Kook Science and Predictions Spreading Beyond Climatology

It’s a slow climate news day here in Germany, and this story at chinadaily.com happened to catch my eye.

Russian scientists expect to meet aliens by 2031

So there you are. Kook scientists (funded by the poor taxpayers) are also to be found in fields other than climate science. To be honest, I’d say the odds these aliens being discovered are likely greater than some of the goofy climate predictions we’ve heard from GISS or the PIK coming true. The China Daily writes:

Russian scientists expect humanity to encounter alien civilizations within the next two decades, a top Russian astronomer predicted on Monday.

‘The genesis of life is as inevitable as the formation of atoms… Life exists on other planets and we will find it within 20 years,’ Andrei Finkelstein, director of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Applied Astronomy Institute, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying. Speaking at an international forum dedicated to the search for extraterrestrial life, Finkelstein said 10 percent of the known planets circling suns in the galaxy resemble Earth.

Where does he come up with 10%? Fat chance of that being true. And planets that resemble earth? Right!

If water can be found there, then so can life, he said, adding that aliens would most likely resemble humans with two arms, two legs and a head. “They may have different colour skin, but even we have that,” he said.

Gee, and I thought alarmist climate scientists were kooks and losing it completely.

I agree that there is a chance that there is “other life” out there – maybe way way out there, like 100 million light years away, and in some “weird” form. But the chances that there is a planet with creatures with “two arms, two legs and a head” living on it, and close enough to be discovered, and that in the next 20 years, is statistically zero. That would require a planet whose numerous physical features would be incredibly similar to the earth’s, and one that would also have followed a similar geological, climatic multi-million year history and evolution. We’re talking zillions of factors here.

Forget it.

But let’s say we did miraculously discover such creatures. Then the planet on which they live would very very very likely be thousands if not millions of light years away, meaning the images and signals that we would be receiving would be thousands or millions of years old, meaning the creatures would be long dead anyway.

Sorry, but we’re on our own here, and our stay is temporary. Just be glad you even got the precious chance to know the earth.

16 responses to “Kook Science and Predictions Spreading Beyond Climatology”

  1. Stop Common Purpose


    “What if a powerful media conglomerate, such as modern day William Randolph Hearst, controlled the media around a major University to influence students and professors to directly advance his financial interests? I have found that person, HM Lord Lieutenant Richard Jewson, who 1) has a direct connection to the British monarchy, 2) is on the board of many multi-national “green” corporations, 3) directly controls a major media market servicing EA University and other British Universities, and 4) as a member of the board of EAU (sic), has significant control over their environmental studies department.”



  2. Bob in Castlemaine

    Based on the distances/times involved and probable distribution of planets hospitable to the evolution of advanced life forms you are probably right. But maybe wasting a few billion dollars on a relatively harmless diversion would be preferable to squandering trillions on the warming fantasy for no change in the climate but a profoundly detrimental impact on the living standards of most of the human population.
    Perhaps projects like SETI could be promoted to fulfill some of the spiritual needs of our post religious world, without the devastating downside of the deindustrialisation demanded by the warming religion. Who knows we may one day even discover evidence of a long extinct ET species.

    1. Bernd Felsche

      Have a read of “The Chilling Stars” and “The Making of History’s Greatest Star Map”. Then consider the likelihood of life persisting for long in the harsh galaxy.

      Ye olde equations, based on more assumptions than knowledge, brought us SciFi like Star Trek, where habitable worlds are only tens or a few hundred light years apart. But that appears restricted to fiction.

      The number of planets in “Goldilocks orbits” around other suns need much more than just to be in the right place. They need, for one; a strong, uniform magnetic field to protect the planet’s atmosphere from “erosion” by solar winds and strong fluxes of galactic cosmic rays (GCR). Mars is an example of where life (probably) failed; most likely due to the lack of such a protective field.

      The closer one gets to the centre of the galaxy, the stronger the GCR. So the density of star systems doesn’t help to increase the probability of intelligent life (as we know it) existing.

  3. R. de Haan

    No boredom in Brazil where it’s snowy again, just like last year.
    Only this time the snow comes 1 month earlier.

    With snow in Brazil and California we have winter conditions on both parts hemispheres in regions that are known for their mild warm climate.
    So it’s cooling all over the place.

  4. David Appell

    Speaking of kook predictions, back on 7/17/10 you wrote “all this hype about 2010 being the hottest is about to get doused with cold water.” Then GISS found 2010 to be the warmest year ever, and both NOAA and UAH found it statistically tied for the warmest year. What happened to your prediction?

    Also, have you asked Joe Bastardi why, a year later, temperatures haven’t returned to 1990 levels?

    1. DirkH

      Well, GISS is capable of retroactively cooling the past, so no surprise there. NOAA invented ethnic cleansing for temperature stations that don’t measure according to plans. That leaves UAH. As you say, – statistically tied.

      Doesn’t leave much to fret about, don’t you think so?

      1. David Appell

        I bet you wouldn’t have complained about the data if it had showed that the second half of 2010 had indeed cooled.

        Face it: you were wrong. And Bastardi was wrong.

        1. DirkH

          1) I admire Hansen’s chutzpah. What a determined con artist!
          2) I would love to see NOAA go from 1,500 temperature stations back up to 6,000 and then 100,000. What scientific reason was there to cull three quarters of the temperature stations? You are a warmist, you must know it; please tell me! TIA!

  5. David Appell

    Amazing. Even when presented with facts that contradict your ideas and predictions, you still cling to them. Whatever you’re doing, you’re not practicing science. In fact, what you’re doing is the exact definition of propaganda.

  6. David Appell

    What scientific reason was there to cull three quarters of the temperature stations?

    They are expensive to install and maintain. And satellites are now giving more and more information in a more amenable format.

    1. DirkH

      So no scientific but a financial reason. Thanks. Oh, and in the second half of your reply you say that UAH is better than NOAA and GISS, thanks again, i share that opinion.

      So we can agree that there was never a scientific reason to cull the stations and that satellites are superior. Finally some common ground.

      1. David Appell

        Yes, a financial reason. Obviously scientists would like to have as much data, and hence as many stations, as possible. Such data-gathering is often a compromise between what’s scientifically desirable and what’s financially possible.

        I didn’t say UAH was a better dataset than GISS. For one thing it covers a much shorter time span. It’s important to have as much data as possible, both in location as well as in time. Satellites breakdown too, and interpreting their data, especially over different machines, can be difficult, as was seen in the years-long debate between RSS and UAH researchers (won by RSS). That isn’t such a problem with ground and sea stations.

        Each set of data has its strengths and its weaknesses.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy