're everywhere! It was the most popular friggin' beast alive!" Whether this creature actually existed still remains in doubt among some.

/P

Re:Headline: Antarctica (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664573)

Keep your day job.

Re:Headline: Antarctica (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664645)

If my car wasn't fritzed, I'd be at my day job right now. /P

Re:Headline: Antarctica (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665065)

I can't use that excuse. I live one mile from work. I'm moving to a town 40 miles away soon though.

Re:Headline: Antarctica (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665885)

Its called "Scott Base" not Scott Polar Station. Its also quite a long way from the (Geographic) pole.

Re:Headline: Antarctica (1)

LandruBek (792512) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666635)

Too bad someone thought this was flamebait. It's more like chipotle seasoned -- mellow and smoky. Now for my 2 cents, cheers:

"Of the many casualties of those long ago days, some mourn that the tiny, swift protomammal Beos Gasseeis did not in fact survive as a species despite its seeming efficiency compared to its lumbering rivals. The coup de grace was delivered by early megafauna cat Felis Malus, ancestor of today's leopard."

...wait, wait, stop -- does this mean you believe in intelligent design?

(Now there's some flamebait, ba da bing!)

Ice (1)

Device666 (901563) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664631)

Imagine 4 to 6 ton dinosaur on arctic ice...

Re:Ice (2, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664671)

Yeah, but then someone hired by Tonya Harding comes along and whacks it in the knees. It's not a pretty picture.

Re:Ice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21665307)

"Why?!? Why?!?"

Re:Ice (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664753)

Imagine the antarctic being near the equator when dinosaurs were around. Anyway, arctic ice can hold more than 4-6 tons. Sure would be fun to see them slipping and sliding around though, as long as you weren't to close. I can't imagine getting stuck in a dinosaur's ass would be much fun.

Re:Ice (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664829)

kind of like... Reptar? On Ice?

Brontosaurus, thank you (4, Funny)

Trogre (513942) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664659)

I prefer the traditional name for that Dino, thanks.

The name Brontosaurus strikes an image of a colossal behemoth that would crush you to paste if you got in its way.

Apatosaurus sounds like it should be serving you tea cakes.

Re:Brontosaurus, thank you (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664919)

It gives me images of 'Bronto burgers' and ribs so big they'll cause a car to tip over.

just in case: It was called Apatosaurus first and miss named latter.

Re:Brontosaurus, thank you (2, Informative)

z-man (103297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665197)

Apatosaurus sounds like it should be serving you tea cakes.
To me, apatosaurus sounds like the dino version of an apathetic unemployed couch potato.

Global Warming (1, Informative)

phrostie (121428) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664709)

so there were herbivores in the Antarctic.

did Al Gore predict this?

Re:Global Warming (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664799)

Actually it was predicted many, many years ago.

Re:Global Warming (1)

Tenebrarum (887979) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665001)

Actually it was predicted many, many years ago.

Clever lot, those dinosaurs.

Re:Global Warming (2, Funny)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665369)

It's a well-known fact that cows produce massive amounts of GHG's.

So just think how much global warming DINO FARTS would have produced!

Seriously, it's no wonder our ancestors never got a break until those polluting beasts kicked the bucket.

Re:Global Warming (1)

piedmont67 (880928) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667319)

Yep, and then they turn around and expect us to swallow the hoax that goes "world climate was unchanged until the 20th century". Typical Orwellian double-speak in its purest form.

Sure, call them dinosaurs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21664781)

Call them sauropods and theropods, but we know Elder Things and shoggoths when we hear about them...

And they rocked out to... (3, Funny)

greymond (539980) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664815)

Hammeri Time

My, my, my, my dino hits me so hard
Makes me say oh my word
Thank you for proving me
With a mind to dig and two cold feet
Feels good when you know you're down
A superdope therapod from the oldtown
And I'm known
as such
And this is a beat uh you can touch

The sauropod has been named Glacialisaurus hammeri (the reason for the genus name is obvious, and Professor Hammer led the field expeditions under 'extremely difficult conditions')

Re:And they rocked out to... (1)

BosstonesOwn (794949) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665629)

AllI know is this guys name is frickkin cool. Professor Hammer !!!

How great is that ! Almost sounds like a comic book villian.

This is your At The Mountains Of Madness reference (-1)

RevDigger (4288) | more than 6 years ago | (#21664889)

I am forced into speech because men of science have refused to follow my advice without knowing why. It is altogether against my will that I tell my reasons for opposing this contemplated invasion of the antarctic--with its vast fossil hunt and its wholesale boring and melting of the ancient ice caps. And I am the more reluctant because my warning may be in vain.

