[Buckaroo]

Okay, anyone start to understand that the wacco's and Al Gore are not playing with a full deck?

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists | Science | The Guardian

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

What ever happened to that "Al Gore Convient Liar" thread that we hit an all time record of posts in the Political Lounge?

[Dork.]

If I recall correctly, that thread actually dealt with things that Al Gore did and said, which this thread is notably lacking in.

[besson3c]

wacco's

Love it!

[subego]

Will Smith would kick their asses.

[el chupacabra]

Seems like someone watched "the day the earth stood still" and took it too seriously.

.... Then again, If you believe that aliens have visited this planet it is reasonable to assume they might want to protect the diversity of life.

[reader50]

Hmmm.

Aliens may attack because they want to eat us.
Has not happened, even though our population is at a record high.
conclusion: aliens are not interested in eating us.

Aliens may attack because they want our water.
Has not happened, and Hydrogen / Oxygen are very common in the universe.
conclusion: aliens don't drink salt water.

Aliens may attack because they want our civilization.
Has not happened, good thing too. They'd have inherited a ton of government debt.
conclusion: aliens have good foresight & planning.

Aliens may attack because they are concerned for our biosphere.
Has not happened, despite what we've done so far.
conclusion: aliens don't intervene before things get really bad.

Them aliens get a little bit friendlier with each hypothesis. I think I'll wait 4-5 more, before asking them over. By then they'll be concerned that we can't all afford a private starship. With blasters, to help alleviate that advanced-civilization boredom.

[subego]

It's sort of like how after a few iterations of tub girl you end up with a Rick Astley video.

[Doofy]

Hey Aliens! Remember the kicking you got from Will Smith? He was nothing. Meet Chuck Norris.

[Wiskedjak]

This was *one* item in a paper speculating about *all* possible outcomes of human contact with aliens. There were many positive speculations as well.

They should have included "try to impose their alien morals and religion on us" to include the Right Wing "wacco" aliens.
EDIT: a book referenced in the paper DOES speculate on Alien Missionaries! "The gods have landed: new religions from other worlds"

[P]

There must be something wrong with my browser, because I searched for "Al Gore" in that article and it didn't find anything.

[Andy8]

Steve is building a mothership to save all the faithful and fly them to planet Apple.

Oh wait,

[The Final Dakar]

That's only because if Aliens landed and told us man-made climate change was real, half the people would ask for proof they're aliens, and the other half would ask what their financial stake in it was.

[OldManMac]

Speaking of not playing with a full deck.................

[stupendousman]

"Scientists"

LOL

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This was *one* item in a paper speculating about *all* possible outcomes of human contact with aliens. There were many positive speculations as well.

They should have included "try to impose their alien morals and religion on us" to include the Right Wing "wacco" aliens.
EDIT: a book referenced in the paper DOES speculate on Alien Missionaries! "The gods have landed: new religions from other worlds"

This thread reminds me fondly of Michael Crichton's novel Sphere.

[The Final Dakar]

Been a long time since I read that.

[sek929]

Trying to condemn climate science with silly excerpts like this only proves you've got nothing left, <name redacted>

Forsaking scientists for having a political agenda while taking all your BS talking points from politicians is really quite hilarious.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Been a long time since I read that.

The discussions early in the book about not anthropomorphizing alien intelligence, including the background with Norman treating the ULF project as a big joke, were very entertaining.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Trying to condemn climate science with silly excerpts like this only proves you've got nothing left, B4dK0$h.

You may want to double-check the OP. I suspect you've confused one right-leaning caricature for another.

[sek929]

Oops, my mistake. To my defense anything either of them posts is entirely interchangeable.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Hey Aliens! Remember the kicking you got from Will Smith?

It was more because of Jeff Goldblum, really. Which is just embarrassing.

[olePigeon]

Here is the original scenario analysis. Interesting read. Not sure what it has to do with Al Gore or people who work for Al Gore.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It was more because of Jeff Goldblum, really. Which is just embarrassing.

God damn anti-Semite.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Okay, anyone start to understand that the wacco's and Al Gore are not playing with a full deck?

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists | Science | The Guardian

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists




What ever happened to that "Al Gore Convient Liar" thread that we hit an all time record of posts in the Political Lounge?

Man, you need to loosen up. Read a few sci-fi books and watch a few sci-fi movies.

The focus of the article wasn't even about global warming, but about aliens and possible doomsday scenarios.

Stephen Hawking warning: What would an alien invasion be like? - CSMonitor.com

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Man, you need to loosen up. Read a few sci-fi books and watch a few sci-fi movies.

The focus of the article wasn't even about global warming, but about aliens and possible doomsday scenarios.

Stephen Hawking warning: What would an alien invasion be like? - CSMonitor.com

If the "scientists" are speculating about unknown and unproven life-forces and what they may think about our environment, then they really aren't "scientists" are they? We've been told time and again speculating about creatures and powers that aren't proven to exist for which there really is no clear-cut evidence is not in the realm of "science".

