Are aliens causing global warming?

I don't think that either is likely.

Scientists are generally competitive, so the idea of more than a handful, say 19, in on a conspiracy is absurd. Most scientists work in several areas during their careers, so the idea of any dependency on research grants tied to a particular topic is wrong. I currently hold research grants on four different topics and I am working on two more for next year at present.

As for Area 51, maybe there is some nugget of truth in the Drake equation. Aliens have three problems: finding earth , getting here, and heating the earth without leaving clues of their presence. Even aliens are constrained by the laws of physics. Where is their energy source and why have we not detected the their rays?

Perhaps we should invoke Ocam's razor and accept the simplest explanation that human emissions of greenhouse gasses are mainly responsible for global warming.

As usual American and UK scientist are years behind Slovak high school children who ride the short yellow bus.. It is wildly known here this green house global heating hot warming is cause by humans but not of this era. UFO is nothing more than a fancy time machine transporting human 5 million years from the future. They cause this warming heating hot greenhouse to off set the coming massive ice age. Contrails

containing massive amounts of carbon are ways these future freakish types peoples control the green house effect.

They also gave us VHS tapes, sugar-free sweeteners and 3D-glasses that enabled us to see movies in 3D cinema..

The alien theory is not a good fit to real world data as after the date of the alleged crash of the UFO in New Mexico, the earth went into a period of cooling for a time.

The greenhouse effect theory is also not a good fit to real world data as the earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age, well before GHG's were increased by human activity. Also the radiation absorbed by CO2 is a very small bandwidth and the atmosphere is already virtually opaque to that bandwidth.

The history of science has shown that when there is a lack of conclusive evidence, taking a vote is not a reliable method of discovery.

Gee whiz, Dana, only those two choices? No reasonable third alternative like, maybe the scientists aren't saying what you claim they're saying? None of them, except James Hansen, says unequivocally that human activity is causing global warming, just that we likely are causing some of it.

Nobody is claiming they're falsifying the data but the bosses sure seem to do some odd things when they continually relocate temp ground stations from pristine or grassy areas to paved areas and next to parking lots. Then fail to correct for this in their temp records, despite claiming they will. Or the way they insist on using computer models rather than actual historical records of CO2 levels that show it was as high as 400 in the 1940s, and the Earth somehow failed to melt away.

If you want to believe that CO2, a gas necessary for all life is the culprit and not the very large gassy hot spot in the sky, you are entitled to that opinion. Personally I think you're wrong and that this is not at all about warming or saving the planet for those at the top, but about taking control of every aspect of the lives of everyone in the developed word. There's no better way than to say any carbon emission must be monitored, you'll need permission to drive your car or turn on a flashlight and I'm not willing to let that happen without some more debate.

Well just toss Robert A Heinlein. Speed and distance are relative terms and hydrogen pulse drives along with embryonic stasis would make the concept viable. To be real it's the exact same argument creationist use. Where's the Alien.

The hoax is there is not hundreds of thousands of scientists who support the theory. The is just an attempt to manipulate the public into support. If all of the experts agree then you should too, and you do not have to question the science.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/...

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

I suggest you read the Wegman report. It says that there is a few group of scientists who are basically writing most of the literature on climate change, and are peer reviewing each other.

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/ho...

Do honest scientists want to "get rid of" the MWP as David Demming testified under oath to the Senate?

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=26...

Then the way they went about getting rid of the MWP (see page eight.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/0...

I particularly liked this quote:

They also found that Mann et al. had excluded from their calculations a single dataset covering the later medieval warm period, which had been stored in a computer file marked “CENSORED_DATA”. McKitrick et al. ran the Mann

et al. model including the missing dataset, and again found that the medieval warm period reappeared.

Given their past behavior why should I believe that these people are honest scientists?

You're left with two choices...? Just two choices?

There aren't any other sources of heat for the earth? none...?

Not even the sun? 99.999% or more of the earth's heat is from the sun.

The planet gets shot with heat rays all the time. From the sun. But if you want to call the Sun an alien then my answer is A.

Though the very slight temperature increase which occurred in the nineties has ended, what effect there is is largely based on solar activity..and btw, CO2 elevation tends to follow, rather than lead temperature elevation, so the "bandwagon" people have it all wrong.

A.

Have you seen all the ads and commercials for "Eco-friendly" products. Come on AGW if huge companies can afford to make Eco-friendly products, something must be going on. And plus where is the proof that global warming is false?

Aliens are creating global warming.

a. seems to be more relevant

The giant heat rays would also be magnified by the green house gases in our atmosphere. Perhaps the sun is their giant heat ray?