[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]same way we do.... it take a hell of a lot more energy to leave our planet than it does to propell things through a vacum. you are really arguing this?? So are you suggesting that a civilization that is exploring the galaxy would not bring the necessary equipment and resources to explore the galaxy on a terrestrial level? where did i say that, exploration does not have anything to do withthe implications of your arguments, any of them in this thread.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]So how did they get out into space in the first place if gravity is such a big issue? -Sun_Tzu-
Best Reason to Fight Alleged Man-Made Climate Change: Aliens!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
So are you suggesting that a civilization that is exploring the galaxy would not bring the necessary equipment and resources to explore the galaxy on a terrestrial level? where did i say that, exploration does not have anything to do withthe implications of your arguments, any of them in this thread. I don't know whether or not that is what you are saying, which is why I asked for clarification. Because statements like ". why would they want to land on a large body where they would than need to fight gravity to get free again?" seem to imply that a space traveling civilization would necessarily have apprehensions about terrestrial exploration because of gravity.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] same way we do.... it take a hell of a lot more energy to leave our planet than it does to propell things through a vacum. you are really arguing this??
surrealnumber5
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]where did i say that, exploration does not have anything to do withthe implications of your arguments, any of them in this thread. I don't know whether or not that is what you are saying, which is why I asked for clarification. Because statements like ". why would they want to land on a large body where they would than need to fight gravity to get free again?" seem to imply that a space traveling civilization would necessarily have apprehensions about terrestrial exploration because of gravity. i know im butting in, but its laughable to think a space traveling species would be intimidated by gravity. thats like saying, the trail of tears cant happen because european ships wouldnt want to deal with waves. At that point in technological advancement its a joke. Any space traveling species would have a renewable source of energy capable of producing more energy in a minute than than humankind has mustered during our entire existence.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] So are you suggesting that a civilization that is exploring the galaxy would not bring the necessary equipment and resources to explore the galaxy on a terrestrial level? -Sun_Tzu-
So how did they get out into space in the first place if gravity is such a big issue? same way we do.... it take a hell of a lot more energy to leave our planet than it does to propell things through a vacum. you are really arguing this?? Of course it would, but to what extent? Who's to say that they may not have a mobile space elevator making return of resources off the planet cheap relatively speaking. If they have the ability to traverse the galaxy that means that they have massive resources at their disposal.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] chances are NO, not with what ever they use to travel distance in.
surrealnumber5
[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.
"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.
Hahahaha, that's awesome.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]same way we do.... it take a hell of a lot more energy to leave our planet than it does to propell things through a vacum. you are really arguing this?? Of course it would, but to what extent? Who's to say that they may not have a mobile space elevator making return of resources off the planet cheap relatively speaking. If they have the ability to traverse the galaxy that means that they have massive resources at their disposal. they may have magic too, you know what? because we are being absurd even discussing this they do have magic. none of the laws as we know them apply, and so they will just toss our planet into the sun for fun...[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]So how did they get out into space in the first place if gravity is such a big issue? HoolaHoopMan
Of course it would, but to what extent? Who's to say that they may not have a mobile space elevator making return of resources off the planet cheap relatively speaking. If they have the ability to traverse the galaxy that means that they have massive resources at their disposal. they may have magic too, you know what? because we are being absurd even discussing this they do have magic. none of the laws as we know them apply, and so they will just toss our planet into the sun for fun... Maybe their ships are made up of all the straw men you seem to be throwing around.[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] same way we do.... it take a hell of a lot more energy to leave our planet than it does to propell things through a vacum. you are really arguing this??
surrealnumber5
I think that the time frame is part of the problem. On the one hand, you are saying that 20 years is a LONG time ago, yet the topic at hand is a discussion about the overall climate of a planet that is +/- 5 billion years old. Warming and cooling has been going on forever, yet suddenly everyone is absolutely, positively convinced that some of our modern inventions are the root cause of it. No question. Not the factors that were responsible for all of the other changes in the past, for some reason, THIS time, it's ALL because of us. Since when was anyone claiming that humans were the only cause of global warming. :?Very good point.[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Perhaps, but when the "challenges" presented involve either questionable research that doesn't report standard errors, or two-decade-old research, it leads me to question whether there really are serious challenges to it. I have seen users here post evidence supporting global warming. It's a shame bum_fluff isn't here right now, he seems to be the most informed user on the topic from what I've seen.chessmaster1989
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]they may have magic too, you know what? because we are being absurd even discussing this they do have magic. none of the laws as we know them apply, and so they will just toss our planet into the sun for fun... Maybe their ships are made up of all the straw men you seem to be throwing around. at least i know the terms i use.[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Of course it would, but to what extent? Who's to say that they may not have a mobile space elevator making return of resources off the planet cheap relatively speaking. If they have the ability to traverse the galaxy that means that they have massive resources at their disposal. HoolaHoopMan
Wait. Isn't that basically the plot of that remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still?
