Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Finally Impacts Important Industry
Socguy writes "According to a New Zealand scientist, Jim Salinger, the price of beer in and around Australia is going to be under increasing upward pressure as reductions in malting barley yields are experienced as a side effect of our ongoing climate shift.
"It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up," Mr. Salinger told the Institute of Brewing and Distilling convention."
Those of us who home brew have already seen the hit on both barley and hops.
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
I'm sorry, it seems pretty ridiculous to me to attack climate change by trying to go after *each* and *every* little thing someone deems inefficient given the benefit and environmental cost. You'll never be able to enumerate everything that's inefficient, because a) there are so many activities, and b) it depends on quantity that exists solely in other people's minds.
We're going after barley today, and tomorrow it will be celery or lack of solar panels on buildings or computer that go to sleep too slowly etc etc etc.
A much more rational and simple approach would be: Tax all fossil fuels at the current cost of sinking the resulting carbon out of the air. (Actually, you just want to sink the fraction of existing output that needs to be removed in order to stabilize concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere but if I put that in the definition it would be too hard to untangle.)
Apply the funds to sinking CO2.
Then, all product use is carbon neutral. For all people, adjusting to climate change is simply a matter of buying whatever you want, so long as its cost is justified by its current price (which has been changed to account for the tax.) Given the new prices, all entrepreneurial activity redirects to account for higher fossil fuel costs and raises resources spent on minimizing this input.
This method is necessarily the least painful approach because and change in activities necessarily comes from those activities that have least benefit, as people currently judge them, and work up from there.
Furthermore, as the price of sinking goes down, the tax can go down.
Furthermore, this is robust against non-compliant countries, as their goods can be tarriffed to pay for whatever sinking they won't pay for. Or, if necessary, other countries can sink CO2 using general tax revenues.
Oops, I forgot, people would still be able to drive SUVs under this, so scratch it.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Think of the children!
The barley yields have been underperforming since 2006, so this is cumulatively a big problem for the beer industry and its customers.
However, there are many other crops from which alcohol can be derived. A sudden price increase in beer will send drinkers to the arms of other libations. This should, in principle, keep the price of beer from fluctuating too wildly. In another couple years when barley yields are back at their maximums, this will all have been a bad memory.
More like:
Think of the underage drinking teenagers!
Or will this force us to re-consider legalizing "weed"? Since with no beer, they'll just move up the chain, anyway.
I feel the world slowly imploding...
People will not pay whatever the beer industry charges.
I remember reading a Newfoundland drug enforcement police officer's comment once to the effect that beer and spirits stores profits were up whenever the police managed to put a big dent in the illegal drug market.
I told you the world wasnt going to end, i told you it would be MUCH worse.
Here we face a HOT future with NO BEER!
I vote for the government to start giving away suicide packs (but not legalize mariguana).
NO SIG
so lets latch on to something generic... even though it occurs all the time we seem to think its only bad now.
Its always worse for those of the current generation, we conveniently forget the previous ones. I have some grandparents who can tell you about the real hell they faced in Kansas during those drought days way back when, makes the pansy crap we complain about today just that.
I guess with all the stories about the earth having not warmed recently, taken a year or two dive, that the lead off words must change to fuel this engine of profit for certain groups and businesses. How much barley production is lost to other more cash ready crops? With the current increases in the value of corn and wheat because of the misguided ethanol production in the US would it not make sense that other areas shift to fill the gap?
Putting climate change in the same story as beer either points out the hypocrisy of it all or just shows how silly we are willing to become
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Finally, an important industry is impacted and we'll be forced to solve the problem
if this was something like manufacturing, specifically building materials, then it would be a real problem.
Yeah it has nothing to do with.. oh.. climate change HYPE causing a shift of crops from barley to corn to make Ethanol..
There's nothing in the article about reduced yields... just shortages of barley and aluminum and sugar and sugar (sic).
Ms. Read said that in addition to climate change, barley growers are grappling with competition from other forms or land use, such as the dairy industry.
And don't forget these fine proofs of global warming... (ooh sorry, Climate Change)
"The price of beer is likely to rise in coming decades because climate change will hamper the production"
"He said climate change could cause a drop in beer production within 30 years"
Now there's an inconvenient truth for you...
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
The Warmlist has already been updated with this new information.
