Entertainment desk
< April 27	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 28

Name of a children's short and the artist who appears

I can't remember if this short is on Disney Playhouse, Treehouse or another channel. Anyway, it is a female singer dressed as a conductor on a train. I have seen two shorts where she sings a jazzed up version of the alphabet song and another one about animals. There are also children in the show who are passengers. Can anyone tell me the name of the show and who the artist is? Thanks 99.250.117.26 (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Choo-Choo Soul. The article will answer all of your questions. Having a 2 and a 5 year old helps answer questions like this. --Jayron32 01:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 99.250.117.26 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

howcan we save nature

methods to save nature

Click the little floppy disk icon in the toolbar?--Jayron32 20:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-running. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nature will take care of itself. It's we who need saving, from our own follies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In most ways, over the long term, "nature will take care of itself", yes. However, there are some ways humans can make a lasting impact. For example, large species driven to extinction by humans aren't likely to reappear anytime soon. Although, I suppose, if people drive polar bears to extinction, then, perhaps millions of years after humans become extinct, other species of surviving bears may spawn something similar to the polar bear again. StuRat (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It should be noted though that species were going extinct without human intervention for eons. Googlemeister (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is what I call a "conceit" that humans are responsible for global warming, and by extension, any consequences of it. There's no question that global warming is going on, but proving that it's humans causing it is kind of slippery. There's no question that humans are directly responsible for the extinction of a number of species. We may even have been responsible for the extinction of Neanderthal Man. But does that really matter to "nature"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We know how much of each greenhouse gas we add to the air, we can measure the increase in concentration in the air each year, and this corresponds well with the observed global warming. So what's unclear about it, exactly ? StuRat (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6th Extinction. Animal species are dying out at a rate way higher than they typically do without human intervention. Buddy431 (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of the "conceit". We can't say for sure what the extinction rate was a few hundred years ago. We just keep better track of it now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, people have good ways of estimating the extinction rates: see Background extinction rate. Look at some of the references: estimating background extinction rate is a serious area of research. It is not just environmentalists pulling numbers out of their asses to support their assertions. If you're going to comment about a subjects, please make at least a cursory read through of the sources on the subject. Buddy431 (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humans have an extremely inflated view of their impact on things. The dinosaurs got wiped out without any help from us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, an Extinction event, which is, by definition, a period where the extinction rate is very much higher than the background extinction rate. We are currently in an extinction event right now. That doesn't validate your claim that people can't accurately measure the prehistorical extinction rate, or invalidate my claim that they can. Buddy431 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are much better at record keeping now. There's no way we can know what the true extinction rate was, 500 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to say this again? Cite Your Sources! I've already cited our article that suggests that humans can accurately estimate historic and prehistoric baseline extinction rates. Do you have any evidence to back up your point of view? Buddy431 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the "religion" aspect of science comes into it: Decide on the (politically-driven) conclusion, and figure out how to make the conclusion seem "scientific". P.S. What is the original question doing in the "entertainment" desk anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the "Rates of Extinction in Marine Invertebrates: Further Comparison Between Background and Mass Extinctions" sure looks like a political hack piece, as does the more recent "Dynamics of Origination and Extinction in the Marine Fossil Record". I mean come on, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is clearly trying to falsify the extinction record for their personal gain. How do we even know that the Permian–Triassic extinction event isn't just some hoax cooked up sadistic scientists in their further attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of us commoners. There's no way to even verify these extinctions: it's not like there's any remains from these long-extinct species. Buddy431 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the rarity of something becoming fossilized, a lot of extrapolation is needed for these estimates, and just because a scientist is doing the extrapolating, does not make it accurate. More likely to be accurate perhaps, but by no means a sure thing. Googlemeister (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Cthulhu so scary?

I briefly glanced at the Wikipedia article about Cthulhu, and got to thinking what exactly is it that makes all these slimy tentacle monsters so scary. Are they dangerous? Do they kill people? Or are they scary just because they're weird? JIP | Talk 18:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Cthulhu Mythos#Theme: "Because of the limitations of the human mind, these deities appear as so overwhelming that they can often drive a person insane." Humans are like ants to them; they could thoughtlessly slay us all with a passing thought and never realize what they had done. Cthulhu stories are usually very vague about the Old Ones themselves and they say things like "And then I finally drew into view of it ... and then I woke up and it was several hours later." They are too dreadful for us to grok, you see. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hackett/Genesis

Did Steve Hackett ever sing live backing vocals for Genesis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.86.216 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through half a dozen old Genesis videos on YouTube and in each one, Steve Hackett never has a mic stand in front of him; the only people who have microphones are Peter Gabriel (lead) and Phil Collins (backing). He's usually seated, hunched over his guitar with his hair in his face. That, of course, doesn't mean he never sang, since I have not watched footage of every single Genesis live performance, but it does not appear that he did so normally. --Jayron32 20:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them live in 1978, but truly can't remember seeing or hearing Steve Hackett singing. The only song it might have been in was "Trick of the Tail", but to be honest I was too busy watching the screen at the time... I've had a poke around Hackett's website and couldn't find any reference. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]