In a paper co-written by a NASA astrobiologist named Shawn Domagal-Goldman, the authors indicate the following:

========================

"Another recommendation is that humanity should avoid giving off the appearance of being a

rapidly expansive civilization. If an ETI perceives humanity as such, then it may be inclined to

attempt a preemptive strike against us so as to prevent us from growing into a threat to the ETI or

others in the galaxy. Similarly, ecosystem-valuing universalist ETI may observe humanity's

ecological destructive tendencies and wipe humanity out in order to preserve the Earth system as

a whole. These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global

ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases,

since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets."

=====================

Link to a site at which you can download the full paper (which all-in-all is actually pretty interesting) is HERE

Link to article about the paper (on a website I've never heard of before) is HERE

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Because we drive SUVs, apparently. :D

Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Because we drive SUVs, apparently. :D

Planet_Pluto

Not this again...

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i just never understood that assumption. the time, energy, and resources wasted when they could take all of the raw materials they want from planets that dont have, as developed, life on it. unless scientologists are right and Xenu comes back to re-kill the space ghosts.... are their ships powered by fossil fuels, if so we are using them entirely wrong.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i just never understood that assumption. the time, energy, and resources wasted when they could take all of the raw materials they want from planets that dont have, as developed, life on it. unless scientologists are right and Xenu comes back to re-kill the space ghosts.... are their ships powered by fossil fuels, if so we are using them entirely wrong.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]A lot of it doesn't make sense to me. Since it's been proven that 'ancient aliens' came here X-years BC to build the pyrimads and other such structures......... why come back and destroy everything?

surrealnumber5

Indeed.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

surrealnumber5

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

surrealnumber5

Any civilisation advanced enough to get here would almost certainly developed nanotechnology. This would allow them to manufacture any element they wished, they most certainly wouldnt need our resources.

I thought the majority of climate scientists agreed that man made global warming was factual?

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

comp_atkins

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

Planet_Pluto

Or these?

Any civilisation advanced enough to get here would almost certainly developed nanotechnology. This would allow them to manufacture any element they wished, they most certainly wouldnt need our resources.

I thought the majority of climate scientists agreed that man made global warming was factual?

tenaka2

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Any civilisation advanced enough to get here would almost certainly developed nanotechnology. This would allow them to manufacture any element they wished, they most certainly wouldnt need our resources.

I thought the majority of climate scientists agreed that man made global warming was factual?

comp_atkins

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Any civilisation advanced enough to get here would almost certainly developed nanotechnology. This would allow them to manufacture any element they wished, they most certainly wouldnt need our resources.

I thought the majority of climate scientists agreed that man made global warming was factual?

Planet_Pluto

I thought you might bring that up, the author has been discredited and is funded by Exxonmobil.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] pfft.. this is america. we base our policy on what the minority thinks...tenaka2

I thought you might bring that up, the author has been discredited and is funded by Exxonmobil.

A little off-topic but, on the whole debate of global warming, there's no hard facts that it actually exists. 100 years of climate monitoring for the billions of years that Earth has been around hardly represents a problem with what is essentially, a very fake man made issue. The earth goes through cycles all the time of variable temperature changes, we just happen to be alive during these variables.

Also, there is more evidence to support that Global Warming is false, which is why there is so much controversy in the science community and government (who only want to capitalize on a global tax system through a CTS). Basically the governments of the world want to further their control over the population by regulating economy on a global scale, as well as dictate our freedom through false pretence.

Some Governments have even been accused of tampering with scientific readings or have employed biased scientists to favour Government expectations to give the illusion of a impending ecological disaster.Yes we are destructive towards our environment and animals, and yes we do pollute our air, poison our food with chemicals, and rape our resources to unnecessary levels, but these actions are not causing Global Warming to the degree that Governments want you to think.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]NASA is finding evidence to the contrary.

Planet_Pluto

I thought you might bring that up, the author has been discredited and is funded by Exxonmobil.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I thought you might bring that up, the author has been discredited and is funded by Exxonmobil.

tenaka2

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

"The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text."

How the hell did a research paper get published without reporting at least standard errors? That alone questions the results, since results are meaningless without statistical significance.

A little off-topic but, on the whole debate of global warming, there's no hard facts that it actually exists. 100 years of climate monitoring for the billions of years that Earth has been around hardly represents a problem with what is essentially, a very fake man made issue. The earth goes through cycles all the time of variable temperature changes, we just happen to be alive during these variables.

Also, there is more evidence to support that Global Warming is false, which is why there is so much controversy in the science community and government (who only want to capitalize on a global tax system through a CTS). Basically the governments of the world want to further their control over the population by regulating economy on a global scale, as well as dictate our freedom through false pretence.

Some Governments have even been accused of tampering with scientific readings or have employed biased scientists to favour Government expectations to give the illusion of a impending ecological disaster.Yes we are destructive towards our environment and animals, and yes we do pollute our air, poison our food with chemicals, and rape our resources to unnecessary levels, but these actions are not causing Global Warming to the degree that Governments want you to think.

Crystal-Rush

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]That drowning polar bears fella had a similar fate (assuming what you say is true).

chessmaster1989

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

God knows, but such papers do highlight the political agenda of deniers quite well.

here is some info on the guy that wrote the paper for Nasa lol.

Spencer and the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance"

Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."

In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.

A little off-topic but, on the whole debate of global warming, there's no hard facts that it actually exists. 100 years of climate monitoring for the billions of years that Earth has been around hardly represents a problem with what is essentially, a very fake man made issue. The earth goes through cycles all the time of variable temperature changes, we just happen to be alive during these variables.

