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

[all caps]

I hope climate change renders beer completely useless. All it does is poison us and distract us from everything.

 

[deviake]

What are some of the changes you have seen and felt due to climate change?

wild fires

 

[RockstarChris]

i dont drink anything less than 40%

 

[ocean size]

What studies?

You can start with the ~3000-4000 of the. you can find listed in the supplementary information on this paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

What?

Studies. You asked for studies.

No, I didn't.

 

[deviake]

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

1)Name one politician from any party who wants open borders. One. Not that you think wants open borders, but one that has actually advocated for that.

2)The GOP just gave a massive tax break to the wealthy and have been trying to slash programs that help poor and working class people. The biggest welfare abusers are banks and large, multinational, tax evading corporations. Your money bailed out the people who wrecked the economy and goes to providing food stamps to people because their employers won't pay them a living wage. You are literally subsidizing billionaires while complaining about people with no money and no power.

3)Increased identity politics? Like what? Treating different groups like human beings? What part of identity politics has affected you directly?

4)So religious tolerance for Muslims only? Where are all the disenfranchised Christians? What rights have they lost (RIGHTS, not privileges). So Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc are not tolerated? Explain how.

Do you really think the worst part about climate change is going to be the coasts going under? Since I'm guessing I know your stance on immigration and refugees, what do you think is going to happen if we do nothing about climate change and the Middle East becomes uninhabitable? Where do you suppose all those people will go? You think immigration is bad from western interventionism, just wait.

Edit:

Who dies in heat wavese? Super old people and sick people. Seems almost... Darwinian.

You're a troll, nevermind

 

[trac209]

1)Name one politician from any party who wants open borders. One. Not that you think wants open borders, but one that has actually advocated for that.

2)The GOP just gave a massive tax break to the wealthy and have been trying to slash programs that help poor and working class people. The biggest welfare abusers are banks and large, multinational, tax evading corporations. Your money bailed out the people who wrecked the economy and goes to providing food stamps to people because their employers won't pay them a living wage. You are literally subsidizing billionaires while complaining about people with no money and no power.

3)Increased identity politics? Like what? Treating different groups like human beings? What part of identity politics has affected you directly?

4)So religious tolerance for Muslims only? Where are all the disenfranchised Christians? What rights have they lost (RIGHTS, not privileges). So Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc are not tolerated? Explain how.

Do you really think the worst part about climate change is going to be the coasts going under? Since I'm guessing I know your stance on immigration and refugees, what do you think is going to happen if we do nothing about climate change and the Middle East becomes uninhabitable? Where do you suppose all those people will go? You think immigration is bad from western interventionism, just wait.

Edit:


You're a troll, nevermind

So much comedy above....thanks for the laughs

 

[Andy Capp]

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

Incidentally, after a bit of further research, Robert Balling:
"At the 1998 hearing, Balling "acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead)."[12]

Between December 1998[13] and September 2001[14] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association(WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[15] In 2001, while it was directed by Balling, ASU's office of climatology received $49,000 from ExxonMobil."


Tom Segalstad "had used "incorrect interpretations of laws and geochemical data, in addition to a complete neglect of published measurements". They also repeatedly mentioned that Segalstad has yet to publish his CO2 research in any "recognized scientific journal"."

And so on. Wanna try again?

 

[waiguoren]

wild fires

In California?

 

[deviake]

In California?

Don't worry about all that

 

[waiguoren]

Don't worry about all that

Ok, I won't.

Wildfires are down significantly in the US overall and in California:

 

[PhitePhan]

Incidentally, after a bit of further research, Robert Balling:
"At the 1998 hearing, Balling "acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead)."[12]

Between December 1998[13] and September 2001[14] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association(WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[15] In 2001, while it was directed by Balling, ASU's office of climatology received $49,000 from ExxonMobil."


Tom Segalstad "had used "incorrect interpretations of laws and geochemical data, in addition to a complete neglect of published measurements". They also repeatedly mentioned that Segalstad has yet to publish his CO2 research in any "recognized scientific journal"."

And so on. Wanna try again?

You left out Dr Tsonis... are you only going to comment on those you can easily ad hom attack? Also, why no source for these claims and what exactly constitutes a "recognized journal?" Also, it seems that you recognize the impact of funding bias, which is important.... so that I can better understand the parameters, which funding sources are ok with you?

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Yeah total waste of time, these people who says we just need less people anyway are moronic if there is any karma in the universe, these people's families will be affected first

Most of my family lives in Canada. We will be fine.

 

[deviake]

Ok, I won't.

Wildfires are down significantly in the US overall and in California:

It has 100% been getting worse where I live.

I assume you're referring to a study saying they're burning less land. That's not the whole story.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/fiery-past.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mi...-are-getting-worse-and-more-costly-every-year

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_documents/SuppCosts.pdf

https://weather.com/news/news/2017-10-12-worsening-wildfires

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-sees-intense-fires-around-the-world

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

So much comedy above....thanks for the laughs

Yup compete goof.

Lmao.

 

[Jballer]

I hope climate change renders beer completely useless. All it does is poison us and distract us from everything.

Much like posting on Sherdog 24/7.

 

[no fat chicks]

Most of my family lives in Canada. We will be fine.

not true. Canada is seeing record breaking fires due to devastation caused by the pine beetle expanding it's range north on account of winters being too warm to kill it. Have fun in haling the equivalent of a pack of smokes a day all summer

 

[deviake]

Most of my family lives in Canada. We will be fine.

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

Most of my family lives in Canada. We will be fine.

Yeah until all those multiculturals start coming to your hood because of environmental changes.

 

[JSN]

I find it pretty arrogant to say that mankind could alter the beer that God hath given to us.

 

[PhitePhan]

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.

I'm with you on curbing emissions and pollution, however, only in AGW discussions is carbon dioxide referenced as harmful... otherwise it is very much necessary for a healthy planet (please correct me if I'm wrong). If I were to follow your lead and paint with a broad brush, I think conservatives can be resistant to change and liberals can be too hasty in their acceptance, both sides have weaknesses. Also, you proclaim no nefarious motivations, however, to pretend there is not huge money (and therefore potential for nefariousness) in AGW is being disingenuous. There is also the massive shift in economy that AGW propenents openly advocate for and obviously also a massive shift in taxes and governmental controls that AGW proponents propose as well... when this is all sold as "settled science" with BS studies (see Cook et al), hyperbolic claims and dissent from qualified professionals, you can see where one may be at least a bit skeptical.