4

Herbivorous Dinosaurs from Alberta. By Julius Csotonyi

"About 75 million years ago, shows niche partitioning at work. It is likely that dietary differences between each species allowed the habitat to support such a diverse population of herbivores." Read more at Species New to Science

Abstract

A new hadrosaurid is described from the Upper Cretaceous Neslen Formation of central Utah. Rhinorex condrupus gen. et sp. nov. is diagnosed on the basis of two unique traits, a hook-shaped projection of the nasal anteroventral process and dorsal projection of the posteroventral process of the premaxilla, and is further differentiated from other hadrosaurid species based on the morphology of the nasal (large nasal boss on the posterodorsal corner of the circumnarial fossa, small protuberences on the anterior process, absence of nasal arch), jugal (vertical postorbital process), postorbital (high degree of flexion present on posterior process), and squamosal (inclined anterolateral processes). This new taxon was discovered in estuarine sediments dated at approximately 75 Ma and just 250 km north of the prolific dinosaur-bearing strata of the Kaiparowits Formation, possibly overlapping in time with Gryposaurus monumentensis. Phylogenetic parsimony and Bayesian analyses associate this new taxon with the Gryposaurus clade, even though the type specimen does not possess the diagnostic nasal hump of the latter genus. Comparisons with phylogenetic analyses from other studies show that a current consensus exists between the general structure of the hadrosaurid evolutionary tree, but on closer examination there is little agreement among species relationships.

In his response, McIntyre doesn’t seem to understand what Hantemirov is saying he did wrong. This does not surprise me because he still doesn’t understand why the other series in question isn’t published by the CRU. He also doesn’t seem to understand what the word “stolen” means.
—  grypo, commenting on Steve’s response to Hantemirov.
"Free from" and "Free to"

[A synopsis by gryposaurus on the basic notions in political philosophy, with slight edits.]

The issue of income disparity and democracy go back to its creation. Aristotle argued that large income differences and usurious behavior create an unstable democracy, ie you can not have the poor voting away rich people’s possessions, nor can you have the rich subverting the poor with their economic power. Having either make a mockery out of democracy. He said you either have to either end poverty or end democracy. His solution was to have each person (except woman) own land and have high participation in the economy

The federalists, during the creation of the Bill of Rights, argued otherwise. The prospect of the poor voting away the rich’s land and power was thought to be such a problem that James Madison eventually agreed with John Jay that voting privileges should be guaranteed to heads of household, land owners, and that the country should be ruled by wealthy, educated people. In their defense, these were days where thoughts of the way modern capitalism works, were impossible, where the classical liberals like Mill had arguments that made sense in their time period.

But these ideas persist today and freedom is thought of as only what you are “free from”. Berlin, a classical liberal, but from a more contemporary view in capitalistic world ruled by global finance, also included the “free to” inclusion into liberal thought.

Imagine yourself as a fully actualized person 100 years from now. Ask yourself the same ethical questions we are asking now.
—  grypo, showing how astronomical uncertainties in climate change impacts, economic reality, societal change and adaption, resource extraction, global politic, balanced against each other, make any economic argument that includes a number on future ‘riches’ completely invalid.
What Genre are Climate Debates?

[Here is gryposaurus’ answer. Accepting it has some incidence on the due diligence climate blog debates deserves. Let’s hope grypo’s right: farces usually end well. But what if it’s a neverending farce?]

This isn’t really a soap opera. Soap operas have twists and turns that are so unbelievable as to be unable to predict. Everything here is very believable and predictable. Each character is acting just as they have acted all along. It is better described as a farce. It should be rather embarrassing for the players, but it isn’t. The entire climate debate is a farce and completely disconnected from what should be being discussed. And we continue to spin our tires in the mud because of it. Sorry to poor countries. Sorry to the next generation.

How to Derail a Thread

[Grypo Saurus observes, describes, and explains a shirt ripper’s tricks]

Permit me to indulge my inner Willard…

Watch what Tom does. Micheal mentions being a science fiction fan. Creates interesting narrative around how we think about our future. This, I imagine, is to put aside some of the pessimism that infects this debate. Instead of focusing on our inability to agree on needed and difficult changes, we can focus how the process is a challenge, and that challenge can be…”fun”.

Tom focuses in on “science fiction” derails thread with strawmen about science fiction movie plots. Fun’s over. Derailment - a success.

Excuses, excuses

[Gryposaurus explains how a circling firing squad works.]

Lots of beating up the messenger going on in the climate world all of a sudden. It’s Romm, It’s MT, It’s Eli, It’s Gavin, It’s Gore, It’s Mann, They’re too nerdy, They’re too dumb, They’re too smug, They’re not technical, They’re too technical, They’re too mean, They have a bad message, They have this and They have that. Excuses, excuses.

The media slings mud, it sticks. Yes, there are tribes. The tribe with the right message can’t a find way to get it out there. The ones with the large microphones and the most media savvy are blameless, of course.