The article is very light on details, but it is just today's 'Everybody panic' story about global warming (climate change, or whatever). He is full of it. He says it 'may' cause a drop in barley production in au in the next 30 years. Oh crap. As if droughts and floods never happened before the ICE.
The reductions in Malted Barley yields are a direct result of more farmers growing corn in place of barley in order to produce ethanol. The price of corn has gone up because demand has gone up, so therefore more farmers are producing/planting/harvesting corn.
Just once, why can't one of our poorly considered quick fixes work?
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
If there were no more beer, people would pay attention to climate change, and then we wouldn't have this problem... and there would be more beer.
You take it, I don't want it...
Greenland's barley production jumps %500 and sees new global markets.
"According to a New Zealand scientist, Jim Salinger, the price of beer in and around Australia is going to be under increasing upward pressure as reductions in malting barley yields are experienced as a side effect of our ongoing climate shift."
When it comes to belief in global warming, the scientific method is completely unnecessary, as long as you agree with the mythical "consensus" dogma.
Where is the peer-reviewed article documenting the cause of the diminished barley harvest as being "climate change?"
I get it. No peer-reviewed article is required to PROVE AGW, only to disprove it.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
I think the Tinker said it best:
O'Brien is cryin' and Murphy's upset.
Mulronan is groanin' and hasn't stopped yet.
And the tears from O'Leary make ev'rything wet
while MacMahon like a banshee is keenin'.
While their women chat lightly, the men sit and sob
with their eyelids shut tightly and fists in their gob.
Not a one's lost his health or his home or his job,
but their lives are now empty of meanin',
for the worst of all curses is here.
And it's...
Oh, no, the beer's runnin' low! The stout is tapped out
and there's none in the cellar, boys.'
Oh my, this pub's nearly dry,
and it's just ten o'clock on a Saturday night!
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Manbeerpig will kill us all!
The number of instances of drunk driving, domestic abuse, and occupational accidents is on the decline. Oh what a sad state of affairs. *eyeroll*
And on the next Guinness commercial....
First Inventor: How do we make more money at this?
Second Inventor: I know--we'll tell them that barley is more expensive due to climate change!"
First Inventor (tapping bottles with the second): Brilliant!
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
Doesn't the title imply that this has alread, an is currently happening? (Past continuous quite possibly....) I RTFA but it doesnt give any indication that my precious beer drinking activities have been impacted.. In the Uk beer prices have only gone down recently, despite higher taxes.
Climate change has impacted agriculture since it was invented. Nothing new here. The only "news" is that the article speculates this particular crop was affected by man made climate change. Quite a stretch.
\u262D = \u5350
It's lonesome away from your kindred and all
By the campfire at night where the wild dingos call
But there's nothin' so lonesome, so dull or so drear
Than to stand in the bar of a pub with no beer
Now the publican's anxious for the quota to come
There's a faraway look on the face of the bum
The maid's gone all cranky and the cook's acting queer
What a terrible place is a pub with no beer
The stockman rides up with his dry, dusty throat
He breasts up to the bar, pulls a wad from his coat
But the smile on his face quickly turns to a sneer
When the barman says suddenly: "The pub's got no beer!"
There's a dog on the verandah, for his master he waits
But the boss is inside drinking wine with his mates
He hurries for cover and he cringes in fear
It's no place for a dog round a pub with no beer
Then in comes the swagman, all covered with flies
He throws down his roll, wipes the sweat from his eyes
But when he is told he says, "What's this I hear?
I've trudged fifty flamin' miles to a pub with no beer!"
Old Billy, the blacksmith, the first time in his life
Has gone home cold sober to his darling wife
He walks in the kitchen; she says: "You're early, me dear"
Then he breaks down and he tells her that the pub's got no beer
It's lonesome away from your kindred and all
By the campfire at night where the wild dingos call
But there's nothin' so lonesome, so dull or so drear
Than to stand in the bar of a pub with no beer
It's happening in America too. The government is giving farmers $90/acre to plow under their crops and grow corn for ethanol. Evidentially in the last 8 years the price of production more than doubled for brewers.
Excuse me while I gather the virgin sacrifice and assemble the pentagram required to solve your problem
who knew that the 'free as in beer' licence was the way to get rich in the future?
