Best Reason to Fight Alleged Man-Made Climate Change: Aliens!

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i would not spend an indescribable amount of time traveling to kill an ant.....

surrealnumber5

chances are if it happened to be the latter we are SOL any way, unless they just happen to be completely incompetent like every super advanced alien race that has attacked the world and has been defeated in the movies.surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Gotcha, so the answer to my second question is, in fact, a 'yes.'Piroshki

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Gotcha, so the answer to my second question is, in fact, a 'yes.'Piroshki

I don't get it honestly.. The solutions put forward on a long term track are common sense stuff that have more benefits than trying to slow down global warming.. Why are people so against this with the overwhelming mountain of evidence there is for it to begin with?

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Even if these ants got in the way of valuable resources? Hell, in many ways the ants themselves can be a valuable resource. Ants are notoriously good laborers. -Sun_Tzu-

An advanced civilisation wouldn't need resource as they would be able to manufacture any needed elements artificially.

[QUOTE="Piroshki"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Gotcha, so the answer to my second question is, in fact, a 'yes.'Planet_Pluto

He didn't just say right.. he said extreme right.. There is a difference..

You don't care what sources politics are, unless they lean to the right. Gotcha.Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][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.

tenaka2

An advanced civilisation wouldn't need resource as they would be able to manufacture any needed elements artificially.

Wouldn't it be ironic it was because of the alien spieces religion or philosophy that called for oru extermination.

[QUOTE="Piroshki"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Gotcha, so the answer to my second question is, in fact, a 'yes.'sSubZerOo

I don't get it honestly.. The solutions put forward on a long term track are common sense stuff that have more benefits than trying to slow down global warming.. Why are people so against this with the overwhelming mountain of evidence there is for it to begin with?

Money, politics and religion.

He didn't just say right.. he said extreme right.. There is a difference..sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]You don't care what sources politics are, unless they lean to the right. Gotcha.Piroshki

Planet, still waiting on you to explain why you linked an article written in 1992 as opposed to something more recent...chessmaster1989

Isn't it obvious? Its because he is finding the few articles that agree with his position, regardless of how oudated, biases they are.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Even if these ants got in the way of valuable resources? Hell, in many ways the ants themselves can be a valuable resource. Ants are notoriously good laborers. -Sun_Tzu-

Wouldn't it be ironic it was because of the alien spieces religion or philosophy that called for oru extermination.sSubZerOo

Planet, still waiting on you to explain why you linked an article written in 1992 as opposed to something more recent...chessmaster1989

Planet, still waiting on you to explain why you linked an article written in 1992 as opposed to something more recent...chessmaster1989

(not said sarchastically).

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Planet, still waiting on you to explain why you linked an article written in 1992 as opposed to something more recent...surrealnumber5

Man I can never think of that guy's chin without thinking of the stuff you yell at the Rocky Horror theater showings. :P

Planet, still waiting on you to explain why you linked an article written in 1992 as opposed to something more recent...chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Planet, still waiting on you to explain why you linked an article written in 1992 as opposed to something more recent...Planet_Pluto

(not said sarchastically).

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

Planet_Pluto

I think those guys have been watching too many sci-fi movies.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][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.

tenaka2

An advanced civilisation wouldn't need resource as they would be able to manufacture any needed elements artificially.

I'll just leave this here...

Yes, I'm sure protecting our own physical health and the stability of our ecosystem is overridden by the impending threat of a group of beings that exist only in speculation.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Planet, still waiting on you to explain why you linked an article written in 1992 as opposed to something more recent...chessmaster1989

(not said sarchastically).

Not directing this at you, but I see so many torches and pitchforks out there on this thread....... with very little facts.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Planet, still waiting on you to explain why you linked an article written in 1992 as opposed to something more recent...chessmaster1989

(not said sarchastically).

Pretty difficult I'd imagine, even NASA agree that global warming is man made.

but I see so many torches and pitchforks out there on this thread....... with very little facts.Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Its still valid. If things are factually wrong within the article, show me where by providing other information. I'd rather become educated andadmit to bewrong than stubborn and claim to be right (despite being wrong), so lead the way.

(not said sarchastically).

Planet_Pluto

Not directing this at you, but I see so many torches and pitchforks out there on this thread....... with very little facts.

Well to be fair you have posted a few climate change threads, even the title of this one uses 'Alleged'. It is not unreasonable for people to ask you to back up your claims with credible scientific data rather then attempting to handwave away anyone who doesn't agree with you.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]but I see so many torches and pitchforks out there on this thread....... with very little facts.Piroshki

1- Your source is highly suspect and should not be taken seriously. Again, can you actually show some info supporting your claim? Can you show me instances where the group I sourced was proven wrong? Or can I expect another "whatever, man"?

2- The Covenant are trying to find earth. If you're going to demand facts, it'd be nice if you could get the ball rolling first, because you've presented none. I'm glad that you are acknowledging that thus far you have provided nothing in the form of proof of your claims.

