« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

If Global Warming Doesn’t Kill Us, ET Will

No ET ever called me 'skeptic'!

By: Steve Maley (Diary)  |  August 19th, 2011 at 12:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Jon Huntsman tweeted yesterday:

To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.

Um. These scientists you trust, some of them at least, are accused of data manipulation and standing the peer-review process on its head. Call me crazy, but I don’t trust them.

In related news, The Guardian brings us:

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

The referenced scientists are a meteorologist and a geographer from Penn State and another researcher from NASA’s Planetary Science Division. Their paper (.pdf link) is a “scenario analysis” of what might happen should the Earth experience an encounter with an Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (ETI). Among their conclusions:

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. …

Suppose we say that an alien civilization has been observing our planet’s atmosphere over the last 50 years. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 0.032% to 0.038% in that time; would a highly advanced alien intelligence see that as an existential threat to the Universe?

Our scientists are alarmed. Our politicians are alarmed. If we let them have their way, I am certain their designs on controlling greenhouse gases will destroy us.

Thanks, but I’d rather take my chances with the aliens.

Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • msctex

    I “trust scientists” on Global Warming as well. But my scientists think your scientists are incompetent or lying through their teeth. And since my scientists are not the ones profiting from their conclusions. . .

    Huntman will be lucky to be a footnote to a footnote in the history books.

    As for the Aliens destroying us over our “rapidly expansive civilization,” false premises reach multiple illogical, if not even insane conclusions. Why wouldn’t they? They are untethered by Reality, and can wander anywhere.

    • SoFiMil

      Looking for the bumper sticker “My scientist can beat up your scientist.”

    • davesinsanantonio

      He thinks he will be president.

      Isn’t self-delusion amazing?!

      • davesinsanantonio

        if it wasn’t so dangerous to the rest of us.

    • JHSinHouston

      Look, I know these aliens, I’ve lived among them. They see us as ignorant, navel-gazers. I hear them talking sometimes about how self-absorbed humans can be when they compare their own contributions to the galaxy to say, all the interstellar forces ever known. We are just not that important.

      They come, they visit, they laugh, they leave. It’s always been that way.

      • arthurmanger17

        Hi my name is ?RNI and I have recently returned to earth after being rescued by space travelers around the 12th century. Boy!, and was I glad of that let me tell you. Maybe I should start from the beginning, I was living in Greenland at the time enjoying the peace and quiet, I had spent a lot of time raising hell around northern Europe with my fellow Viking buds and it was getting a little old. Lucky for us old war horses, Eric the Red had discovered Greenland about a hundred or so years before. The grass lands were plentiful for grazing and real rich land for farming and the weather was a lot warmer than it is now so we had a good growing season. When Red got there he discovered another plus, Not a human soul anywhere in sight. I?m telling you man it was a Viking?s paradise, a place to retire. That?s why I went, yep I was going to live out the rest my life in paradise. Hang out watch the sheep and cattle graze, the garden and crops grow and drink wine imported from England. Oh yea you might not know it with the weather England has today but back then, the French had nothing on England when it came to wine I?ll tell ya. Just my luck wouldn?t you know the weather started to change and not for the good either, it started to get cold I mean really cold. You know what it?s like if you have had a broken bone, what it feels like in the cold. After fifty years on Viking raids I had more than my share. The pack ice drifting down from the north was even raising hell with my fishing. At least I had that good old English wine to help ease the soreness but then we couldn?t get it anymore. Seems the cold had spread that far south and killed all the English vineyards even in northern France. Bunch of my neighbors were packing up and hauling ass and that was what I was in the middle of when zap I?m in outer space. That was a trip believe me, luckily they had some real good booze or my nerves would of blew and went off the deep end if you get my meaning. Well about a year ago, (earth time) a space buddy of mine comes to tell me their handed back this way and in geologic time spring is returning to Earth. I don?t know though I have all these modern conveniences and all, but they say ?no you don?t understand things like electronic picture machines long distance instant communication, yea and they?re even putting objects in space it won?t be that bad plus it?s warming up huh.? Okay to tell the truth I was missing the place. So three months ago they beam me back during a fly by and what do I hear. ?the climate is warming up we can?t have that.? WHAT!! I can?t believe what I?m hearing has the whole damn planet gone crazy. It?s like your kids come in around this April and yells ?Mommy, Daddy spring is coming we have to do something to stop it.? What do you do I?ll tell you what we would have done, give him a slap to the back of the head and tell to go outside and play and stop acting like a fool. At the very least you wouldn?t argue with him, no it?s not. Yes it is. No it?s not. I?ll tell you something else I?m sure glad my space buddies didn?t hang around to hear this crap, it?s embarrassing. Then I find out that one of these dopes was elected at one time as a leader, Al something or other and I?m thinking I might have made a mistake coming back, blond chicks or not. Will somebody tell me it?s all a bad joke, right? ?RNI

  • acat

    This is nothing more than the Asimov short “Silly Asses” with a fancy new green coat of paint.

    Mew

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      Muslim outreach.

    • Next93

      The article described the lead author as a”scientist affiliated with NASA”. That could mean he’s a lead scientist on a major program, or it could mean he washed test tubes while a grad student in a lab that did some work for NASA.

      Given the blatantly unscientific tone of the article, I’d be willing to bet my lunch money that it’s the later.

      In any case, I sure hope it’s the later. I’d really hate to think that we gave up manned exploration to fund this sort of twaddle.

      My guess is that what this article really proves is that there is no scary AGW theory that’s too loopy for the Guardian to give credence to it.

  • evilleramsfan

    The following are the leading “scientists” who make the argument that man has been behind global warming and where they depend on their funding to come from:

    Gavin Schmidt – NASA (he has not worked in the private sector)
    Michael Mann – Pen State (he has not worked in the private sector)
    Caspar Ammann – NCAR (he has not worked in the private sector)
    Rasmus Benestad – met.no (he has not worked in the private sector)
    Ray Bradley – U Mass (he has not worked in the private sector)
    Stefan Rahmstorf – Potsdam University (he has not worked in the private sector)
    Eric Steig – U. Wash (he has not worked in the private sector)
    David Archer – U. Chicago (he has not worked in the private sector)
    Ray Pierrehumbert – U Chicago (he has not worked in the private sector)
    Thibault de Garidel – Rutgers (he has not worked in the private sector)
    Jim Bouldin – UC Davis (he has not worked in the private sector)
    James Hanson – NASA (he has not worked in the private sector)

    I could go on and on, but look at the common link. Every one of them has relied on government or other grants for their funding. Now let’s say, for example, that in the process of looking into this process they found that global warming was natural, what would happen? The grants and funding would dry up because there was not a problem. By creating a problem, it causes a large amount of concern and as a result, a flux of funding for them to do what they wish.

    Now, let’s compare them to the primary list of so-called “deniers” and their work or funding background:

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      $

    • Next93

      Theoretically, the contractors do the “real” work under direction of NASA engineers and managers, but the reality is that the tail wags the dog pretty damn hard in certain parts of the agency. Why do you think it took 30 years to retire a vehicle that met less than a third of its design criteria?

      If a GE tells upper management that they need to support AGW (so that GE can justify its wind turbine subsidies from the green jobs czar), you can bet that NASA will support AGW.

      • evilleramsfan

        there are NASA employees (or their conglomerates)on both sides of the issue (such as Hanson vs. Roy Spencer….btw, Spencer is willing to debate the topic with anyone, but Hanson never agrees to debate…)

        Depending on which department they work, their funding is dependent on there being a correlation. This is the case with Hanson, but not with Spencer.

        • Next93

          I pointed this out because a lot of people on the left think that having never worked in the private sector is a badge of honor; they have an deep-seated belief that everything in the private sector is tainted by the profit motive, and everything that comes from government or academia is pure because it’s not contaminated by filthy lucre. And that the ultimate moral authority issues from the UN because they see it as the ultimate government.

          Of course, this outlook is patently absurd. No corporation can be as corrupt as a government (including ours), and the combination of government and corporations (the celebrated “public-private partnership”) is the very definition of Unholy Alliance. And the UN is the biggest kleptocracy ever created.

          • evilleramsfan

            the saying about those who can, do….those who cannot,…….