Whoops...I keep forgetting that some in "science" only follows it's made up rules when it's convenient to them. Carry on...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

God damn anti-Semite.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Here is the original scenario analysis. Interesting read. Not sure what it has to do with Al Gore or people who work for Al Gore.

That's easy. Two sentences in a 33 page paper speculating about human interaction with aliens speculate that some aliens might look at the state of our planet and conclude that we are growing out of control. This is an environmentalist statement, therefore Al Gore, a self-proclaimed environmentalist, must also hold this belief since all people even remotely concerned about the environment must hold exactly the same beliefs.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We've been told time and again speculating about creatures and powers that aren't proven to exist for which there really is no clear-cut evidence is not in the realm of "science".

You mean like mythical gods?

Whoops...I keep forgetting that some in "science" only follows it's made up rules when it's convenient to them. Carry on...

Like those who claim religious proof of "miracles"?

[Doofy]

Methinks that went completely over Karl's head.
Carry on.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If the "scientists" are speculating about unknown and unproven life-forces and what they may think about our environment, then they really aren't "scientists" are they? We've been told time and again speculating about creatures and powers that aren't proven to exist for which there really is no clear-cut evidence is not in the realm of "science".

Whoops...I keep forgetting that some in "science" only follows it's made up rules when it's convenient to them. Carry on...

Confirmation bias, using what a small number of "scientists" have done to confirm your beliefs about *all* scientists, as if they are a monolithic entity?

I don't really see what the fuss is about here. There are people that believe and have done good and bad research about all sorts of stuff, about all we can conclude here was that some research was done. It's not like these scientists called up all of his scientist buddies and agreed to agree upon all of these conclusions.

Is your point that not all science is good? We could have told you that before reading this article.

How this relates to Al Gore and stuff is beyond me, but that's another story. Maybe a little knee-jerky confirmation bias of BadKosh's?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If the "scientists" are speculating about unknown and unproven life-forces and what they may think about our environment, then they really aren't "scientists" are they? We've been told time and again speculating about creatures and powers that aren't proven to exist for which there really is no clear-cut evidence is not in the realm of "science".

Whoops...I keep forgetting that some in "science" only follows it's made up rules when it's convenient to them. Carry on...

The key here is the word "speculating". They are not speaking about unknown and unproven life-forces and their opinion about our environment as fact.

In science, it's ok, and even encouraged, to speculate. Just so long as you can understand the difference between speculation and fact.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The key here is the word "speculating". They are not speaking about unknown and unproven life-forces and their opinion about our environment as fact.

In science, it's ok, and even encouraged, to speculate. Just so long as you can understand the difference between speculation and fact.

Good point.

When you think about it, it is amazing how powerful a confirmation bias can be with politics. We are all subject to this, I know that when I read some titillating headline that paint Republicans in a bad light I usually think to myself "there go the Republicans being douche bags yet again!".

What is the cure?

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If the "scientists" are speculating about unknown and unproven life-forces and what they may think about our environment, then they really aren't "scientists" are they? We've been told time and again speculating about creatures and powers that aren't proven to exist for which there really is no clear-cut evidence is not in the realm of "science".

Whoops...I keep forgetting that some in "science" only follows it's made up rules when it's convenient to them. Carry on...

Whut?

Scientific method begins with theorization. How exactly are you supposed to theorize without speculation?

Edit: as has been pointed out, this hasn't even left the realm of speculation and become a theory. Nor will it, because there isn't any way you could test a hypothesis.

[subego]

In a similar vein, I speculate you suffer from a terminal case of unchecked confirmation bias. It will remain speculation unless I can come up with a way to quantify it (the theory) and test it (the experiment).

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's only because if Aliens landed and told us man-made climate change was real, half the people would ask for proof they're aliens, and the other half would want to give them amnesty.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If the "scientists" are speculating about unknown and unproven life-forces and what they may think about our environment, then they really aren't "scientists" are they? We've been told time and again speculating about creatures and powers that aren't proven to exist for which there really is no clear-cut evidence is not in the realm of "science".

Whoops...I keep forgetting that some in "science" only follows it's made up rules when it's convenient to them. Carry on...

Are you saying if you believe in God and unproven life-forces, you can't be a scientist?

Not sure what's wrong with speculating as long as they know the difference between scientific fact and science fiction.

Scientists are curious people who tend to ask 'what if'?

What if there are space aliens and intelligent life on other planets?
What if there's an asteroid the size of Texas headed towards Earth?
What if we can time travel?
What if our universe is expanding?
What if we live in a multiverse?