          Doubt of the real facts, as I must reveal them, is inevitable; yet, if I suppressed what will seem extravagant and incredible there would be nothing left. The hitherto withheld photographs, both ordinary and aërial, will count in my favor, for they are damnably vivid and graphic. Still, they will be doubted because of the great lengths to which clever fakery can be carried. The ink drawings, of course, will be jeered at as obvious impostures, notwithstanding a strangeness of technique which art experts ought to remark and puzzle over.

          In the end I must rely on the judgement and standing of the few scientific leaders who have, on the other hand, sufficient independence of thought to weigh my data on its own hideously convincing merits or in the light of certain primordial and highly baffling myth cycles; and on the other hand, sufficient influence to deter the exploring world in general from any rash and over ambitious program in the region of those mountains of madness. It is an unfortunate fact that relatively obscure men like myself and my associates, connected only with a small university, have little chance of making an impression where matters of a wildly bizarre or highly controversial nature are concerned.

I smell a sitcom! (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665395)

...isolated bones of a sauropod were found associated with a theropod ...

It's the original Odd Couple!

That's all good, but, can we drill yet? (0)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21665883)

Ok, if scientists are allowed to dig for dinosaurs, I'd like go set myself up with an oil well for, ummm, "research purposes"...

STOP (0)

achenaar (934663) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666139)

HammerI!

So what's earth's normal temperature? (0, Troll)

i)ave (716746) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666157)

Because I can not resolve in my own mind how anyone can claim to believe in global "warming", yet have no clue as to what represents a "normal" temperature. According to the article, Antarctica was once much warmer than it is today -- so why not establish that period of time as representative of earth's "normal" temperature? That would show we are in a period of global cooling and any rise in temperature would mean we were moving back towards normal. Who the hell is to say that the last 100 or 1000 years should represent the normal temperature of earth and totally ignore a couple billion years. Simply because someone likes the idea of keeping their beach house in the family doesn't mean this is the normal temperature of the earth. It wasn't so long ago that most of North America was completely underwater -- is that "normal" ? Why not?

Re:So what's earth's normal temperature? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21666225)

Uhhh, because you're an idiot?

Re:So what's earth's normal temperature? (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666377)

The temperature of Antartica 100 million years ago compared to today has no bearing on the global temperature, as Antartica was not located at the South pole back then, so it of course was warmer than it is now.

Re:So what's earth's normal temperature? (0, Flamebait)

piedmont67 (880928) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667405)

It was MUCH warmer in the 1930s, but don't confuse anyone with facts when money is to be made off the global warming hoax. I run a tree farm and idiots (from up north, mainly) pay me for their "Carbon Credits". If idiots give me money I promise you I will take it. They might wake up one day and realize how stupid they are, or how they've been had, but don't count on it.

The only thing that would happen if we actually had a significantly warmer planet is less people dying from freezing to death every year and more arable farmland in Canada. . . . . . . . . AND less natural gas and heating oil used in the winter, AND less pollution, and . . . . you get the picture.

Re:So what's earth's normal temperature? (2, Interesting)

derdesh (652578) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666507)

You make a very good point. Statistically it is unlikely that today's global temperature is "normal" for our epoch, and that normal baseline almost certainly has changed in the past 10's of millions of years and will continue to change on that same timescale into the future.

That said, the discussion and concern about "global warming" has nothing to do with what's "normal" for the planet. The concern is for effects that occur too quickly for our societies to adapt without massive disruption and accompanying economic collapse, famine, and war that might accompany such.

The planet doesn't care, and will be fine in the long run. It's we humans, and our civilization, that worry about survival.

Also, dinosaurs are cool.

Re:So what's earth's normal temperature? (1)

Rudi G (1155281) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666743)

You are right, anything is normal for mother nature. It doesn't care whether it's 30 or 50 degrees outside, and it certainly would not care if all humans become extinct, just look how kind it was to the dinosaurs.

More evidence that global warming isn't (0)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 6 years ago | (#21666675)

Global warming is not only not man made, it hasn't gotten warmer in the last 5 years. The only global warming anyone can actually point to is a bunch of erred NASA reports from the 80's and statistical analysis by computers of the errorous data. I'm sure everyone here on slashdot appreciates the inaccuracy of any analytical computer program predicticting the outcome of anything in the real world. These computer climate models, while entertaining, have absolutely nothing to do with reality, it's a kin to a gigantic magic 8 ball. The best proof that global warming is a crock of shit is how defencive proponents are of any skeptics : http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c [senate.gov] . This global warming farce and gone on long enough! It's time for the halfway intelligent people to say "Enough politics in science!"

The name change is obviously more important. (1)

zaxor0 (1032984) | more than 6 years ago | (#21667131)

Ah! Thats where I left my Apato-burger (formerly known as Bronto-burger).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...