Here are some facts for you, these are the people thatsponsored the source Cato Insitute.

In 2006 Cato raised approximately $612,000 from the following 26 corporate supporters:

• Altria (the report identifies Altria Corporate Services as the contributor)
• American Petroleum Institute
• Amerisure Companies
• Amgen
• Chicago Mercantile Exchange
• Comcast Corporation
• Consumer Electronic Association
• Ebay Inc
• ExxonMobil
• FedEx Corporation
• Freedom Communications
• General Motors
• Honda North America
• Korea International Trade Association
• Microsoft
• National Association of Software and Service Companies
• Pepco Holdings Inc.
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
• TimeWarner
• Toyota Motor Corporation
• UST Inc
• Verisign
• Verizon Communications
• Visa USA Inc
• Volkswagen of America
• Wal-Mart Stores

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][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.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Its still valid. If things are factually wrong within the article, show me where by providing other information. I'd rather become educated andadmit to bewrong than stubborn and claim to be right (despite being wrong), so lead the way.

(not said sarchastically).

Planet_Pluto

Not directing this at you, but I see so many torches and pitchforks out there on this thread....... with very little facts.

Planet, if I presented you with an academic paper from 1992 saying that raising income tax rates to 40% accross the board would increase tax revenue substantially, and then claimed that we should raise tax rates to 40% accross the board today in 2011, what would you say? Of course, you'd be skeptical and ask for more recent evidence that supports this policy idea.

Same idea here. Research that is two decades old is not necessarily the most reliable or relevant today, and if global warming is as hotly contested today as you say it is, it should be relatively easy to find academic research that questions it.

[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

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Research in just about any field, in particular pretty much any science, is rapidly evolving, and articles written two decades ago are often not up-to-date with the most recent scientific techniques/data. I'd prefer an article written more recently. I can't claim to be an expert in the field so I cannot personally critique the methods and data in the article. But surely if this is as contested an issue as you seem to claim, then you should be able to find more recent academic research that calls global warming into question.chessmaster1989

Not directing this at you, but I see so many torches and pitchforks out there on this thread....... with very little facts.

Planet, if I presented you with an academic paper from 1992 saying that raising income tax rates to 40% accross the board would increase tax revenue substantially, and then claimed that we should raise tax rates to 40% accross the board today in 2011, what would you say? Of course, you'd be skeptical and ask for more recent evidence that supports this policy idea.

Same idea here. Research that is two decades old is not necessarily the most reliable or relevant today, and if global warming is as hotly contested today as you say it is, it should be relatively easy to find academic research that questions it.

All of this goes back to my general sense about a lot of people (not limited to inconsequential internet forums) and that is that people run around making all sorts of claims like "it's totally proven that man is behind any change in Earth's climate" yet when challenged on it, the ONLY thing that is typically said is "Well, everybody says so." That is all I've seen in this thread and any others like it.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]So rather than present any evidence to support what you are saying, you are basically asking me to prove your point for you?

Not directing this at you, but I see so many torches and pitchforks out there on this thread....... with very little facts.

Planet_Pluto

Planet, if I presented you with an academic paper from 1992 saying that raising income tax rates to 40% accross the board would increase tax revenue substantially, and then claimed that we should raise tax rates to 40% accross the board today in 2011, what would you say? Of course, you'd be skeptical and ask for more recent evidence that supports this policy idea.

Same idea here. Research that is two decades old is not necessarily the most reliable or relevant today, and if global warming is as hotly contested today as you say it is, it should be relatively easy to find academic research that questions it.

All of this goes back to my general sense about a lot of people (not limited to inconsequential internet forums) and that is that people run around making all sorts of claims like "it's totally proven that man is behind any change in Earth's climate" yet when challenged on it, the ONLY thing that is typically said is "Well, everybody says so." That is all I've seen in this thread and any others like it.

Based on my typical M.O., if I decided to challenge you on it, and the information was so outdated and clearly wrong, I'd have no problem making a list (with all the links, bells and assocated whistles) to prove it wrong).

All of this goes back to my general sense about a lot of people (not limited to inconsequential internet forums) and that is that people run around making all sorts of claims like "it's totally proven that man is behind any change in Earth's climate" yet when challenged on it, the ONLY thing that is typically said is "Well, everybody says so." That is all I've seen in this thread and any others like it.

Planet_Pluto

If your the person starting global warming threads its up to you to provide the research. But anyway here is some info from NASA.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Based on my typical M.O., if I decided to challenge you on it, and the information was so outdated and clearly wrong, I'd have no problem making a list (with all the links, bells and assocated whistles) to prove it wrong).