~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
At last we have a falsifiable AGW prediction. So if the barley yealds don't go down, that's a strike against AGW, right?
Or are we still discarding data that doesn't fit the theory?
It's not climate change that is causing the problem. It is what we are doing to combat climate change that is the problem. When corn prices go up for ethanol, more farmers switch from whatever they were growing to corn, because it makes more money. This means less of everything else and causes the price of everything else to go up as well!
It's simple supply and demand. Economics 101!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
How much is required? "In the US, where weather records have been more reliable than elsewhere, 20th-century temperature went up by only 0.3C."
So lets say it takes 6 degrees to start making a difference. So we will have less beer in 2,000 years?
Haven't you learned anything from stoners?
Hemp is the solution to the problems in this world!
Hemp for food, medicine, fuel, etc.!
It's not just ramblings of a stoner, it's fact!
Do your research, we are being denied access to something which could save our planet!
Fuck the oil companies, stop using gas+oil if you really care, hybrid is not a solution as it still depends on fossil fuels no matter how small.
see jackherer.com for more
Doesn't climate change (warming) mean that an INCREASING amount of landmass will experience 'optimal' growing seasons?
I mean, if you push the temperate zones toward the poles, the amount of land under them actually increases. Plus, since the left has been claiming since the 1970s that we're exhausting our arable land by overfarming, won't this open up NEW arable land not so pressured?
Granted the article is SPECIFICALLY talking about NZ/Australia, which don't really have many options if the best temperatures move poleward.
Finally, from the article: "New Zealand and Australian brewer Lion Nathan's corporate affairs director Liz Read said climate change already was forcing up the price of malted barley, sugar, aluminum and sugar."
Aluminum? ALUMINUM is becoming more expensive due to climate change? Pray tell, please tell me how much harder it is to grow THAT?
This whole global warming^H^H^Hclimate change thing is so confusing. What am I supposed to be thinking this week?
-Styopa
Yeah yeah global warming is all a scam to profit American ethanol companies. The decades of global scientific reasearch is all a means to their ends. Oh wait, the rest of the World aren't lackeys of corporate America and is in fact costing the countries who are actually doing something about it hundreds of millions, making the whole corporate/government conspiracy angle truly ridiculous. As far as stories about "the earth having not warmed recently", what the fuck are you talking about? Do you think a cold week in March disproves global warming or something?
wir trink't wein.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
They drink beer? My friends didn't drink beer that often, not until we were about 17. Before then it was cider (cheap and strong) or spirits (usually vodka, or premixed vodka cocktails).
I never did weed, probably half my friends did.
Exactly! The brewer at the local micro brewery told me that the decreasing harvests were simply due to farmers getting out of the business. It seems the larger breweries had stockpiled so much hopps they drove prices into the dirt..so to speak. He said it was a normal supply and demand thing and that as soon as it once again became profitable to grow hopps the farmers would replant.
Why was this flagged flame bait? It seems a valid point to question the source of the article.
Yup, it is in the same boat with the Al Queda - Iraq link. Good thing we have the media to tell us what is true, we don't need no stupid scientists or analyists anymore. (Hint: The link between Iraq and Al Queda is they both have a Q)
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Or maybe Al Gore has drunk all the beer & just using Global Warming to cover his tracks.
As I understand it some solar scientists (outside of NASA) are predicting a period of reduced solar activity and lower (by 2.0C) temperatures for the next 3 or 4 decades. Of course the AGW proponents are saying hogwash to that. I guess we will all know who is correct soon enough, the next solar cycle is already late (cycle 24) and we will know within 2-3 years if a) it is weaker than the last one b) if it does or doesn't affect temperatures. Both sides however are predicting lower crop output (higher prices) and tragically we are already converting more food (grain crops) into fuel than we probably should be. The affluent will notice an increase in beer/food cost, the poor an increase in hunger/dying.
_GP_
Yes, but see the *reason* that it's due to climate change we started requiring ethanol in our gasoline and so the price of corn went up which forced the farmers to change crops.
:D
Just like the game where you make almost any food sound nutritional, you can make anything caused by global climate change!
It's that sort of circular logic that makes the world go round!
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
Finally! a reason to care about global warming.