Also, there is more evidence to support that Global Warming is false, which is why there is so much controversy in the science community and government (who only want to capitalize on a global tax system through a CTS). Basically the governments of the world want to further their control over the population by regulating economy on a global scale, as well as dictate our freedom through false pretence.

Some Governments have even been accused of tampering with scientific readings or have employed biased scientists to favour Government expectations to give the illusion of a impending ecological disaster.Yes we are destructive towards our environment and animals, and yes we do pollute our air, poison our food with chemicals, and rape our resources to unnecessary levels, but these actions are not causing Global Warming to the degree that Governments want you to think.

Crystal-Rush

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

click title for link

"Most of the literate world today regards "global warming'' as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind. The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council's report on adapting to global change. Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level rise would be swamped by other more important factors."

here is some info on the guy that wrote the paper for Nasa lol.

Spencer and the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance"

Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."

In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.

tenaka2

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

click title for link

"Most of the literate world today regards "global warming'' as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind. The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council's report on adapting to global change. Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level rise would be swamped by other more important factors."

Planet_Pluto

I wouldn't use that source if I were you.

Criticisms of the Cato Institute.

Last updated 08/27/10.

A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.

The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries.

Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being mislead. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

click title for link

"Most of the literate world today regards "global warming'' as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind. The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council's report on adapting to global change. Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level rise would be swamped by other more important factors."

tenaka2

I wouldn't use that source if I were you.

Criticisms of the Cato Institute.

Last updated 08/27/10.

A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.

The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries.

Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being mislead. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

Piroshki

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

click title for link

"Most of the literate world today regards "global warming'' as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind. The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council's report on adapting to global change. Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level rise would be swamped by other more important factors."

Planet_Pluto

I wouldn't use that source if I were you.

Criticisms of the Cato Institute.

Last updated 08/27/10.

A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.

The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries.

Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being mislead. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.

In this instance the messenger has no interest in facts.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

Piroshki

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

Piroshki

Attacking the messenger rather than dispute the facts. Typical.Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I wouldn't use that source if I were you.

Criticisms of the Cato Institute.

Last updated 08/27/10.

A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.

The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries.

Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being mislead. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.

tenaka2

In this instance the messenger has no interest in facts.

You copied and pasted a critique from a website who's home page boasts, "Welcome to the web site dedicated to critiquing libertarianism! " Am I supposed to believe that this is a group of people not driven purely by ideology rather than a search for facts? Or is that ok, so long as they agree with you?

[QUOTE="Piroshki"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i would hope to look as advanced as possible, think of the trade opportunities. seriously though, why would an alien looking for life in the vastness of space want to kill what it finds...

surrealnumber5

i would not spend an indescribable amount of time traveling to kill an ant.....surrealnumber5

i would not spend an indescribable amount of time traveling to kill an ant.....surrealnumber5

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

click title for link

"Most of the literate world today regards "global warming'' as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind. The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council's report on adapting to global change. Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level rise would be swamped by other more important factors."

Planet_Pluto

That article was written in 1992... not very up-to-date don't you think?

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Piroshki"] Why would you kill an ant? Same reason, because a civilization advanced enough to cross the vastness of space would regard us the same way we regard ants. I really hope we don't meet any advanced alien civilizations any time soon.-Sun_Tzu-

Since you want to play the 'attack the messenger' game...

You copied and pasted a critique from a website who's home page boasts, "Welcome to the web site dedicated to critiquing libertarianism! " Am I supposed to believe that this is a group of people not driven purely by ideology rather than a search for facts? Or is that ok, so long as they agree with you?

Planet_Pluto

Since you cannot see the difference between the two, I shall point it out.

Only only of those 2 pretends to be scientists.

Also the Cato group have loads of critiques against them, I just selected the first in the list.

you actually think it would be easier to get resources from earth than other celestial bodies? what are they looking for? wood? i guess they need it for their steam punk space ship.surrealnumber5

Only one of those 2 pretends to be scientists.

Also the Cato group have loads of critiques against them, I just selected the first in the list.

tenaka2

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

Since you want to play the 'attack the messenger' game...

You copied and pasted a critique from a website who's home page boasts, "Welcome to the web site dedicated to critiquing libertarianism! " Am I supposed to believe that this is a group of people not driven purely by ideology rather than a search for facts? Or is that ok, so long as they agree with you?

tenaka2

Since you cannot see the difference between the two, I shall point it out.

Only only of those 2 pretends to be scientists.

Also the Cato group have loads of critiques against them, I just selected the first in the list.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

Since you want to play the 'attack the messenger' game...

You copied and pasted a critique from a website who's home page boasts, "Welcome to the web site dedicated to critiquing libertarianism! " Am I supposed to believe that this is a group of people not driven purely by ideology rather than a search for facts? Or is that ok, so long as they agree with you?

Planet_Pluto

Since you cannot see the difference between the two, I shall point it out.

Only only of those 2 pretends to be scientists.

Also the Cato group have loads of critiques against them, I just selected the first in the list.

They are not a credible source, climate scientists agree the man made global warming is occuring, only a small number of themisinformed public think its not.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]you actually think it would be easier to get resources from earth than other celestial bodies? what are they looking for? wood? i guess they need it for their steam punk space ship.Piroshki

Gotcha, so the answer to my second question is, in fact, a 'yes.'Planet_Pluto