All of this goes back to my general sense about a lot of people (not limited to inconsequential internet forums) and that is that people run around making all sorts of claims like "it's totally proven that man is behind any change in Earth's climate" yet when challenged on it, the ONLY thing that is typically said is "Well, everybody says so." That is all I've seen in this thread and any others like it.

Planet_Pluto

Your source is funded by oil and car companies, I am concerned that you cannot see the relevance of this with regards man made global warming. Could you see a possible conflict of interest?

Umm if the Aliens do evercome to conquer Earth. There is jack the human race could do about it. Humanity would be destroyed within seconds. An advanced Alien cilivilization could kill 7 Billion humans beings within 10 seconds. if the objective is to capture the Planet Earth.

However it is not worth worrying about Aliens invading Earth.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Planet, if I presented you with an academic paper from 1992 saying that raising income tax rates to 40% accross the board would increase tax revenue substantially, and then claimed that we should raise tax rates to 40% accross the board today in 2011, what would you say? Of course, you'd be skeptical and ask for more recent evidence that supports this policy idea.

Same idea here. Research that is two decades old is not necessarily the most reliable or relevant today, and if global warming is as hotly contested today as you say it is, it should be relatively easy to find academic research that questions it.

chessmaster1989

All of this goes back to my general sense about a lot of people (not limited to inconsequential internet forums) and that is that people run around making all sorts of claims like "it's totally proven that man is behind any change in Earth's climate" yet when challenged on it, the ONLY thing that is typically said is "Well, everybody says so." That is all I've seen in this thread and any others like it.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

Based on my typical M.O., if I decided to challenge you on it, and the information was so outdated and clearly wrong, I'd have no problem making a list (with all the links, bells and assocated whistles) to prove it wrong).

All of this goes back to my general sense about a lot of people (not limited to inconsequential internet forums) and that is that people run around making all sorts of claims like "it's totally proven that man is behind any change in Earth's climate" yet when challenged on it, the ONLY thing that is typically said is "Well, everybody says so." That is all I've seen in this thread and any others like it.

tenaka2

Your source is funded by oil and car companies, I am concerned that you cannot see the relevance of this with regards man made global warming. Could you see a possible conflict of interest?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

Based on my typical M.O., if I decided to challenge you on it, and the information was so outdated and clearly wrong, I'd have no problem making a list (with all the links, bells and assocated whistles) to prove it wrong).

All of this goes back to my general sense about a lot of people (not limited to inconsequential internet forums) and that is that people run around making all sorts of claims like "it's totally proven that man is behind any change in Earth's climate" yet when challenged on it, the ONLY thing that is typically said is "Well, everybody says so." That is all I've seen in this thread and any others like it.

Planet_Pluto

Your source is funded by oil and car companies, I am concerned that you cannot see the relevance of this with regards man made global warming. Could you see a possible conflict of interest?

YOu would have a point if the Al Gores were a tiny minority with a loud public voice.

However the fact is that the worldwide scientific community is in agreementover man made climate change and only a few oil sponsored groups are in denial of it.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Based on my typical M.O., if I decided to challenge you on it, and the information was so outdated and clearly wrong, I'd have no problem making a list (with all the links, bells and assocated whistles) to prove it wrong).

All of this goes back to my general sense about a lot of people (not limited to inconsequential internet forums) and that is that people run around making all sorts of claims like "it's totally proven that man is behind any change in Earth's climate" yet when challenged on it, the ONLY thing that is typically said is "Well, everybody says so." That is all I've seen in this thread and any others like it.

Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Why would it be easier to get resources from other celestial bodies than earth? Chances are, given the scope of the galaxy, they've already been to other celestial bodies during their travels. And who knows what resources they would want; they might just want land, or maybe our conventional energy resources, or maybe they highly value resources that we ourselves don't think much of. And a civilization that has mastered intergallactic travel is probably not going to have a hard time dealing with the human population. We'd be extremely primitive in comparison. -Sun_Tzu-

Wow... just, wow. I really don't buy into this climate change stuff and this guy makes me want to buy into it even less.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]if it is anything elemental it would be easier to mine smaller bodies in our system that would be more manageable, easier to analyze, and made of the same damn things our planet is. why would they want to land on a large body where they would than need to fight gravity to get free again? or do you happen to think our planet got all the special elements during its formation an for some reason is a cosmic exception?

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I highly doubt that the earth's gravity would make an intergallactic civilization not want to escavate earth for it's resources. Why would they just ignore earth? Why is there this dichotomy between earth and the rest of our solar system? And who knows what they would want - maybe they really do value wood. It wouldn't be the first time a civilization raped the land of an indigenous people for a resource that was thought of as ordinary and plentiful by said people. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] VASIMR Drive can get us to mars in 39 days, but it cannot get off of earth on its own, space travel does not negate physics....

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Are you seriously suggesting that a civilization that is capable of traveling around the galaxy woul not be able to escape the earth's gravity? -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] chances are NO, not with what ever they use to travel distance in.

surrealnumber5