Corn production increases due to growing ethanol demand (think bio-fuels), has caused more farm land to be allocated for corn, than wheat, and thus increase in wheat prices. Though, now that wheat prices have increased, expect more farm land to be devoted to wheat. Even if the increase in price is due to weather, which in part it appears to be, the economic incentive to increase wheat production automatically exists as a result of a price influx, ie... future prices will likely go down and/or stabalize.
Regardless, it is still affecting my beer making.
Two years ago, it cost about $12 to make a 5-gallon batch of beer, now it costs between $20 and $30.
(I know, I'm bitching about paying 4-6 dollars for the equivelant of a 12-pack of beer.)
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
"Climate Change Finally Impacts Important Industry" is not correct. The article makes no mention of any impact on an industry. It should probably read "Scientists Say Climate Change Will Finally Impact and Important Industry". The current title suggests that it has happened.
As for global warming, even the BBC has been forced to admit reality, and admitted that global warming ceased in 1998. Although they've since modified the article, wiping that portion out. Not at all ethical journalism. So if anyone knows how to retrieve the original version of http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm...
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
We have a number of examples of desertification which is in large part a local climate change. Supposedly there are examples going back to ancient times though I can't think of examples older than some tropical empires (Mayan and Khmer empires). There is the "heat island effect", namely that urban areas are warmer than surrounding areas, which is due to the lower albedo of these regions. These are man-made changes in climate. The global temperate has changed over the past few thousand years (according to ice and tree-ring data) resulting in a number of climate changes that have probably affected human industry. And the current global warming trend has supposedly resulted in shifts in the seasons and the start of the growing season for temperate regions.
Some anyway. There are lots of other inputs, and much of the price of liquor is simply product placement, not something that actually reflects cost. For reference, nominal energy prices have increased quite a bit in the last few years and it has hardly shown up in retail prices.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Women get uglier in direct proportion to increase in beer prices and shortages.
Hot climates grow fruits and make wines and sugary alcohols.
Medium climates grow grains and make beers and dark/heavy liquors.
Cold climates grow whatever they can and make clear/light liquors.
Wine in Italy
Beer in Germany
Vodka in Finland
That's an interesting statement, and something I would be willing to believe - however, do you have even one shred of evidence that this is actually a major factor in this particular shortage?
More weed planted = more carbon sinking. Add the savings from canceling the multibillion dollar "drug war" budget, and I think we have a clear winner.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
And I did your mom. Probably half your 'friends' did.
Up the chain? Weed is down the chain. Alcohol is more harmful than weed.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
People will not pay whatever the beer industry charges.
I remember reading a Newfoundland drug enforcement police officer's comment once to the effect that beer and spirits stores profits were up whenever the police managed to put a big dent in the illegal drug market.
If people are using beer (i.e. ethanol) to get a drug high, they're going to pay whatever the price is. You don't see too many addicts quitting due to cost.
That's not to say they're going to buy Sam Adams over Beast, but they'll still buy.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Climate change is not the reason for ethanol in gasoline. The reason is political: to reduce dependence on energy from foreign sources, as well as to buy votes from corn farmers via subsidies.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
And now there's rioting in Haiti over food shortages (i.e. prices). So, the first human sacrifices at the altar of the Global Warming religion are occurring right now.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Obviously "decades of global scientific research" can be extrapolated to predict not only millions of years of history, but millions of years in the future, too. How is a cold week in March any different than 100 years of weeks in the timeline of the Earth's history?
Why does the headline claim that climate change is having an impact on the growing of barley when the very brief linked article makes no such claim. This climate scientist uses, "likely will", "might" and "will" quite liberally.
I find it impressive how the media has so effectively shifted the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change". So now any time weather deviates from some arbitrary norm we're feeling the effects of climate change. And don't forget to add that it's man-made!
In fact, on NPR recently a NASA scientist stated that the Argo satellite has shown slight cooling over the past five years. Another thing is that scientists are starting to find that CO2 doesn't quite provide the positive feedback that causes a rise in temperature, instead it acts as a sort of damper. If I could find where I read that I'd link it here but inevitably any search on global warming and climate change results in a flood of propaganda.
Inevitably, the climate change supporters will claim that these findings aren't statistically significant or that local temperature findings aren't relevant. Basically, if it doesn't reinforce the climate change agenda it's dismissed. Any anyone with disputing data is biased.
