Which is strange, because beer is Bad for climate change, since is contains CO2 and is shown to cause obesity, as well as over-consumption of foods that are Bad for climate change
Editorial: To get the climate change message across, talk about beer
For years, the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming hasn’t been enough to convince some skeptics — mostly those making a living off of the fossil fuel industry — that the U.S. or anybody else should lift a finger to reduce carbon emissions.
If you bring “consensus” into the mix, you’re practicing politics, not science. Furthermore, trotting out the old “living off the fossil fueled industry” meme, you’re being insulting, and unserious.
Then came the government reports, analyzing serious shifts in weather patterns, and predicting massive new costs to deal with rising oceans, unpredictable river levels, floods, fires and famine. (snip)
None of it created much movement among stubborn climate change deniers.
Nothing like comparing political opponents to Hocolocaust deniers to get them to listen to you. Tell you what: try calling the next person you are having a discussion with an asshole. See if they’re willing to listen to your opinion.
But now there’s a magic buzzword that could help Americans, particularly those who vote Republican, realize that climate change is truly worth taking seriously.
“Beer.â€
More specifically, bad beer.
On Wednesday, a group of business owners, environmentalists, politicians and beer drinkers gathered at Urban Chestnut’s Washington Avenue brewery to hear some truly scary news. Beer’s principal ingredients, hops and barley, are sensitive plants. They don’t like it when the weather is too warm, which is why so much of the world’s beer ingredients, especially hop flowers, are grown in Germany and the northwest U.S. Warmer temperatures could negatively affect taste, and, ultimately, the price, of your favorite brew.
It could, but won’t. A slight increase in global temperatures hasn’t caused a problem yet, and the possibility of a slight increase in the future, whether natural, anthropogenic, or a combination, won’t have any affect, either. Remember when the Brits were producing fantastic wines during the Medieval Warm Period, while French wines suffered? Things change.
Hit Joe Six-Pack in the wallet and he pays attention.
Tell a beer drinker loyal to his brand that next year’s batch of brew is going to lack the gentle, beechwood-aged taste he’s grown used to, and, well, revolution comes to mind.
And Skeptics can respond that the uptick from 1980-1996 didn’t affect the beer quality, nor did the big spike in 1997 due to El Nino. In fact, there has been a huge spike in micro-brew production over the last 20 years, producing utterly awesome beers.
“If you bring “consensus†into the mix, you’re practicing politics, not science.”
This is another Denier meme that is as false as it is meaningless.
Of course “consensus” is an important aspect of science as well as most other endeavors.
There is consensus on gravity, cell theory, speed of light, atomic theory, oxidative phosphorylation, biological evolution, the central dogma of molecular biology, the Sun as the heart of our solar system, the Big Bang, centrifugal force and on and on and on and on.
How stupid and inefficient it would be to keep reinvestigating all the processes we already understand.
“Another denier meme that is false..” No, it isn’t. It only takes one person with the data to either prove or disprove something, as you know. The fact that a million people believed or didn’t before hand is of course irrelevant.
j,
You are correct that solid data can falsify a theory. Can you point to the data that falsifies the theory of AGW?
You are incorrect to think that theories can be proven.
A hypothesis is proposed to explain observations, for example, warming of the atmosphere and oceans being caused by greenhouse gases, and experiments or observations are conducted to test the hypothesis. When a significant body of data verifies the hypothesis it becomes scientific theory, but that theory can still be falsified. It just takes data.
A scientific consensus forms when scientists are convinced that a theory is supported by the data and evidence. It’s different from an ideological belief, but I understand why Deniers want to confuse people about scientific consensus.
Hard-core “skeptics” will not be persuaded by beer talk or facts or any argument. They will only respond to the authoritarian leaders, such as Glenn, Rush, Rand and Ted Cruz. When the leaders find it too ridiculous or costly to maintain their charade the followers will, well, follow.
ROFL. Why not also mention meteors, asteroids, volcanic eruptions, mountain slides, earthquakes, etc?
Those are more of certain issues than beer. And, beer does not cause obesity. Nothing does.
J-I”ll point to the data that falsifies AGW when there’s data to falsify. The fact that at one time it warmed ever so slightly on the planet at the same time evil automobiles roamed the planet doesn’t equal AGW.
j,
I’ll take that as you admitting there are no data available to falsify the theory of AGW.
Scientific theories don’t rely on the opinion of commenters on right-wing blogs or politicians for validation. The fact that more than 90% of climate scientists, all major scientific bodies (e.g., US Nat Academy of Science + 33 other national academies worldwide, Am Assoc of Petroleum Geo, UK Royal Society, APS, ACS, AIP, AGU, GSU and on and on accept the evidence validates the theory. In fact, NO major professional society or national or international body dissents from the theory of AGW. It will take data to refute the theory of AGW, not the opinions of bloggers or politicians. “Skeptic” scientists have almost an unlimited supply of resources to support their efforts, yet data refuting the theory have not been presented.
Despite your protestations, it’s clear that human-generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. The question is what, if any, negative consequences will result and what, if anything, we should do about it. What policies we should adopt is a political, not a scientific discussion, and far-right Congresspersons successfully block all efforts at reform.
and j,
Your conclusion that the Earth has “warmed ever so slightly” is false. Despite the repeated falsehoods of Mr. Teach, it’s quite likely the Earth is warmer now than at anytime in the history of human civilization. And all signs point to it continuing to warm. Another increase of 1, 2 or 3C would significantly impact human society.
Automobiles are not evil, they are a mode of conveyance. Gasoline powered autos have added significantly to atmospheric CO2, but that doesn’t make cars evil. It’s very common for rightists to ascribe value judgments to inanimate objects. Coal, gasoline, oil, natural gas, autos and power plants are not evil but they do add to atmospheric CO2 and global warming.
“They don’t like it when the weather is too warm, which is why so much of the world’s beer ingredients, especially hop flowers, are grown in Germany and the northwest U.S.”
This is what’s known as a “lie”. There are hop fields not more than a mile from me here in Idaho, which has summer temperatures in the low 100’s routinely.
Thus I feel quite justified in rejecting everything else the quoted article says.
“…it’s quite likely the Earth is warmer now than at anytime in the history of human civilization.”
Well except for the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period and Roman Climate Optimum.
Other than that, you get a good solid maybe.
“Scientific theories don’t rely on the opinion of commenters on right-wing blogs or politicians for validation.”
Nor do rely on false claims of 90+% agreement by scientists.
“Despite your protestations, it’s clear that human-generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.”
No, it’s not. You can’t assume what you’re trying to prove.
“There is consensus on gravity, cell theory, speed of light, atomic theory, oxidative phosphorylation, biological evolution, the central dogma of molecular biology, the Sun as the heart of our solar system, the Big Bang, centrifugal force and on and on and on and on.”
That’s because the evidence is pretty solid and incontrovertible, unlike the AGW claims, which are based on the shifting sands of computer models – which don’t reflect reality.
All of which were denied or unknown until science experiments and repeatable science confirmed them. AGW has yet to be confirmed, repeatable, or even yet, verified.
According to your own way of thinking, you should believe Evolution since the majority of people believe in it.