Climate change will impact beer. Now, do you care?

So the Cretaceous extinction was caused by us as well?

If only we had Democrats to throw money at, we could have prevented that.
Is that really what you want to go with?

An asteroid was the cause of the KT boundary extinction 66 million years ago therefore humans aren't causing climate related environmental effects now?
 
Yeah. That would be the last straw lol.
It's still all a scam for more government money though.

What EXACTLY do you think we should do?

We didn't stop using aerosol for environmental reasons. We stopped because companies stopped using it.

We didn't stop using egg cartons that had CFCs because we're environmentally responsible, we stopped because they stopped selling them.

What exactly is it that you think we, the average consumer has any say in, or can do about it?
We can vote in politicians that are willing to do something about it. In this post, http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/145902085/, I mentioned where around 90 companies are responsible for about 2/3 or more of all emissions. In addition to municipal and state initiatives working on a local level, action needs to be taken on the worst polluters, or better yet, since a number of them are petroleum companies, just take action to reduce consumption as much as possible. There's lots that can be done. In another later post I mentioned the recent report from the UN. The scientists who created the report believe there is sufficient time to prevent a total collapse of the eco-system but it will take massive effort, and so far, there's no indication of the political will to undertake it. That is the part we average consumers are responsible for.
 
The same sentiment as you can´t criticize a painting if you don´t have the talent to paint.

Unfortunately this sentiment is often used against any "denier" as well... no matter their logic, expertise, or study results it seems. And then you have manufactured "consensus" research such as that posted by oceansize (Cook et al) which relies on excluding 2/3 of the relevant abstracts and making interpretations about what is/is not "implicit" agreement with AGW. If this type of study were carried out by a "denier" it would be skewered, yet since it is done by "consensus group" nary a criticism is made.

I, like you apparently, have little/no background in climate research and cannot speak to individual technical studies. However, there are scientists who disagree with AGW and explain why. Unfortunately, your not allowed to take them seriously or bring up any contradicting points without being shamed (as demonstrated in every forum discussion ever). What has piqued my curiosity is the fact that for as long as I can remember it's been very unpopular to express any doubt or criticism of AGW. To do so, in whole or part, seems to result in immediate backlash from the non professional community (e.g. Sherdog, CNN, etc) and a stifling of discussion on the topic which is more emotional than rational (e.g. reactive name calling and other fallacious arguments). This also has a serious impact on research bias (when every mention of AGW promotes "settled science" this had an impact on research moving forward and places great pressure on any dissenters). I've also listened to some petty damming reports of the IPCC from actual participants who describe politics taking a front seat over science.
 
Last edited:
Only when a link is found between sour gummi worms and climate change, will i care.
 
Unfortunately this sentiment is often used against any "denier" as well... no matter their logic, expertise, or study results it seems. And then you have manufactured "consensus" research such as that posted by oceansize (Cook et al) which relies on excluding 2/3 of the relevant abstracts and making interpretations about what is/is not "implicit" agreement with AGW. If this type of study were carried out by a "denier" it would be skewered, yet since it is done by "consensus group" nary a criticism is made.

I, like you apparently, have little/no background in climate research and cannot speak to individual technical studies. However, there are scientists who disagree with AGW and explain why. Unfortunately, your not allowed to take them seriously or bring up any contradicting points without being shamed (as demonstrated in every forum discussion ever). What has piqued my curiosity is the fact that for as long as I can remember it's been very unpopular to express any doubt or criticism of AGW. To do so, in whole or part, seems to result in immediate backlash from the non professional community (e.g. Sherdog, CNN, etc) and a stifling of discussion on the topic which is more emotional than rational. This also has a serious impact on research bias (when every mention of AGW promotes "settled science" this had an impact on research moving forward and places great pressure on any dissenters). I've also listened to some petty damming reports of the IPCC from actual participants who describe politics taking a front seat over science.
I welcome your sources for these assertions. Let's start with that first one, "there are scientists who disagree with AGW and explain why."
I would like to see some of these explanations.
And the settled part is that it is happening and it is a serious problem. The magnitude of human contribution may be debatable, but not its existence.
 
We can vote in politicians that are willing to do something about it. In this post, http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/145902085/, I mentioned where around 90 companies are responsible for about 2/3 or more of all emissions. In addition to municipal and state initiatives working on a local level, action needs to be taken on the worst polluters, or better yet, since a number of them are petroleum companies, just take action to reduce consumption as much as possible. There's lots that can be done. In another later post I mentioned the recent report from the UN. The scientists who created the report believe there is sufficient time to prevent a total collapse of the eco-system but it will take massive effort, and so far, there's no indication of the political will to undertake it. That is the part we average consumers are responsible for.

The problems is alot of those leftist politicians also have a lot of other terrible ideas.

The left tries to brand itself as the party of science on this one issue and then blatantly ignores nature and experts on other important issues.

So if we want politicians who prioritize climate change, we also have to accept open borders, men in the ladies' room, higher taxes, an expansion of the welfare state, increased identity poltics aimed at disenfranchising us and religious tolerance for Muslims but no one else.

No thanks.

If the coasts end up under water, so be it. That's where all the Democrats live anyway
 
I welcome your sources for these assertions. Let's start with that first one, "there are scientists who disagree with AGW and explain why."
I would like to see some of these explanations.
And the settled part is that it is happening and it is a serious problem. The magnitude of human contribution may be debatable, but not its existence.

Anastasios Tsonis
Tsonis has argued that natural factors, especially ocean currents, may contribute more to climate change than human activity, and that the Earth is "now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years."[9] In 2013, he reiterated his view that this cooling trend was occurring, and might continue for the next 15 years.[10] That year, shortly after the IPCC Fifth Assessment Reportwas released, he also criticized the reliability of climate models, saying that they "don't agree with each other – and they don't agree with reality."[11]

Tom Segalstad
Segalstad was a reviewer of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, acting as one out of sixteen reviewers from Norway in the Working Group 1 of the IPCC [6] but disagreed with the mainstream scientific view of global warmingfrom the assessment. He believes that human-released carbon dioxide (CO2) won't have a large effect on the Earth's climate, claiming that it produces only a small percent of the greenhouse effect, and that most CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean through geological processes.[7][8][9] According to his own account, after the results of the assessment were published, he resigned from the IPCC.[10]

He explained later in regards to the report that the summary of the report had been released first, which attracted a large amount of media attention. He then claimed that the leader of the team making the IPCC report then stated that the information in the report had to match what had been stated in the summary, even though the summary had been written by government representatives and members of environmental organizations, not by scientists in the field of study.[11]

Robert Balling
Balling has declared himself one of the scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming, arguing in a 2009 book that anthropogenic global warming "is indeed real, but relatively modest",[3] and maintaining that there is a publication bias in the scientific literature.[4]

There are plenty of others: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
 
Anastasios Tsonis
Tsonis has argued that natural factors, especially ocean currents, may contribute more to climate change than human activity, and that the Earth is "now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years."[9] In 2013, he reiterated his view that this cooling trend was occurring, and might continue for the next 15 years.[10] That year, shortly after the IPCC Fifth Assessment Reportwas released, he also criticized the reliability of climate models, saying that they "don't agree with each other – and they don't agree with reality."[11]

Tom Segalstad
Segalstad was a reviewer of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, acting as one out of sixteen reviewers from Norway in the Working Group 1 of the IPCC [6] but disagreed with the mainstream scientific view of global warmingfrom the assessment. He believes that human-released carbon dioxide (CO2) won't have a large effect on the Earth's climate, claiming that it produces only a small percent of the greenhouse effect, and that most CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean through geological processes.[7][8][9] According to his own account, after the results of the assessment were published, he resigned from the IPCC.[10]

He explained later in regards to the report that the summary of the report had been released first, which attracted a large amount of media attention. He then claimed that the leader of the team making the IPCC report then stated that the information in the report had to match what had been stated in the summary, even though the summary had been written by government representatives and members of environmental organizations, not by scientists in the field of study.[11]

Robert Balling
Balling has declared himself one of the scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming, arguing in a 2009 book that anthropogenic global warming "is indeed real, but relatively modest",[3] and maintaining that there is a publication bias in the scientific literature.[4]

There are plenty of others: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Interesting!
 