And nevermind the fact that we've had climate change since the Earth has first existed. And furthermore, history has shown that increased global temperatures have lead to human prosperity. Idiots like Ted Turner seem to believe that rising temperatures will somehow lead to drought and widespread famine but as far as I know no scientist has made that claim yet.
Quoting an old irish bar song...
"It's lonesome away from your kindred and all
By the campfire at night where the wild dingos call
But there's nothin' so lonesome, so dull or so drear
Than to stand in the bar of a pub with no beer..."
Just like the game where you make almost any food sound nutritional, you can make anything caused by global climate change!
It's that sort of circular logic that makes the world go round!
The requirement for ethanol in fuel is actually related to the concerns about the toxicity of MTBE, the oxidizer that ethanol replaced. The use of corn ethanol as a gasoline replacement, rather than as an additive, is almost purely a result of lobbying and poor government policy, it is not a well reasoned response to concerns about CO2 emissions.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Faced with the difficulty of separating anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic influences, they reverted to the time-honored method of taking data.
The trouble is that some of the data doesn't support some of the theories. It used to be that scientists would be happy to falsify their theories or modify them when presented with new data. Lately it seems people are starting with theories and trying to find data to support them, which is fine to that extent, but then discounting data which is found that contradicts their theories.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It is because he questioned the religion of global warming. We are really particular to our religions around here. We have scientifically proven that our blind faith in a number of areas are more creditable then other religion's blind faith. And you know, putting science in front of anything makes it established and creditable.
Why did I move to Australia again? I'd better head back to New Zealand, the price of beer here in Aus is already far higher than it is back home...
"Free as in beer" will not be understood by future generations.
Move all sig!
When corn prices go up for ethanol, more farmers switch from whatever they were growing to corn, because it makes more money.
Corn production is up, and yes that is effecting other food costs, however:"The USDA reports that farmers intend to plant 8 percent fewer acres of corn this year than last. In 2007, farmers planted the highest number of corn acres since World War II....The USDA's report looks at other grains as well. Oat plantings are expected to fall. Sorghum, too. And barley acreage could grow this year " So I guess we should still have some beer supplies coming out of America, the farmers are actually backing off corn production this year. But I don't think Australia's problem isn't corn,it's a drought that has lasted several years. "This lack of rainfall, combined with hotter than average daytime temperatures and strong winds, has led to the rapid deterioration of crop yield potential and in many areas has resulted in total crop failure," ABARE executive director Phillip Glyde said. The three major crops of wheat, barley and canola will amount to 18.0 million tonnes for the year -- about 42 percent below the five-year average but still 4.0 million tonnes above the previous year's output"
We are all just people.
To quote Al Gore "THE DEBATE IS OVER". This is not up for discussion anymore. The science has been settled. It has been proven and outlined in "An Inconvenient Truth". You are not allowed to question this. I don't care about "cool winters or years". If the oceans completely freeze over it just proves that global warming is real and more severe than previously thought. Climate change is real. The climate changes. We need the government to buy massive amounts of carbon credits for the poor who can not afford them. Did you not hear Al Gore? Climate change is real. The climate changes and we have already proved it. This matter is now closed.
Ooh, what you have there is an interesting point.. 1: Plant more cannabis 2: reduce C02 stuffs, as plant like to use it to produce energy. 3:Everyone gets high, as its now legalised to, less wars are fought. 4: ????? 5: Profit! I like the idea, but since we would be burning it after anyways, then it might not turn out to be so beneficial. Still has to be better than the current situation.
Reporting of this kind is lame because you hear about every time something costs more because of a bad crop etc. but you never hear about all the times prices fall because of a bumper crop. It's just news focused on the negatives designed to get us all to pay attention. Well they've cried wolf one to many times and I just don't care anymore.
Do you think a cultural push toward hysteria proves global warming or something?
--- these days, what with business and stuff, you gotta get your emails...
Due to homebrew?
/too vague?
"Know but never fear the consequences of your actions."
Bush still won't do anything. At least, not until the coca harvest is threatened.
Yeah, they stopped using "Global Warming" because people like you didn't understand it at any deeper level than the word "warming". "Well it's cold today!" you said.
So they changed it to "Global Climate Change" to get rid of the implication that it means nothing -but- homogeneous monotonically increasing warming, and still you don't understand it at any deeper level than the word "Change". "Well change happens all the time!" you say.
