I can only go with the information I have, and not being familiar with your local crows and ravens, googled them

The pages I found said that you tell them apart by tail (shown, but unclear), size (not shown), and habitat (too lazy to look up). None of them said to differentiate by head shape of beak.

Conspiracy theory? No... Going with information supplied with video? Yes! Unless provided with snowmen or reindeer to the contrary. Possibly mistaken? Certainly!

I had wondered about that. Having no idea what the ecology was like there before they built, I had no idea if they screwed it all up, or created habitat where there was none before hand. I just figured Dubai didn't do any eco-studies and just did it.
I also wonder why they've had such a hard time selling lots and building there. They, and the world islands still seem fairly empty. Neat idea, but apparently a terrible one in the end.

Ahhh ... the elusive King of the Redneck Werewolves in his native habitat, summoning his "were-pack". That camera man [assuming it IS a man] was lucky to get out of there alive ... or did he/she/it?

You ever try sunfish?

I think it's crazy how huge fish basically serve as ocean habitat. It's like a floating reef.

I agree with a lot of this.

What I'd dispute is whether we know know for certain it is largely man-made. Again I would defer to NASA where it specifies it is "very likely due to human activities" that is the consensus. I study statistics and the hypothesis/ significance testing you could perform to test time periods before and after human activity would be very rigorous in determining a trend change, and there is certainly no lack of data.

As far predicting the benefit/harm and the most cost effective policy alternative if one is required, I agree it's debatable. There are organisations such as the Copenhagen Consensus that argue for technology based solutions such as stratospheric aerosol injection or carbon capture rather than pure taxes/reduced emissions.

My own (layman) take here is that mitigating a potentially large unknown is pragmatic. At the very least until such technologies are proven to be effective and feasible in reversing the trend. European colonists destroyed ecosystems through introducing but a handful of non-native species to a previously isolated habitats. I think it goes without saying we should not be naive about the unforeseen impacts of a global change like this and taking a conservative approach is warranted.

OH YEAH!!! I could STILL use one of those. It would need to be the large version though, my stump is about 3 times that size! If I had that, I would have finished months ago.
I'm near 1/3 of the way done digging it out by hand. There's a clay layer below it that the roots didn't penetrate, so I have dug down into that, and then I started going sideways under the root mass. It's making a 'cave' of roots that look pretty neat. I might try to leave the stump and roots in the pond for habitat and to make a small island for turtles. I'll have to cut it loose from the walls and below so the concrete will seal, but I have a plan for that. Maybe I'll shoot you a pic if I can 'dig up' your email.
Newt

Maybe the shark wouldn't be so mad if they didn't keep it locked up in that tiny tank. It's stuff like this that makes me sick. Why can't we learn to appreciate animals in their own natural habitat? Is this what our government thinks we need to spend our tax dollars on?? Thanks Obama! SMH

I think it normally depends on the mountain. As I see it, most people have an issue with destroying mountains for things like mining because 1) they disagree with the reasoning for it, 2)it's in places where people can see the damage, and more importantly 3) those 'mountains' are often much lower altitude and are decent habitats for critters with significant water runoff that's contaminated by 'mountain top removal'. When you're talking 9-10K feet up, beyond the tree line, there's far less habitat being destroyed (granted, something likely lives there that's now dead or displaced). That means it's not 0 damage done, but far less damage to what most people consider important. Very few people care about damaging the rock itself, mostly Shinto and Buddhists I would guess. Personally I find this a good trade off of damage vs possible gain, but of course I don't live there.
I'm wondering how this is better than the VLTA http://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/vlt/
I expected there to be no more giant telescopes made now that they know how to combine smaller ones to simulate large ones. I wonder why they went this way on this project?

Having seen them in action in their usual habitat, they are truly some of Nature's most efficient killers.

montreal standing wave surfing (habitat) has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

Oar fish shouldn't be at the surface...this is a bad sign for them, and maybe for their habitat. :-(

A latex balloon bio-degrades about as fast as an oak leaf. A birds' most-likely smart enough not to swallow one whole.
No lady, you are passionately mistaken. It takes less time for the latex to degrade in salt water the temperature being a non-issue. Admittedly though, it's a waste of helium and a balloon for the sake of video game software and it might choke a few seagulls, none of which will be missed, as San Fran has seen such an explosive rise in their numbers since being placed on the over-protected list, that they are encroaching on the habitats of less fortunate and more endangered species.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/san-francisco-seagulls_n_3672793.html

Fucking Californians. Heads-shoved-up-one's-own-ass-disorder seems to flourish there like barnacles on a ship's hull.

That is really the heart of this whole conflict, right there.

Zoos and the destruction of natural habitat.

I dont understand the interviewer or people being wildly upset by this, do they really think the zookeepers, who feed and care for this giraffe are simply sadistic morons who kills a giraffe for fun or just because they can? Obviously there was a reason for this.

I am , however, in principal against zoos. they may be educational on some level, but I have a distaste for the concept of keeping wild animals imprisoned like this. But I do think that most zoos and zookeepers do their best under the circumstances to keep the animals happy as they can be. Most wild animals in the wild of course, live in perpetual fear and/or hunger, and so forth, but I am much more in favour of us spending money on preserving wilderness, and stop the perpetual destruction of their natural habitat, instead of keeping specimens in special "cages"/zoos.

Well, we both agree on the non-existence of god, I am glad to say, but your point here is still nonsense, the idea that humans are the culprit of most human suffering is just wrong. Sure, there are some dreadful examples, but by far, most suffering comes from non-human controlled factors like disease, disasters, random accidents etc. Humans have actually done quite a bit to reduce the "naturally" occurring death and suffering visited upon us (like medicine or early warning systems for bad weather etc) We have also raised the living standards from a fearful, ignorant, dangerous habitat for at least some parts of the world.