Anastasios Tsonis
Tsonis has argued that natural factors, especially ocean currents, may contribute more to climate change than human activity, and that the Earth is "now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years."[9] In 2013, he reiterated his view that this cooling trend was occurring, and might continue for the next 15 years.[10] That year, shortly after the IPCC Fifth Assessment Reportwas released, he also criticized the reliability of climate models, saying that they "don't agree with each other – and they don't agree with reality."[11]

Tom Segalstad
Segalstad was a reviewer of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, acting as one out of sixteen reviewers from Norway in the Working Group 1 of the IPCC [6] but disagreed with the mainstream scientific view of global warmingfrom the assessment. He believes that human-released carbon dioxide (CO2) won't have a large effect on the Earth's climate, claiming that it produces only a small percent of the greenhouse effect, and that most CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean through geological processes.[7][8][9] According to his own account, after the results of the assessment were published, he resigned from the IPCC.[10]

He explained later in regards to the report that the summary of the report had been released first, which attracted a large amount of media attention. He then claimed that the leader of the team making the IPCC report then stated that the information in the report had to match what had been stated in the summary, even though the summary had been written by government representatives and members of environmental organizations, not by scientists in the field of study.[11]

Robert Balling
Balling has declared himself one of the scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming, arguing in a 2009 book that anthropogenic global warming "is indeed real, but relatively modest",[3] and maintaining that there is a publication bias in the scientific literature.[4]

There are plenty of others: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
Doesn't agree? You already pointed out they don't agree. I take that as a given. Where is their evidence other than that they don't trust the evidence of others? Your second guy is plainly wrong as the greenhouse effect is an established fact. Satellites can verify the amount of atmospheric CO2 and thereby prove "most CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean through geological processes" is incorrect. Rather, incorrect in human time scales. Sure, over millennia, the 1500 gigatonnes that we've dumped into the atmosphere would eventually be resorbed, but not before we're all wiped out.
 
Unfortunately this sentiment is often used against any "denier" as well... no matter their logic, expertise, or study results it seems. And then you have manufactured "consensus" research such as that posted by oceansize (Cook et al) which relies on excluding 2/3 of the relevant abstracts and making interpretations about what is/is not "implicit" agreement with AGW. If this type of study were carried out by a "denier" it would be skewered, yet since it is done by "consensus group" nary a criticism is made.

I, like you apparently, have little/no background in climate research and cannot speak to individual technical studies. However, there are scientists who disagree with AGW and explain why. Unfortunately, your not allowed to take them seriously or bring up any contradicting points without being shamed (as demonstrated in every forum discussion ever). What has piqued my curiosity is the fact that for as long as I can remember it's been very unpopular to express any doubt or criticism of AGW. To do so, in whole or part, seems to result in immediate backlash from the non professional community (e.g. Sherdog, CNN, etc) and a stifling of discussion on the topic which is more emotional than rational (e.g. reactive name calling and other fallacious arguments). This also has a serious impact on research bias (when every mention of AGW promotes "settled science" this had an impact on research moving forward and places great pressure on any dissenters). I've also listened to some petty damming reports of the IPCC from actual participants who describe politics taking a front seat over science.

Don´t get me wrong, I respect your opinion and I´m not here to ridiucle people who don´t see a connection in human correlated effects on our planet. I believe in this, but I´m not sure if it´s both a combination of our soil axis changing a little (a theory I do belive in, the one with why deserts are situated around Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn, and why there has been proof of savannah kind of living conditions on those latitudes long ago.) and the works of human kind.

What I react on is that when someone who doesn´t believe in AGW, they automatically are against any kind of improvements around us that would lead to lesser emissions. Emissions that is known to be bad for our health. How long did it take for the mainstream to accept solar energy as a future energy source? The same people that will not approve someone to mess with their driving habits with fuel thirsty cars, but instead give them another option and drive cars run by electricity.

I could go on for a long time with examples of why people think AGW is bollocks. They really think if you do that, a drastic aspect of life will be implemented by the governments, and with this a interruption of your way of life.

Is it wrong if a doctor say "eat healthy and alot of green and exercise your body, that will do good for your well being"?
Why is it different if we do the same to our planet? To show awareness, to break bad habits?

I don´t find it surprising that the people that are against a more balanced world are conservative and are scared for the "unknown" that could benefit us all and our children. But to live in the present is more important than looking in to the future. Honestly, I don´t understand why people have to fight something that could improve once life. There is not a hidden agenda for the worse.

It´s like the guys not using condoms in Thailand(a very normal habit), because it doesn´t feel good. He is right, but would you risk your health in getting some nasty genital diseases?

This is why I react on people that don´t want to compromise or change.
 
Doesn't agree? You already pointed out they don't agree. I take that as a given. Where is their evidence other than that they don't trust the evidence of others? Your second guy is plainly wrong as the greenhouse effect is an established fact. Satellites can verify the amount of atmospheric CO2 and thereby prove "most CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean through geological processes" is incorrect. Rather, incorrect in human time scales. Sure, over millennia, the 1500 gigatonnes that we've dumped into the atmosphere would eventually be resorbed, but not before we're all wiped out.

See this is why no one takes you seriously. We won't all be 'wiped out'.

And as I've said here before if a global climate catastrophe is what the Earth needs to shed some unwanted baggage, so be it.

It isn't our planet, we just live here. If the planet enacts some defense mechanisms to thin us out a bit, so be it.
 
Don´t get me wrong, I respect your opinion and I´m not here to ridiucle people who don´t see a connection in human correlated effects on our planet. I believe in this, but I´m not sure if it´s both a combination of our soil axis changing a little (a theory I do belive in, the one with why deserts are situated around Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn, and why there has been proof of savannah kind of living conditions on those latitudes long ago.) and the works of human kind.

What I react on is that when someone who doesn´t believe in AGW, they automatically are against any kind of improvements around us that would lead to lesser emissions. Emissions that is known to be bad for our health. How long did it take for the mainstream to accept solar energy as a future energy source? The same people that will not approve someone to mess with their driving habits with fuel thirsty cars, but instead give them another option and drive cars run by electricity.

I could go on for a long time with examples of why people think AGW is bollocks. They really think if you do that, a drastic aspect of life will be implemented by the governments, and with this a interruption of your way of life.

Is it wrong if a doctor say "eat healthy and alot of green and exercise your body, that will do good for your well being"?
Why is it different if we do the same to our planet? To show awareness, to break bad habits?

I don´t find it surprising that the people that are against a more balanced world are conservative and are scared for the "unknown" that could benefit us all and our children. But to live in the present is more important than looking in to the future. Honestly, I don´t understand why people have to fight something that could improve once life. There is not a hidden agenda for the worse.

It´s like the guys not using condoms in Thailand(a very normal habit), because it doesn´t feel good. He is right, but would you risk your health in getting some nasty genital diseases?

This is why I react on people that don´t want to compromise or change.

You're projecting hard. The earth will decide what balance it needs. And I suspect that will mean less people moreso than less fossil fuelsl usage.
 
You're projecting hard. The earth will decide what balance it needs. And I suspect that will mean less people moreso than less fossil fuelsl usage.

I´m not blind to a future with to many people, but why can´t you have 2 balls in the air in play? It´s the rejection I find offensive.
 
See this is why no one takes you seriously. We won't all be 'wiped out'.

And as I've said here before if a global climate catastrophe is what the Earth needs to shed some unwanted baggage, so be it.

It isn't our planet, we just live here. If the planet enacts some defense mechanisms to thin us out a bit, so be it.
Are you aware of the surface temperature of Venus? The greenhouse effect is capable of producing those temperatures.
 
Back
Top