I'm sure your anecdote about your grandparents counteracts all the actual science being done. After all, you weren't around for the events of their stories, and you know nothing about the science of climatology, so as far as you're concerned they're both hearsay of equal weight, or maybe science has less weight than anecdotes, who knows. In any case, the conclusion you reach is that climate change is "silly", because you're too ignorant to know what it actually means.
That's right dude, drink up that Cool-Aid. There's a guv'ment job in them thar caps and credits for you somewhere.
No more Fosters!
Oh wait, TFA said beer, not mildly alcoholic urine.
No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
-Government policy A to solve CO2 emissions problem, vs. Policy B to solve CO2 emissions problem
NOT
-Government policy A vs. nothing
He doesn't see that you have to compare the economic (deadweight) losses of one counterplan, to the economic losses of his favored plan, NOT the losses of the counterplan, to nothing.
Even without going further into his other basic errors (like trivializing the ability of government to accomplish anything, but ONLY with respect to ideas he disagrees with), it should be pretty clear at this point that there is no reason to continue further.
Observers, please understand why.
And I'm asking you to mod back down his comments because they have reasoning errors like the above, NOT because he favors different policies than I do. (My own down modding is for rudeness about Ubuntu which I have since apologized for -- see sig.)
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Maybe I don't understand everything about the issue at hand, but if climate change is such a threat to crops in their current locations, won't it just force the industry to move the farms to areas that used to be too cold to grow at?
Adapt, or stagnate and complain.
...that God hates us and wants us to be miserable.
(Pace Ben)
Given the temperature hasn't actually risen in ten years.
I mean, if this hypothetical complete idiot was literate then he would have noticed that the discussion topic was climate change, right? But I suppose the idea of a literate complete idiot is a contradiction in terms. But hey, CO2 might indeed lead to species extinction, so clearly attempting to economically limit it via taxation is a stupid idea compared to banning CO2 emissions entirely. You hold your breath first. Let us all know how that goes.
Oh, but please don't let us know via the internet. Since you brought up the topic, you should know that computer and monitor you're using contains toxic heavy metals, and even if you're good about having them reclaimed you don't have a hope of influencing what happens to your ISP's hardware. Since even the smallest amount of groundwater poisoning is 100% intolerable, you wouldn't want to look like a hypocrite by helping to promote it.
Climate change in the house that Jack built, after giving a mouse a cookie.
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
...welcome our new barley-free overlords. While there is nothing appealing paying more for Duchesse de Bourgogne or Longhammer, the prospect of Natty Light, Keystone, Budweiser, Miller, Coors, etc., disappearing forever gives me comfort in these dark, warm, melty times. We're talking about a product (yes, only one product--there are no meaningful distinctions among the brands) so bad that the tasting contests have to create a category called "American-Style Lager" (read: macrobrew) to accomodate them. And something tells me the big breweries pay the competitions to have that category there in the first place. You know the organizers have to be huge beer snobs, and even Level 1 Beer Snobs automatically get the Hating on Macrobrews feat. Check out the Bud/Miller/Coors Web sites and notice how they each win the category every four years. It's almost like they're just taking turns.
you aren't making beer.
I am looking at you Budweiser.
For those of you with a little time, and attention span, watch this.
Ahhh, there is nothing finer than a bong loaded with the favorite bud, and a (Winston)Churchill Martini as I watch the destruction of a planet. Maybe some popcorn as well.
Hey, it is what it is.
Err... I am not even from the US... don't label me a liberal tjom... I don't want to be affiliated with the US political system in any way - it gave us George Bush, among other dodgy presidents...
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
They have no beer? Then let them drink mead. (With apologies to Marie Antoinette, and FWIW, I'd rather drink beer than mead myself).
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
So the Sahara is our fault? Damn Romans and their SUVs.
Corn jumped over $1/bu. after the report was released. There's still time for those numbers to change, and I expect they will. It was only a week or so ago where corn wasn't worth enough to even consider growing it. Funny how much can change in a week.
Nice one edmicman!
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
I have a very simple question that perhaps you can answer. How is Global Average Temperature calculated? Where is the data collected from and how is it "averaged"? Is the number of collection sites growing? If so, how do the scientists average in this new data without affecting the average? Ok so it turned into several simple questions, but I'd still like to know the answers.