Koo-Nah-Noo-Nah-Noo (thats Keanu Reeves) comes to earth to kill us all off cuz the universe only has so many inhabitable planets and us humans are destroying the one we have.
NASA might want to reconsider the credentials of their so-called scientist that took part in writing this bunch of fantasy clap-trap.
Maybe their ships are made up of all the straw men you seem to be throwing around. at least i know the terms i use.[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] they may have magic too, you know what? because we are being absurd even discussing this they do have magic. none of the laws as we know them apply, and so they will just toss our planet into the sun for fun...
surrealnumber5
I do. However I don't remember making any statements that these aliens would be exempt from the laws of physics or use magic, a basic misinterpretation of what I posted.
For the love of God, why do people assume aliens want to destroy us? Oh, yeah...*cough*sci-fi movies*cough*...
I'm sure that if these aliens wanted to destroy us, they would have already done it.
at least i know the terms i use.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Maybe their ships are made up of all the straw men you seem to be throwing around. HoolaHoopMan
I do. However I don't remember making any statements that these aliens would be exempt from the laws of physics or use magic, a basic misinterpretation of what I posted.
the probability of aliens finding earth 0% the probability of them being hostile 0% *.5 assuming equal probability of hostile to docile. the probability that they will have a deploy-able space elevator made of an unknown material on their space ship 0% * ???. the probability of them knowing magic 0% * ??? i dont see how what i have said is any less probable than anything you have.strazminz!!!! i said it you loze! rofles.
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] at least i know the terms i use.
surrealnumber5
I do. However I don't remember making any statements that these aliens would be exempt from the laws of physics or use magic, a basic misinterpretation of what I posted.
the probability of aliens finding earth 0% the probability of them being hostile 0% *.5 assuming equal probability of hostile to docile. the probability that they will have a deploy-able space elevator made of an unknown material on their space ship 0% * ???. the probability of them knowing magic 0% * ??? i dont see how what i have said is any less probable than anything you have.strazminz!!!! i said it you loze! rofles.
Why couldn't they just have a large ship with little shuttles inside similiar to our own little shuttles?
the probability of aliens finding earth 0% the probability of them being hostile 0% *.5 assuming equal probability of hostile to docile. the probability that they will have a deploy-able space elevator made of an unknown material on their space ship 0% * ???. the probability of them knowing magic 0% * ??? i dont see how what i have said is any less probable than anything you have.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]
I do. However I don't remember making any statements that these aliens would be exempt from the laws of physics or use magic, a basic misinterpretation of what I posted.
tenaka2
strazminz!!!! i said it you loze! rofles.
Why couldn't they just have a large ship with little shuttles inside similiar to our own little shuttles?
i am fine with that as that is the most piratical way of exploration but that was not a presented argument, some giant dooms day ship that would land and take back off is what i was arguing against as the larger the ship the bigger the engineering problem with regards to it taking back off.it still would not be an effective way of harvesting materials unless they needed something that could not be found in space and the only thing i can think of is life, in that case sampling and growing harvesting else where would make more sense, the only doomsday possibility i find practical is if they like our planet and want to colonize it. but that seems far fetched that such beings would not have a number of other choices between where they come from and here as good as our planet.
As an aside... if I were a space-faring species travelling the universe, and I happened to wander into the Earth's neighborhood, the first thing I would do is monitor their electromagnetic "chatter." From that, I would gather that Earth is an excellent place to steer well clear of at all costs because it is populated by some seriously xenophobic individuals.
See: "Falling Skies," "ID4," "Earth vs. The Saucer Men," "War Of The Worlds," "Invaders From Mars," "Battle: Los Angeles," "Skyline," "V," etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nausem.