  • mikefrey

    What an own-goal coming in the wake of trumped up AGW data…

    Mike

    • hwgood

      Speaking of Science Fiction, Robert Heinlein once had a character remark that the usual translation was wrong. He claimed that “Vox Populi, Vox Dei” really means “My God, how did we get into this mess?”

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    while under the influence of Mescaline, these scientists have settled the issue. There can be no further chatter from the idiot Denialists, seated in the Peanut Gallery.

  • jtlfromfredmd

    in their morning technical discussion indicating that our particular area (mid atlantic) experienced the warmest temeratures ever (period from June through mid-August). But, guess what? Most longe range forecasters back in April were calling for this summer to be quite warm. They used the standard forcasting tools (La Nina, NAO, jet stream, Bermuda Highs, etc.), looked at previous analog models and, voila…they predicted a hot summer. No surprises here! At least the NWS hasn’t (at least, as of yet) tried to pin it on AGW. And, to evilleramsfan’s post a little higher up…great post. I know the answer to this question but – Where did all of this AGW come from? I go along, living life, always aware that the weather changes, as does the climate and suddenly, we’re immersed in one of the stupidest political battles that has ever been waged. I would be embarrassed to admit that 1) there is global warming and 2) it is caused by humans.

  • Blue_State_Refugee

    …..We are doomed!!!

    • GCBWI

      i KNEW someone would have to insert a Day the World Stood Still reference.

      • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

        with Michael Rennie and Patricia Neal. The new one with Keanu Reeves is CRAP!

        God bless Gort!

  • rickdeckard

    The aliens find our climate much too frigid, and are in fact generating their own greenhouse gases in order to drive Earth’s temperature up. The atmosphere is being poisoned by a secret, transcontinental network of remotely located factories that output nothing but GHGs. The aliens are well on the way to destroying the Earth’s entire eco-system to advance their malevolent plan.

    This has been chronicled in The Arrival, a docudrama featuring Charlie Sheen in the lead as Zane Zaminski, the astronomer who discovered the alien plot.

    ET has not evolved the higher socio-ecoconsciousness which mankind is only now beginning to see as the only true path. ET is evil. He is destructive beyond our comprehension and intends to exterminate us before we can save the planet.

    • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

      wherein Carl Sagan discussed with other scientists the possibility of terraforming other planets to suit humans. I have been unable to locate the video or transcript, but Carl Sagan’s opinion was approximately:

      Planets are very resilient objects, and are very resistant to change. Even if we attempted to change the climate and atmospheric makeup of said planet, it would revert back to its original makeup within a generation, quite possibly in less time.

  • juumanistra

    Honestly. Lets just review what our hypothetical extraterrestrial intelligence must do in able to intervene against humanity’s “defiling” Mother Nature:
    1) It must be capable of detecting minute changes in atmospheric composition on a small planetary mass at a distance of at least four light-years;
    2) It must be capable of mustering the political will and material resources to to actually dispatch something massing, at the very least, several thousand tons across a stellar distance of at least four light-years (and that assumes it’s a “small” human-killer, such as the baseline manufacturing subsystems to build a swarm of von Neumann devices, as opposed to a for-reals fleet.)
    3) It must be capable of doing the foregoing fairly quickly, on the order of decades, lest we destroy the world or become too powerful in the intervening time-frame.

    If an extraterrestrial intelligence exists that can do all of the above, then we’re more or less screwed no matter what the atmospheric CO2 concentration is, because we’re obviously dealing with an alien race sufficiently wealthy and in possession of such technical superiority that our civilization’s continued existence is only because they deign to allow it. Though at the same time, the further an intelligent stellar civilization moves up the Kardashev scale, the lower the chances are that it’ll take in interest in lowly mortals, so we’re probably safe. …probably.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      He’d convince us to destroy ourselves.

      • acat

        (think about it)

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          Is there a relevant distinction?

          • juumanistra

            You can count on the mule to never get into a situation where the meaning of “is” needs to be debated.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            something that jack-asses are well versed at . . .

  • fortcollins

    The erstwhile politician formerly known as Jon Huntsman: “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

    OK, Jon, since you really insist, I’ll do it. Henceforth, you shall be known as Crazy Huntsman.

    PS – The daystar. It burns!

    • perry4prez

      LOL Huntsman is a lib and should be running as a Dummycrat.

  • Raven

    and members of the Penn State Alumni Association need to start making calls and writing letters. VA already wants this guy’s head for fraud waste and abuse in connection to his waste of government funds (grants) and now this.

    He is doing great harm to the university and needs to go find other employment. Say, Harvard. He’d fit right in there. Or Berkeley. Or UPenn. Maybe over in Ohio; I rather like feeding him to our rivals.
    Just not here. Not anymore.

  • reaganbuckley

    nt

    • izoneguy

      by such said political hacks.

    • rbdwiggins

      As evidenced by the continued and substantial growth in the number of AGW skeptics across a broad spectrum of the American electorate.

      69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

      The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.

      The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it?s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don?t think it?s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it?s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided…

    • Scope

      that are posting here at RS use catchy names like reaganbuckley, like we are too dumb to figure out their goals. Yup, Obama takes criticism too, but he deserves it, and then some.

  • izoneguy
    • pttx333

      is no surprise to me. I had figured that out a while back – so glad to have my opinion confirmed by someone else. Thanks, izoneguy!

  • popster

    when you watch too many sci-fi movies. News flash Star Trek was a work of fiction.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    First you have to pick then up from in front of the Home Depot.

  • gunslingr45

    They may come and take over because they like it so warm. Bet they didn’t think of that!

    Get your tax refund early, mug a NASA scientist tonight!

  • jhft

    A summer heat wave has enveloped much of the U.S. and roused the Global Warming crowd. It?s time for a reminder about the Father of the Green Movement ? as well as the Internet.

    Former Vice President Al Gore wrote in a 7,000 page essay in Rolling Stone magazine, ?President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis.? Maybe President Obama knows something Al Gore does not. Al Gore?s ?An Inconvenient Truth? would be more aptly titled, ?A Convenient Lie?, as it has only been a convenient vehicle for drumming up support for lucrative new investments and speaking engagements for Al Gore and for expanding government control of our wealth and our lives.

    It is a lie when viewed under the light of common sense.

    Our planet has been going through cycles of warming and cooling for thousands of years corresponding with varying cycles of solar emissions. If greenhouse gas emissions had any significant influence on global temperatures then the alternating cycles of warming and cooling that have occurred since 1800 would never have occurred. Since greenhouse gas emissions steadily increased since the industrial revolution, there should have been one long corresponding rise in global temperature. That simply has not happened. Alternating cooling and warming cycles have continued since 1800 as they had for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution.

    Let?s apply a little common sense to judge just how significant the influence of our greenhouse emissions might be. Two questions should come into play here. How much atmosphere do we have? How much greenhouse gas have we dumped into it?
    Our best science tells us that we have 5.68 quadrillion tons of atmosphere pressing down on our earth?s surface. In standard notation that is 5,680,000,000,000,000 tons.
    The cumulative total of greenhouse gasses dumped into the atmosphere by U. S. industries since 1800 is 197,000,000 tons. Do the math. This would be 0.00000347 % of the total atmosphere.

    Let?s picture it this way. Imagine a circle 1.5 miles in diameter. This will represent the total atmosphere. Now imagine a circle 18 inches in diameter placed at the center of the 1.5 mile circle. This represents the total of greenhouse gasses added to the atmosphere by U. S. industry since 1800!

    Now Congress has proposed to require a reduction of overall U. S. emissions by 20% for a while, then 40% for a while, and 83% for a while. And sooner or later, the arrogance and the vanity of Congress is going to set the thermostat of God?s green earth with a ratio of less than 18 inches to just over a mile and a half. How can we possibly imagine that could work?

    Al Gore is wrong on the science. Cap-and-tax proponents in Congress are wrong on the economics. They would strangle America?s economy on the myopic and vane idea that we can control the earth?s temperature by reducing what is already an insignificant amount of greenhouse emissions compared to the total atmosphere. We are dealing with the utter arrogance of people who believe this rather than trust the common sense given them by the Creator of this green earth.