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

no fat chicks said:
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
Click to expand...

Lol. Two whole summers with above average wild fires and you hysterical women are ready to declare a state of emergency.

Calm down.
 
If it wasn’t for climate change life on earth would be impossible so stfu
 
PhitePhan said:
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.
Click to expand...
You seem to be coming at this in good faith, but I think your assessment of the Cook study is off. You've appeared to at least read the abstract and methodology so I'll take the time to respond. Earlier you said your issues are 1. it disregards the majority of studies that don't make a claim one way or the other and 2. whether or not AGW is implicitly supported is subjective.

Towards your first point - this is how the papers considered were chosen:
In March 2012, we searched the ISI Web of Science for papers published from 1991–2011 using topic searches for 'global warming' or 'global climate change'. Article type was restricted to 'article', excluding books, discussions, proceedings papers and other document types
Click to expand...
Tons of literature considers implications of the climate and mentions the words 'global climate change' without actually doing novel research on climate processes. That doesn't make them bad science, just not the kind that counts towards whether or not humans are the cause. I just scrolled randomly to the middle of the data file and pulled three titles that were excluded from the percentage because they have 'no position':
2010,Eliciting Public Preference For Nuclear Energy Against The Backdrop Of Global Warming,Energy Policy,Liao| Sy; Tseng| Wc; Chen| Cc,3,4
2010,Embryonic Developmental Rates Of Northern Grasshoppers (orthoptera: Acrididae): Implications For Climate Change And Habitat Management,Environmental Entomology,Fielding| Dj; Defoliart| Ls,2,4
2010,Emerging Legal Concerns In The Arctic: Sovereignty| Navigation And Land Claim Disputes,Polar Record,Parker| Rd; Madjd-sadjadi| Z,2,4
Click to expand...
These papers just aren't investigating the mechanisms of global warming but the implications, so it makes sense to exclude them.

This is just a normal part of a systematic review, to keep your paper selection unbiased you start with a keyword search, and then have a criteria by which you would exclude papers that aren't applicable.

As for subjectivity in rating papers as implicitly agreeing with AGW, etc, I think they have that covered pretty well in the methods and supplementary info.

Lastly, some subjectivity is inherent in the abstract rating process. While criteria for determining ratings were defined prior to the rating period, some clarifications and amendments were required as specific situations presented themselves. Two sources of rating bias can be cited: first, given that the raters themselves endorsed the scientific consensus on AGW, they may have been more likely to classify papers as sharing that endorsement. Second, scientific reticence (Hansen 2007) or 'erring on the side of least drama' (ESLD; Brysse et al 2012) may have exerted an opposite effect by biasing raters towards a 'no position' classification. These sources of bias were partially addressed by the use of multiple independent raters and by comparing abstract rating results to author self-ratings. A comparison of author ratings of the full papers and abstract ratings reveals a bias toward an under-counting of endorsement papers in the abstract ratings (mean difference 0.6 in units of endorsement level). This mitigated concerns about rater subjectivity, but suggests that scientific reticence and ESLD remain possible biases in the abstract ratings process. The potential impact of initial rating disagreements was also calculated and found to have minimal impact on the level of consensus (see supplemental information, section S1 available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia).
Click to expand...
From the supplementary info:
Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters. Initially, 27% of category ratings and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed. Any potential impact from disagreements was mitigated by a process of justification of ratings in cases of disagreements and a final judgment by third parties. To further determine any potential impact of disagreement ratings, we calculated the degree of endorsement of the consensus for papers where initial ratings agreed (98.4%) and for papers where initial ratings disagreed (97.8%). There is little change in the consensus result whether the initial ratings agreed or disagreed.
Click to expand...

You can look at all the papers in this datafile http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt and sort them in excel or something. I've done it and taken at the explicit rejection papers and it is striking - there are so few and there is some absolute garbage that should never have been published. One of my favorites of the few dozen was just a round up of blog posts on the internet in a computer science journal and I have no idea how it got published. And considering the range of titles - there are mideast regional energy journals and stuff - the argument that authors couldn't get skeptical science published just doesn't hold water.
 
Nothing will be done about it. I think this much is clear no matter what you think. Best just start planning for the consequences and learn to adapt.

Don't give a shit about beer btw
 
Up here in the frozen north, climate change is a good thing.
 
Yorkist said:
Humanity is grest and all, but if we're this big a problem for every other living thing on Earth maybe we should stop already.
Click to expand...
Start with yourself and jump off the nearest bridge.
 
climate change is a hoax and anyone that buy into it is a fucking moron. Even Al Gore bought a beachfront mansion after ranting and raving about how it would be underwater in a few years time.

Ozone holes, acid rain, global warming, "climate change", it is all just a scam to monetize and control a populace.

Go back and actually read the Paris Climate Accord and what is actually in there. It had nothing to do with controlling or mitigating the climate.
 
Hognoxious said:
Since when is consensus scientific? Do you think that questions should not be asked about one's motivation when money is involved? What conspiracy? Common sense should lead us to question these things especially when our tax money is involved.
Click to expand...

"The science is settled" "Scientific Consensus" lol. It is all rubbish to prevent critical thought and discussion on the subject and compel you to be controlled.
 
Kafir-kun said:
Start with yourself and jump off the nearest bridge.
Click to expand...

Maybe he just needs to rethink the "tree falls in a forest" riddle.

Cubo de Sangre said:
It's not "getting them drunk" when they brew the brew.
Click to expand...

I feel bereft of what seduction is like for most of my fellow men.

Alas... I am tall, very handsome, have kind yet fearsome eyes, possess a low yet warm voice, and speak with compassion as well as strength. Add to that, my profession is well respected by everyone who "matters,", and I am in the business of ideas, or as young women see it, dreams.

I honestly, honestly do not mean that as pure satire, either. I have a very positive view of women, because they are anxious to be my acolytes, my listeners, my team mates in all kinds of things. But if I start to believe that is right, just, or true then I become the greatest of imbeciles, because it is not the normal, and not what nature is usually like.

Then when some "average" man has woman troubles, I might look down on him unfairly, or think... "what a desperate fool..." when it is in fact I who miss the reality, who would consider a blessing as pride, a special way of seeing things as "the" way of seeing things. I quickly become the fool, and stumble blindly into trouble, as all fools do in different ways.

The truth is not so simple if I or anyone wishes to be wise, and whether the man who is lowly in the eyes of women, or adulated in the eyes of women, we all have a responsibility to women.

To treat them kindly.

If a man that women see poorly, that we not cheat to get her attentions, if a man that women see beautifully, to not cheat them all. To bring them welfare, that we all have peace between woman and man.
 
InternetHero said:
I feel bereft of what seduction is like for most of my fellow men.

Alas... I am tall, very handsome,
Click to expand...

Brah, you got me all wrong if you think I'm gonna finish something that starts like this. :eek:

But if you got some ex-gf vids you know my PM. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BearGrounds
Crime Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say
9 10 11
Replies
203
Views
6K
Voodoo_Child906
Voodoo_Child906

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,986
Messages
55,459,481
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top