But there's nothing so lonesome, morbid or drear!
IPCC Peer Review Process an Illusion, Finds SPPI Analysis
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/peer_review_what_peer_review/ In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.' The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCCâ(TM)s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all. As with other chapters, simple corrections, requests for clarifications or refinements to the text which did not challenge the IPCCâ(TM)s conclusions are generally treated favourably, but comments which dispute the IPCC's claims or their certainty are treated with far less indulgence. Some "scientific consensus" you got there, Bub.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
There are a bunch of measuring stations both on the surface, and satellites do some measuring as well. These are collected into various datasets that have their own estimate of "average" temperature, whatever that means. Wikipedia is pretty good on this, actually. The main three datasets and where to get them is mentioned in the first paragraph. Now IANACS (I Am Not A Client Scientist), and I get fuzzy when it comes to how they actually measure the "average". There are... models. :) Digging deeper into the website of one of the dataset like e.g. the Met Office will probably get you more details.
Wow... so much crap and bad faith in this small paragraph, I must say I'm impressed!
I don't exactly care about diminished barley harvest... but if you want peer-reviewed articles about global warming, you'll find hundreds of them there:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/
Read some and come back later if you still want to talk about "mythical consensus" and no "peer-reviewed articles about global warming".
The idea that the only allowable options for controlling ecological harm are a dichotomy of "regulatory bans" vs "unlimited extravagance" is an idea which only you believe in here; if you're making fun of it then you're only making fun of yourself.
Don't you remember, just a few posts ago, when someone suggested a decentralized way of discouraging unnecessarily excessive environmental harm which nevertheless allows individuals the freedom to make the tradeoffs between the environmental impacts and the benefits of things like LCDs and SUVs? You haven't actually addressed that suggestion, you just started throwing around insults and offering contrary ideas that are so ridiculous that even you yourself can't help but satirize the false dichotomy.
When your criticisms are so stupid that even you can't help but laugh at them, perhaps it's time to stop trying to dominate the discussion and start trying to learn from it.
Where's the proof that global warming is the cause?
On a tangent, I am no climatologist, but it seems that if global warming is really effecting the crops then a a region that previously could not grow these crops is emerging.
Hmm, SSPI, who are they? Ah, they used to be the Center for Science and Public Policy at Frontiers of Freedom. To quote Sourcewatch quoting the NYT: "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documentsâ. They also get tobacco money for their little public policy "research". Amazing how not-hard it was to find that.
But why stop there? Who is this McLean guy that wrote it? Let's consult his own description of himself: "John McLean has an amateur interest in global warming following 25 years in what he describes as the analysis and logic of IT." Apparently he has a Bachelor of Architecture.
So your no-consensus argument comes down to a piece written by a guy who isn't a climate scientist for an oil-industry funded think tank. Convincing. There's some criticism of the actual paper here, and more linked to from there.
Apart from accusing every climate scientist of some mass conspiracy, do you have an actual argument to make, or some actual climate scientists to quote?
However will we describe open source technology? I guess "free as in whiskey" will have to do. Doesn't quite roll off the tongue. Maybe we could say "free as in Jack"
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Of course, if you try to do so, it's going to cost you. Even though a station wagon might be a less polluting and equally useful alternative to an SUV for many people, it turns out that some hamfisted regulator thought it would be a good idea to control pollution by applying stricter (albeit fleet averaged) emissions and fuel economy standards to "cars" without crippling the economy by applying the same standards to "trucks". Unfortunately (and not coincidentally), the people who are dumb enough to think they can successfully micromanage the world in this fashion are rarely smart enough to anticipate the unintended consequences of their edicts, such as the many families who wanted more cargo or towing capacity than the non-penalized "cars" would provide and who would therefore choose the loophole of buying an SUV "truck" instead.
Oops.
And stunningly enough, people don't seem to learn from these failures. You'd think that, at the very least, experiences like East vs West Germany or North vs South Korea might cause would-be regulators to be extra-careful about starting their own labyrinths of central planning, but I suppose some people never learn. Ideas like emissions taxation should make lovers of both freedom and the environment happy, but there may be other psychology at work here. Why would anyone with a fetish for controlling others be content to merely penalize people proportionately to the costs of the externalities they create? That just *influences* their decisions, which must not be nearly as satisfying as the hope of *eliminating* their decisions. Imagine being in a position to divvy up the world into categories while deciding "this category may pollute this much with no consequences, but not a kilogram more; that category may pollute that much; and if your think your category's allotment is unfair then you'd better find a good loophole or a good lobbyist to help you with that". It must be like playing SimCity but with real human lives.
