T Nation

Abrupt Climate Change & Human Extinction


without knowing the numbers off of the top of my head, I’d be willing to bet that aluminum expands at a much higher rate than water…so it’s not like any other matter as you say, unless you mean that it’s like any other type of matter, which are all different and not much like each other at all, so it’s really different than any other matter. Then yes, it’s just like any other type of matter :upside_down_face:


Aluminum is crazy, ain’t it? On long extrusions you can actually watch it move as it’s being welded. Crazy changes of state too. Where stainless is kind of blobby and gelatinous aluminum just goes bloop! Liquid😃!


I remember arguing with an ol’ tymer drunk headerman at the last place. I was working on a project to preheat their cold forming machine cause we were forming aluminum and it had a crazy curve to the length of the part as the machine heated up. I remember heating the aluminum with an indicator on it, and you would watch the indicator go up like our national debt calculator. This is also why they quit using aluminum for residential wiring in the 70s (I’m guessing you know this), cause it would fluctuate with temperature so much it would short out. I haven’t had the chance to play with molten metal however…


I used to roll form a whole lot of it cold for making arched and other ornamental frames for churches. It takes some getting to know, that’s for sure. Mig welding it also takes a special touch. It has to go down hot and fast or the weld will be crap, and too hot it will also be crap (plus all of the problems that brings).

Fortunately, the kid that did aluminum sucked with steel, and I sucked with aluminum, so it worked out pretty well.

If you end up getting a welder for your garage there’s plenty of fun to be had with that magical metal.


It’s also very lucrative.

I’ll urge anyone here who doesn’t believe this to go email all these alarmists and ask how much their fees are for speaking at an event. I’m going to wager it’s not less than $20,000 for 45 minutes for local event. A quote I got TEN YEARS ago from a former high level US politician was $250,000 for an overseas event excluding air fare and expenses.


Was that the guy who also invented the internet?

He may have charged a lot for the Tech Pioneer/Environmental Alarmist/Important Politician triple whammy.


He is(was?) going to remove corporate money from politics with Bernie.


Yeah this is another problem I have. You see it in other fields as well, but not to the same extent as climate science because grabbing political power is always worth money.

Over the last 20 ish years, we’ve gone through a seismic shift in science regarding the role of activism (code named “advocacy”) and whether or not it is appropriate. Well… it’s still not appropriate but it’s now widely accepted. This isn’t restricted to climate science by any means, but the push overall for more and more messaging and marketing started in large part with climate science and pharmaceuticals (Viagra being the major game changer as the first “direct mass market” drug).

Science has always been intertwined with ethical and sociological issues, so that’s not new, but the amount of blurred lines and acceptable practices for “raising awareness” are. And not for the better IMHO.

What’s really happening is that political animals (not to be confused with politicians) are co-opting the drive for advocacy as a way to gain more influence for themselves.


It’s OK to break ethical guidelines like they’re crossing the finish line at the Boston Marathon as long as it “raises awareness”.

The ends always justify the means.


Apropos of the profit motive…

About half of the top ten companies in the world are in oil and gas.

Would it not be far more lucrative to present a (not even necessarily scientifically sound) refutation of anthropogenic climate change?


There are opportunists shilling for money on both sides. Shilling for climate change allows one to obtain both monetary and political gains.

Are you of the opinion that climate change activists are all doing this out of good will?


I do not dispute the existence of people without scruples. I am making the point that the profit motive is very easily demonstrated for shady types calling climate scientists liars and sell-outs. It is not so easily demonstrated for those climate scientists and climate change activists.

Someone mentioned 20,000-250,000 dollars in speaking fees; the CEO of Shell is paid an order of magnitude more per month, by a firm that counts revenue in the hundreds of billions.

The comparison is bizarre, to say the least.

Remember: if you give the profit motive any weight whatsoever, you must remember who has the most money to splash around, and for what.


This is not a proper comparison. You are talking about employees. How much will these companies pay an unknown college professor to shill for them? How many of them do they engage?

What’s really bizarre is that you don’t get this.

Don’t be absurd.


The politicisation of the debate was done on purpose. Obfuscation and painting scientists as greedy, unethical, or unhinged are not new techniques. They have worked before for tobacco and lead additives, among others. I’m sure you’re aware of numerous books and essays on the topic, as a practising scientist.


I have pointed out that there are vast reserves of money which can and do fund a denial/stalling campaign, because this is profitable. Show me comparable sources of money to fund climate change research and activism.


Still not a proper comparison at all.


And lest there be any misunderstanding, no one here is saying climate change isn’t happening.


The truth is that nearly everyone who matters knows something needs to be done. The problem has always been how to pay for it. Well, we’ve waited so long that the price is now rising in a geometric progression.


Some examples are the the U.S. government spending over $11B/year on climate research and President Obama granting Solyndra $535M to fail.

That’s an interesting turn of phrase.

I think you missed a step. I think the first thing that needs to be determined is what needs to be done. Then how to pay for it.

Should the US convert to 100% renewables? Can the US convert to 100% renewables? Will that reduces emissions enough without buy-in from primarily China and India. How do we stop the use of fossil fuels in developing nations?

Let’s answer those questions and then we’ll worry about paying for it.


Why would something have to be done? The climate has changed throughout the entirety of the Earth’s existence and will continue to change during its future existence. Has there been a single climate model in the past 50 years that has forecasted catastrophe that has been right? (No is the correct answer here)