Cede to climate change now or aliens could attack


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 civilization growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

The authors warn that extraterrestrials may be wary of civilizations that expand very rapidly, as these may be prone to destroy other life as they grow, just as humans have pushed species to extinction on Earth. In the most extreme scenario, aliens might choose to destroy humanity to protect other civilizations.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations

What’s striking about these new scientific findings is how they fit with the liberal views on population control and global warming…er climate change These findings are equivalent on many planes with the scientific theories that aliens are a far, far more intelligent species, that they care more about the environment, that they deplore our warlike nature, and that they will eventually save us from ourselves.

As any good politician knows, you have to sway with the prevailing winds. In November of 2009, skeptics of global warming charges were given a huge bone when scientists at the University of East Anglia admitted throwing away data on which their predictions of global warming were based. This suspicious document dump occurred following a Freedom of Information request put forth for the data on which the claims of global warming were made. Prior to this action, leading global warming advocate, and financial benefactor, Al Gore issued a vague claim that the science was settled on the issue. Such a proclamation, coupled with the statements he made this month at the Aspen Institute, reveal that he’s tired of scientists questioning the science he’s compiled. He has called skeptics “science fiction writers”, and he has said, “There about 10 names out there. When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. They have polluted the (expletive deleted). There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea!”

The first adaptation science made was to change the much maligned name of global warming theories to the climate change theories. It was a mere title change, but it has appeared to reinvigorate climate change scientists as they change the way they approach the issue.

Anyone who has read a book about Einstein understands that science involves constantly questioning and adapting data to these questions. Anytime Einstein wrote a theory, he attempted to bolster his theory by disproving it. Then, once he felt comfortable with proving and disproving his theories, he released them to the public, only to have some of them questioned and disproved by other scientists. This had to be frustrating and a little embarrassing. Einstein was a mega star at the time, an acclaimed genius, and a man many claimed reinvented science. The world put him up in the scientific stratosphere with Newton, Kepler, and Galileo, and he was being questioned by no name, underlings that didn’t have near the prestige Einstein enjoyed. I’m quite sure that Einstein did not welcome such skepticism in private company. In private company, I’m sure Einstein used some of the same expletives Al Gore did when these no name, underling scientists dared to question what he spent years and decades on. In public, Einstein initially denied some of the skeptics, but he came around to see the light on others. He realized that he wasn’t infallible in other words, and he adapted his theories accordingly. He knew better than to allow the arrogance of a “science is settled” style claim to enter into his vocabulary when he posed a theory. He knew he would have to adapt his theories in order that they stand up to that scrutiny and any further scrutiny to follow. He knew that if he wanted his theories to be historic, or more importantly correct, he would have to update them, explore them further, and revise them according to the well founded skepticism that was out there.

Now that new science is coming in to settle the fact that inaction on climate change warnings could lead to alien attacks, should we, non-scientists, blindly accept the fact that we’ll soon become soylent green if we do not raise CAFE standards, change to curlicue light bulbs, or give cows methane free grass to chew? Should we whore our children out for our desires for media attention by sending them up to political candidates to whisper things in their ear for the purpose of intimidating them into believing the science we’re told to believe and the science that bolsters what we already believe? Or should we retain the healthy skepticism to the science that comes in regardless of who says it, when it comes in, or how it’s derived?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s