I think that the time frame is part of the problem. On the one hand, you are saying that 20 years is a LONG time ago, yet the topic at hand is a discussion about the overall climate of a planet that is +/- 5 billion years old. Warming and cooling has been going on forever, yet suddenly everyone is absolutely, positively convinced that some of our modern inventions are the root cause of it. No question. Not the factors that were responsible for all of the other changes in the past, for some reason, THIS time, it's ALL because of us.Planet_Pluto
We pump billions of tons of CO2 into the air every year, and have been doing so since the industrial age. The environment is in a very delicate balance- there are natural fluctuations in temperatures every few centuries, but CO2 output is always counterbalanced by the oxygen output of living organisms. In the past, these fluctuations were sometimes caused by major volcanic events, and resulted in years or decades of abnormal weather. However, the average temperature of the globe has spiked over the past few decades. It is not how hot it has become that is worrying- it is how fast.Here inArizona the avergae temperature rose 2 degrees from 2000 to 2010. That is huge. It does not help that humans have logged the vast majority of the world's forests, whose oxygen would have helped offset CO2...
In the end, you cannot prove global warming. However, it is scientifically backed and is a very likely threat. We can choose to ignore it, and maybe nothing will happen. It is far more likely, though, that by the end of the century the world is wracked by famine, drought, and general chaos. You can;t just choose to not belive in something because you don't like the result (or more likely, because you don't want to align with a more liberal opinion)
Global warming is a natural phenomenon made worse by mankind spewing out tonnes of CO2 and wiping out forests/CO2 sinks.[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Global warming is a natural phenomenon. Tokugawa77
There I reduced your arguments to their germane elements and offer the following observations:
1. Whether man affects global warming or not is only partially relevant. Even if man does not have an affect, there are a whole host of things that should be done in terms of land/resource usage to limit negative impacts from global warming. These should be enacted regardless of what the source of the problem is as that would be prudent planning for the future. It reminds me of the idiots that continue to build in flood plains, mud slide areas etc. Hello, hello, why are we doing that?
2. Whether human contribution to global warming is real or not, man made emissions are air pollution. I can't think of any argument on why air pollution is a good thing.
3. Fossil fuels are simply one means of creating energy. Other than the obvious corporate vested interests (and I am an energy executive so I am one of those interests) I can't think of a reason why society should accept the status quo in terms of energy except that it is familiar and we socialized to believe that alternatives are more expensive or have some material downside risk.
4. Fossil fuels have driven all sorts of abberrations in both foreign and domestic policy. For instance, our western view on the middle east would likely be entirely different if not for our dependence on fossil fuels.
5. Fossil fuels by their very nature make individuals dependent upon large centralized energy distribution networks. I won't say more than you should reflect upon this a little.
6. Next to food, water and shelter, energy is the most important worldwide factor affecting the human condition. A very large % of the world's issues can be tied to energy which is fundamental to raising standards of living for the worlds poor/impoverished.
7. We possess the know how and technology to harness effectively limitless energy from solar, wind and geo resources.
8. The only issue in all of this is cost. There is no need to debate global warming, man made or otherwise. There is no need to debate fossil fuels. The only issue is cost and by that, we mean upfront cost, since long term cost MUST be cheaper since the source of supply (solar, wind, geo) is effectively free. Ergo, it is only how much it costs to manufacture the appropriate technology since operating it must by definition be much cheaper.
9. The debate can then be reduced to invest at all cost now (for various alarmist reasons) vs invest nothing now (for various myopic economic reasons).
10. We could make this easier by simply adopting a reasonable mid-point. Starting with reflecting the true cost of energy now instead of hiding it. If the free marketers want the free market to work, let us begin with an appropriate accounting.
Question one: what % of the military and foreign relations budget should be attributed to preserving economic access to foreign oil? and therefore recovered in the form of a gasoline tax. Lets not be naive here. We have obsessed about the middle east for 50 years because of national interests one of which is energy. This is why we care about the middle east, but we don't really care about Sudan, Rwanda, etc. How much cost is really energy costs, and not really needed for defense?
If we can be serious about the first question, we could then maybe be serious about a bunch of other ones. And if we explored those reasonably it should be quite clear that we can and should gradually transfer to a new enery paradigm and there is no need for economic alarm.
Time to get out the kitten cannons.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment