Aliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Scientist Frets

Nothing to see here just Fox cheery picking.



I read another article (On HuffPo I think) about this, a paper about as many possible scenarios that NASA could plausibly conceive about alien contact. They really only get weirder. The one I most favor is mankind makes first contact and the aliens are so "alien" that communication is not possible and they shrug and leave.

I guess the pot is working on some of the top guys!  

I had to lulz @ "intergalactic ecosystem." Because that's totally a thing.

The Vulcan's landing is imminent.

LOL! Interesting ideas and makes a great movie.

       

Nothing new here, people. This has been a common sci-fi theme for a very long time. Onlyn thing different here is the reason for the attack.

I bet infowars are p!ssed they didn't post this story first.

The guy is probably shooting old hippy records in his basement in a fit of rage.

Oldman ... extend him an invite to join us here in news and leisure ... we need someone else to giggle at.

 

<3 <3 this, mostly because it's true!

While this is truly laughable, think about it this way. Any advanced race capable of navigating the universe would probably consider humans, much the same way that humans consider ants.

As Steven Hawkings has said, we should probably hope no one finds us.....

It's bad enough you think "liberal American scientists" are scammin America, but apparently you're thinking they're able to scam China, Russia and Japan as well (these countries all have anti climate change programs). Has it ever occurred to you that it's more likely you're the one that's refusing to see the scientific truth because it inconveniences your less-than-green lifestyle?

P.S. I do think the idea of aliens exterminating us over climate change is whack (they're just as likely to not give a sh*t about it or to actually be worse polluters than the human race), I give you that.

The climate is changing ... there is no doubt.

Argueing otherwise simply proves your not able to understand facts.

Whether or not it is caused or simply exascerbated by human industrial activity is the issue.

Many argue the changes are part of a longer term global cycle ...

Its heating up ... the ocean levels are rising.

I don't mind the warmer weather and i don't live near the coast but I don't want to live a "Soylent Green" future either.

Unless I end up a really rich guy then I want tons of "furniture" ...

 

The (main) cause of climate change is not an issue, the answer is right in front of anyone who is willing to look for it. It's really a simple Occam's razor thing. The reason why so many people think it's an issue is because they see it as a danger to their lifestyles and their wallets (they're afraid of Co2 taxes, etc... in order words: it's the old "I don't want it to be true so it isn't true" mantra again).

The climate is always changing; always has been. Human activity has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's truly arrogant to think we, humans, can do anything to globally affect the planet.

That giant ball of burning gas in the sky might have something to do with it though.

The idea that CO2 is "polluting gas" is ridiculous. CO2 makes things grow for crying out loud! Before CO2 came along, the earth was a toxic, oxygenated soup that could support NO life.

Now your just being ignorant and proving my first point.

We can do things to make a positive impact on climate change.

Turn your computer off ... seriously ... many of us will feel a lot more positive.

Watching less Beck also has a positive effect ...

I am all for being good stewards of the planet. Pollution, clean water and the like.

But, the idea that man can do anything to affect the climate on a global scale is laughable. We are way to insignificant. This planet could shake us off like a bad case of fleas, a la Japan's tsunami.

The Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 alone, spewed more tons of toxic gases and pollution into the atmosphere than all of mankind combined since we began first walking the planet. And, we're still here! Go figure.

They will try anything to prove aliens exists to prove that God does not exists and that the evolution THEORY is true, witch is not.

Know one knows everything.

Evolution is not humane, battle of the fittest.
Evolution effects peoples moral values and that is way everything is starting to fall apart.

This is my view, so please don't go and bite my head off over it.

Even IF humans arent the MAIN cause of climate CHANGE we still have an obligation to keep dangerous chemicals out of the ecosystem.

Do you know how many chemicals you have in you right now regardless of the quantities that didn't even exist 100 years ago?

Its not like producing and refining oil is the cleanest thing this planet has done. But I guess oil will be around forever right?

How can you say both of these things? For something you profess to not be true, you go on to explain evolution's basis (survival of the fittest).

Or, are you only concerned with man's place in the universe as the only known intelligent life?

Given the enormity of the universe (billions of galaxies with billions of stars in each one), the odds of humanity being the only intelligent life is beyond miniscule. Doesn't mean little green men will come visiting anytime soon, but it would be rather vain to assume we are the pinnacle of life.

Chew on that and get back to me....Fun discussions here.

You dummy I want sources on that. According to the USGS that is wrong wrong wrong. Here:


http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

Also if Volcanoes are the main source of Co2 then why are all graphs fairly linear? No spikes or variation just the same starting right around 1950. Another important point is that volcanoes also release So2 which has been shown to have some cooling effects. Dont forget we have been chopping down the lungs of the world so the amount of Co2 is rising and the ecosystems ability to change that into nice breathable O2 is diminished.

Isnt it cool that nature can balance itself out?

In case nobody said it yet.....

Gort!, "Klaatu barada nikto"

It either activates a robot or if said incorrectly releases the undead hoards.

Shop smart, shop S-Mart!

Heres another link debunking volcanic Co2 releases. The guy actually does rebuttals in the comments.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myt...

A lot more than just CO2 comes out of volcanoes when they erupt. I never said volcanoes are the main source of CO2 either. I said a single volcanic eruption in 1991 spewed more pollution/toxic gases/ash into the atmosphere than all of mankind since our beginning. I am illustrating how insignificant human activity is on this planet, and we can do absolutley nothing to affect the climate globally.

But, let's go ahead and talk just about CO2. Do you know where the 98% of that 26.8 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2003 came from? Our oceans. Not sure what we can do about that.

Water vapor accounts for the vast majority of so called "greenhouse" gases.

If you accept the premise that CO2 is polluting gas, take that a step further. What do people exhale? If you breathing is considered polluting; where do you think that is going to lead?

^^This is why It's a hoax.

I agree with you mingo, that we should be the finest stewards of the planet when it comes to polluting our waterways and our top soils. That is a no brainer to me.

In short, if the planet is warming or cooling there is absolutely nothing human beings can do about other than turning the AC/heat on or off.

well maybe an understanding of life as strife that is partially perpetuated by our selfish desire to live will be better than having a dictator from the nether world. at least we are given the option to question what is right and wrong

Ever tried to shake off 7 billion fleas? Yeah, we're small, but there are 7 billion of us and we use technology to do the polluting for us.

Others have already shown you volcanoes produce much less Co2 than humans, here are links to show that Mt. Pinatubo emitted less So2 in 1991 than China does in a year:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide#As_an_air_p...

While methane emission by volcanoes is insignificant compared to even that of naturally occurring animals (I do not have a link for this but it's true nonetheless).

Much smarter men have debated climate change. I could save us all days and summon the Minor Deity Reynod to lock this thread instead of banging our heads together trying to source info about Co2.

Unless by chance one of you is a climate scientist?

Are Americans the only people who think of ways to end the world? I mean from non religious "scheisse" storms. Comet coming, global warming, zombies, asteroids, solar maximums, aliens invading? Please. I've got more chance of dying driving down I-95 going to work.

Well I am a scientist, kind of,( Pitt 80 B.S.) explain this ie. Medieval Climate Optimum google it. No industry back then. Temps go up and down and there is very little man can do that nature can't match. Check out the cold years after the Krakatoa eruption. We try to blame ourselves for every problem, but sometimes it is not in our selves but in our stars. 10 pts if you can id that allusion, lol.

@ Gulli and mingo

You keep referring to just CO2 concerning volcanoes. Stop it!! That's the 2nd time. sheesh!

I know instinctively that man can do absolutely nothing to the climate of this planet. Can we muck everything up and feed ourselves with toxic food and toxic water? Of course, it's already happening.

Nothing will happen to the planet. The planet will cleanse itself of these toxins and life will continue.

CO2 is not harmful. The Earth, and life on Earth, actually loves it.

Mingo, you never answered my question about your breathing. How much should we tax you for living you polluter you?!

^ Yes, I saw these charts during my atmospheric chemistry studies, but this time, if you look at them, the temps go up much higher and much faster. Would be silly to assume we had no part in this.

Because the concentration is not too high.

What percentage of CO2 is human activity responsible for? 2-5%? I don't think we have the ability to make it very concentrated.

I do not trust the computer models either because they all estimate total global precipitation. Precipitation is the Earth's air conditioner. An estimate is a guess, and a guess is not science.

There are to many questions that need answered before we all start being capped and taxed on our mere existence.

A consensus is NOT science either.

CO2, in most cases, goes up into the Ozone layer where EME from the sun ionizes it to form CO3 and O3 ions. most of that comes form normal movement of natural resources by earth. Earth itself is a polluter, but to gain chemical equilibrium.

You see, the global warming problem we are facing is not whether we are warming or not. We are in a cool house earth right now, with polar ice cap and we are on the natural warming trend of the warming cooling cycle. What we are unsure of is whether anthropogenic carbon release by use of fossil fuel increase and accelerate that warming process. We do not want to accelerate the process further because. (1.) we may not be able to react fast enough to cope with sea level rises and destroy most of the civilized society we know (check the map, almost all major cities on earth are near the coast line). (2.) the animals and plants may not be able to cope with the accelerated warming and goes extinct.

Because of the uncertainty of future trend, we just don't want to make things more unpredictable, giving us less room for error in making decision in urban and population planning, and wildlife preservation.

Sure, life on earth survive warmer weather than what we predicted the earth will be (increase of average global temperature by a few degree), but that is not the point. We are cutting emission not to preserve earth, but earth as we know it, so us human and the biotic as well as the abiotic aspect of the ecosystem we depend on continue to exist for our survival.

1. We can do nothing to stop it because we are not causing it.

2. The animals and plants have coped just fine for many years than most of us can comprehend under more severe conditions than humans have experienced.

I know we are not causing the natural warming, it started warming long before industrialization. But what we don't know is whether we are accelerating the process by putting more CO2 to the system and CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. We don't want to make things worse.

No, animals are not coping fine with warming, e.g. coral bleaching. Human are not coping fine, e.g. spreading of malaria carrying mosquitoes to higher latitude because those area is getting warmer and those mosquito can breed there to infect people. Yes, natural warming will do that, but are we putting us in more danger, giving us less time to cope with the change by accelerating the warming process? That is what we don't know, and what we try to minimize- the acceleration of warming.

I'll revive this thread in a few years just so the eggs on your faces are prominently baking.

 

We are adding 2-5% to the equilibrium every year (while destroying natural Co2 absorbers such as forests), this piles on top of the part nature couldn't scrub the previous year and so on. Nature cannot cope with 2-5% extra every year. If we stopped all greenhouse emissions right now it would take centuries before their concentrations in the atmosphere would be back to what they used to be before the industrial revolution.

Because fossil fuels will run out in this century we probably won't be able to kill off every living thing on Earth, so over millions of years evolution will give Earth its biodiversity back. In the meantime we do have a major extinction on our hands however and will have to move our agriculture as well as whole populations and strengthen sea bound cities. This will be hugely expensive, but it is inevitable since we've already done too much damage (like I said the climate will need centuries to recover from the damage that has already been done). Therefore I see the curbing of Co2 more as a way to accelerate the transition to green energy and as a way to prevent even more trouble decades from now, rather than as a way to stop climate change dead in its tracks.

Well thought out Gulli.

Some sensible points there.

 

Also, natural systems don't always react on linear scale, therefore, a 2-5 percent changes doesn't have to equate to a small change in the environment. The nature often have behave in a tipping point or synergistic fashion.

Furthermore, the equilibrium reached after a disturbance event is often different from the original system. So, I am not sure if human or animal and plants we depended on can still survive. Call me chicken, but I am not risking it.

That all well and good except that IT'S A ******* HOAX!! And you are a dupe!

All your arguments are getting trashed and you just retreat to the "it's a hoax because I say it is, dammit!" stance. Sounds like you're confusing science with religion.

No, I just haven't been thoroughly brainwashed and indoctrinated on all this claptrap.

Showing pictures of supposedly stranded polar bears on a chunk of ice to 1st graders.......... all pure dribble!

Gulli is pretty spot on in terms of his reading.

I want to relocate all of the polar bears to Antarctica ...

I was thinking about Tasmania but they might get injured or poisoned eating the locals or trample the apple trees.


 

I am sure the polar bears would love all the poultry (penguins)!

Every time I read one of these all I can think about is "To Serve Man"......

As in this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twilight_Zone)

No, he is confusing one science with another science. Religion has no say in this...

Just my opinion.
Don't think the problem in the long run is the climate - it's the poising of land and water that is going to bite us in the Hindquarters. One of the biggest contributors in another 10 years will be the Batteries used to replace the gas powered Autos. The production of auto batteries in itself is already a big producer of ground based contamination, and later on the disposal. Which will have the biggest long term effect is anyone’s guess. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Best alternative is H2/O2 which yields H20 - Only problem is again us, as that also can provide "you know Who" a great way to produce a bomb.
Then there is the production of electricity. Solar and wind farms can provide supplemental amounts but are not the answer. Nuclear is probably the best option, but currently has some safety issues.
Old saying - facts and figures don’t lie, people do. Yes we should be doing whatever is possible to reduce our effects on this world we will be leaving our grand kids. I also like to inject some logic in to those “published” reports – like on impact of volcanoes vs the Human race. Never been a flawed study, Give me a break.
Global warming is BIG business and as such is self perpetual, But no biggy all that effort can be turned around to prevent global cooling.