Some are pure speculation. Some are based on probability. Some are based on scientific facts.
How probable is that an asteroid the size of Texas hitting Earth in the next 1000 years? How probable is intelligent life on other planets?
Some speculation turn out to be totally false. Some speculation turn out to be true. Some speculations gain more support from the scientific community as more scientist are able to independently verify it.

Other crazy scientific speculations in the past that turned out to be true:

What if Earth is round?
What if Earth revolves around the Sun?
What if there's this invisible force called gravity?
What if all matter was made up of atoms?

[Waragainstsleep]

Even more crazy speculation that has turned out to be true:

Every scientific fact ever proven.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Like those who claim religious proof of "miracles"?

Yes, I'd say "close encounters" would fall under that same category - believed by many, but no clear scientific evidence.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Confirmation bias, using what a small number of "scientists" have done to confirm your beliefs about *all* scientists, as if they are a monolithic entity?

I was generalizing, of course. However, could you point me to were other "credible" scientists have mocked this report in the same way they have say, "intelligent design?" Or is some "bad science" "badder" than others?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The key here is the word "speculating". They are not speaking about unknown and unproven life-forces and their opinion about our environment as fact.

So alien life is proven?

In science, it's ok, and even encouraged, to speculate. Just so long as you can understand the difference between speculation and fact.

So it's okay in science, to speculate that the Earth was created via an intelligent designer? That IS part of science?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Are you saying if you believe in God and unproven life-forces, you can't be a scientist?

No. I never said that.

Not sure what's wrong with speculating as long as they know the difference between scientific fact and science fiction.

It's my understanding that the report in question wasn't intended as a piece of "science fiction." Are you saying that our tax dollars are funding weird stories?

[reader50]

It's a pity this got filed in the PWL. Al Gore is boring, and I don't think he's an alien. Teeth look perfectly normal.

Guys, this is important. If an invasion is coming ... well, we've all seen the movies. With no advance warning, things go really badly. For us anyway.

So let's take advantage of the heads up. Has everyone laid in a shotgun "for close encounters"? Recommended by more Colonial Marines.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So alien life is proven?

Point missed entirely.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So it's okay in science, to speculate that the Earth was created via an intelligent designer? That IS part of science?

Yes. But you do need to understand the difference between speculation and scientific theory and fact. From your posts here it seems like you don't.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So it's okay in science, to speculate that the Earth was created via an intelligent designer? That IS part of science?

Repeating now. Yes.

To which people will respond there is little to no evidence to support the hypothesis, just like you're saying with the ecoterrorist aliens.

See how that works?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yes. But you do need to understand the difference between speculation and scientific theory and fact. From your posts here it seems like you don't.

Your false assumptions are noted.

I'm just trying to "keep score." It seems one day the standards is that speculation without real evidence isn't "science" and belongs to other schools of thought, and now that a "scientist" does the same, it's A-OK. Just looking for a consistent standard. If you can speculate about things like space aliens and what effect they may have and it be appropriate for "science", then there's really nothing logical about an argument that you can't also speculate about things like "intelligent design," as an impetus for the beginnings of life, which most certainly has been claimed.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Repeating now. Yes.

To which people will respond there is little to no evidence to support the hypothesis, just like you're saying with the ecoterrorist aliens.

See how that works?

Therefore, it really doesn't have any place being discussed along with "science?" Especially since we already know there is little to no evidence in question for the topic at hand? Or again, is it okay to continue discussing the hypothesis as part of scientific discovery because there one day may be such evidence?

Just looking for a consistent standard here. It would seem that based on the current standard we are given here, there is really no logical justification for keeping things like "intelligent design" out of "scientific" discussions. If that's the case, the only reason to bar them from things like a science classroom is to enforce religious bigotry - even when nothing inherently religious was being discussed.

..and don't think that there is not a bigoted double standard at work here. Some aren't even trying to hide it:

US judges rule for teacher who called creationism 'superstitious nonsense' - CSMonitor.com

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Are you saying that our tax dollars are funding weird stories?

In perpetuity.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Just looking for a consistent standard here. It would seem that based on the current standard we are given here, there is really no logical justification for keeping things like "intelligent design" out of "scientific" discussions.

No one's keeping it out. What do you think is going on when people question the underlying theories of intelligent design?

Just as you're doing here with the aliens?

That's called science, baby!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

In perpetuity.

LOL!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

No one's keeping it out. What do you think is going on when people question the underlying theories of intelligent design?

Just as you're doing here with the aliens?

That's called science, baby!

BBC NEWS | Americas | 'Intelligent design' teaching ban

If discussion of "Intelligent Design" is "religion" and doesn't have a place, then alien lifeforms belongs in literature class (specifically, the "science fiction" category) since it has just about the same amount of evidence supporting it's hypothesis.

I'd specifically brought up the alien life speculation in past debates concerning this subject, and was assured that it had no place as part of "science." Now that official "science" has spoken, I don't see the same standard being used. Just asking for some consistency here.