Posted by Skook on 22 August, 2011 at 9:00 pm. 10 comments already!

Extraterrestrials may be forced to take drastic measures after they have observed the damage we have done to our planet. Al Gore will surely be placed in charge. A Scientist with NASA feels aliens may be upset and launch a pre-emptive strike as a compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases. Conversely, if we were to take drastic actions, perhaps by putting Al Gore in charge of regulating our carbon footprint, extraterrestrial beings will be more inclined not to launch a strike.

This highly speculative “scientific paper”, that should have been written for a grocery store rag, contains several scenarios written by a NASA-affiliated scientist, Shawn Domagal-Goldman of NASA’s Planetary Science Division and two colleagues from Pennsylvania State University, the official “Hockey Stick Graph” University. According to Domagal-Goldman, we should “prepare for actual contact” to avoid a “pre-emptive strike” by an otherwise benevolent alien race that is in agreement with Al Gore Doctrine.

The report: Would Contact With Terrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis, segregates alien contact into into three categories: beneficial, neutral, or harmful. However these aliens are probably waiting to contact us until we have attained a “societal benchmark such as sustainable development or international unity”.

Among the benevolent results of contact might be the offer of “solutions to problems on earth… (i.e.) world hunger, poverty, or disease” or they could provide “information on how to avoid technological catastrophe in order to help less developed civilizations succeed”. In the more harmful scenarios, they could be more inclined to eat us, keep us as slaves or pets. With the imaginations of adolescents, our scientists have brought science to the level of the tabloid with the added benefit of Socialist propaganda.

Aliens may see “intrinsic value” in all “ecosystems,” may decide to liquidate us in the interest of “improv[ing] galactic infrastructure” and “more efficiently us[ing] our resources.” An alien civilization may be in tune to Leftist talking points and may seek to “maximize” galactic “diversity”, they could resent our “rapid and destructive expansion on Earth” as a poor example to the rest of the cosmos.

They may need to destroy us to protect other civilizations and we can expect this sooner than later because of our increasing technologies. Our civilization may need to be destroyed because we are changing the nature of the earth’s atmosphere, through Global Warming of course, thus we are altering the spectral signature of earth. Egads! The authors note in typical AGW methodology, that it is difficult to predict the probabilities of such incidents, the possibilities should give us pause to consider our actions. There in lies the justification of an unproven science with altered data; but what if it is a fact or so what if the memo is a forgery, he should explain his actions during that period.

Recently, President Obama cut off funding to NASA; this tragic but humorous waste of paper may have been an attempt to get Obama to see the advantage of funding a Leftist scientific group that can generate “scientific” papers promoting the hoax of Global Warming as a protasis while trying to scare the crap out of the public. Sadly, their efforts seem to have backfired on them; if NASA relies on scientific minds like this, President Obama may be well justified in defunding NASA, since the need for new recruitment and a reorganization to form a group with non-political priorities is so blatantly obvious.

The defense of Goldman and NASA has been taken up by Media Matters. How blatant can the hypocrisy be, to have the ultra-Progressive shills defend you in the arena of public opinion. No, the need for a new NASA non-ideological NASA is obvious, thanks to the actions of Media Matters and Mr Goldman. How can we thank you enough for providing the evidence of another publicly funded ideological perversion of science.

Mr Goldman, if a scientist needs to prove his objectivity, it is best not to have Media Matters plead your case, for if there was ever a more non-objective example of political bias and hypocrisy it is Media Matters. Perhaps you had no choice, but from now on, a good portion of the public will view you in a circumspect manner for your political affiliation that you exposed in such a cheap and non-scientific manner. Conservatives don’t expect you to be a Conservative; no not at all, we expect you to be an objective scientist without a political agenda or filter.

Conservatives are extremely concerned with science and space exploration, but compromising science to carry the banner of a hoax and to promote the principles of the Progressive Socialist revolution is a counter productive waste of vast amounts of money. A new NASA formed under the auspices of a Conservative administration will be much more practical and result in a more productive government agency. We should not be mad at Goldman: we should thank him for exposing the corruption that has infiltrated a once noble government agency.

Epilogue: Goldman’s stupidity of trying to promote AGW by speculation in a report that supposedly was done for fun, was his own error in judgement. He let his philosophical feelings and ideology outdistance his common sense. He realized an apology was in order after being faced with a looming career catastrophe, it is copied in full below this paragraph. Goldman’s Hoax was called out for being a sophomoric article suitable for a Moore/Gore attempt at propaganda. His apology seems genuine; however, we are left wondering what he would have done if his tripe would have been well received by the public.

Some important points of clarification
So here’s the thing. This isn’t a “NASA report.” It’s not work funded by NASA, nor is it work supported by NASA in other ways. It was just a fun paper written by a few friends, one of whom happens to have a NASA affiliation.

A while ago, a couple good friends of mine (Seth Baum and Jacob Haqq-Misra) approached me about a paper they were writing, and asked if I wanted to join them on it. The paper was a review of all the different proposed situations for contact with an alien civilization. I didn’t think this was particularly important. After all, I consider the likelihood of contact with an alien civilization to be low. It certainly wasn’t urgent, as I don’t expect this to happen anytime soon. But… it sounded like fun and I decided to join in on it. So we wrote the paper, but I have to admit that Seth and Jacob put in the vast majority of the work on it. One of the scenarios we considered in the review was the possibility that an alien civilization would contact us because they were concerned about the exponential growth of our civilization, as evidenced by climate change. This isn’t an entirely new idea; remember, this was a review effort. Indeed, Keanu Reaves recently played a similar alien in the movie “The Day the Earth Stood Still.” There were lots of other ideas we reviewed, but this was probably the most provocative.

Well, the paper came out a couple months ago. Today, for some reason, The Guardian picked it up, publishing an article about it with the following title: “Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientist: Rising greenhouse emissions may tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report for NASA.” That then was picked up by The Drudge Report, with this headline:
“NASA REPORT: Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilizations…”

UH OH. Now that is a bit problematic.
So here’s the deal, folks. Yes, I work at NASA. It’s also true that I work at NASA Headquarters. But I am not a civil servant… just a lowly postdoc. More importantly, this paper has nothing to do with my work there. I wasn’t funded for it, nor did I spend any of my time at work or any resources provided to me by NASA to participate in this effort. There are at least a hundred more important and urgent things to be done on any given work day than speculate on the different scenarios for contact with alien civilizations… However, in my free time (what precious little I have), I didn’t mind working on stuff like this every once in a while. Why? Well, because I’m a geek and stuff like this is fun to think about. Unfortunately, there is not enough time for fun. Indeed, I felt guilty at times because this has led to a lack of effort on my part in my interactions with Seth and Jacob. Beyond adding some comments here or there, I did very little for the paper.

But I do admit to making a horrible mistake. It was an honest one, and a naive one… but it was a mistake nonetheless. I should not have listed my affiliation as “NASA Headquarters.” I did so because that is my current academic affiliation. But when I did so I did not realize the full implications that has. I’m deeply sorry for that, but it was a mistake born our of carelessness and inexperience and nothing more. I will do what I can to rectify this, including distributing this post to the Guardian, Drudge, and NASA Watch. Please help me spread this post to the other places you may see the article inaccurately attributed to NASA.

One last thing: I stand by the analysis in the paper. Is such a scenario likely? I don’t think so. But it’s one of a myriad of possible (albeit unlikely) scenarios, and the point of the paper was to review them. But remember – and this is key – it’s me standing for the paper… not the full weight of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. For anything I have done to mis-convey that to those covering this story, to the public, or to the fine employees of NASA, I apologize.

Mr Goldman, we don’t give a damn about your career. The infiltration of publicly funded scientific government agencies by close minded ideologues who use government funds to promote scientific hoaxes and a Progressive Socialist revolution worry us a great deal. Perhaps this will be a learning experience for you, it has been an eye opener for many Americans.

>