Right. Except I'm in Britain, where as I mentioned the government is ploughing millions into reducing carbon emissions. As opposed to the US government which is doing very little and has spent the better part of the last two decades trying to claim that global warming is a myth. But I expect that was all misdirection, right? I'm sure the whole thing must be a rouse to cover up the moon landing hoax, or maybe so McDonalds can steal your thoughts?
Wow, I hadn't realized that crop production could be that agile to respond to announcements so quickly.
On the upside, with a market that active and profitable maybe we can end farm subsidies. I just wish they would make the biofuel out of switchgrass instead of corn.
We are all just people.
I was trying to make a point in asking the question and you made my point perfectly. "There are... models." Every estimate of Global temperature is an estimate made on a model. None of them are scientifically accurate in the sense that NONE of them have sucessfully predicted future behavior. And yet, we want to tax hydrocarbons and turn food into fuel becuase models that have yet to be proven at all accurate say we might be changing the climate.
Wrong.
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/215476
Prove that "climate change" zealots don't care about facts, just getting their way.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
If they really wanted to reduce dependence, they could go bio-diesel which can be run in diesel vehicles right now! You can take the grease waste from restaurants and turn it into fuel instead of having to have it processed into other waste or illegally dumped. But THAT would make common sense.
It doesn't matter how *green* something really is in practice (although ethanol has been touted as a green alternative for some time). It's ALL political--including global warming. My actual (sarcastically put) point was that the media wants to attribute EVERYTHING to be caused by global warming (or the now more politically correct "global climate change") even when it's just due to good old market forces.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
As usual, an ad hominem attack instead of addressing the issue.
Prove him wrong. Prove that more than four of the IPCC reviewers specifically endorsed the central theme of the IPCC report, that greenhouse gas forcing is causing climate change.
But you won't do that. You'll just continue with your ad hominem attacks.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
It's made from Honey.
...
Now if we could just get the bees to stop dying off, New Zealand wouldn't need beer
Or maybe they could ask the hobbits - I hear they like New Zealand and are fond of beer.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I think burning weed produces CO2. But at least it's carbon neutral, since it doesn't produce more than it consumed when growing, and if some of the weed is actually industrial hemp, you still win.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Posting to remove an erroneous mod.
Very few modern scientific theories are invalidated totally by any one data point. For instance general relativity has known contradicting data points, but is still considered a viable and good theory because it describes, in a neat and internally consistent way, the vast majority of observed phenomena within its domain. Small inconsistencies often either reflect a needed refinement, or a limit on the level of precision achievable in the measurement or the prediction. Their occurrence tends to increase with the complexity of the system being studied.
Occassionally they point the way to "paradigm shifts," but that is pretty rare. I'd be very surprised if slight differences in sea level rise result in the wholesale abandonment of a very robust and deeply studied area of science.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Climate change isn't impacting brewing, stupid environmentalists lobbying biofuels to stupid politicians are impacting brewing. Subsidizing these high yield crops not only siphons your taxes to big agribusiness, it also incentivizes the third world poor into plowing under the rainforests. Dr. Evil couldn't have come up with a more dastardly plan.
p.s. Yeah, I know, not all environmentalists lobbied for the enviro-unfriendly biofuels. But they sure kept their mouths shut when this was going down. Hindsight is 20/20, and mine tells me that environmentalist are much more interested in getting into a politician's pants than in protecting the environment.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Seasonally lower temperatures due to La Nina have nothing to do with global climate change. Of course, since you couldn't even be bothered to put that detail into your post, so that people could debate the issue, I doubt you really care about the truth of the situation. Instead, you believe that global climate change is not happening, and you just look for any convenient web link to back up your belief.
Awareness of global climate change by society is a good thing. It does not have anything to do with the proof that our climate is changing. If only one person on Earth knew that the climate was changing, it would still be changing. Our ecosystem doesn't really care too much about what we believe we know.
On the other hand, disputing the current global climate change is really good for certain media people that are less interested in facts than in making a lot of money by duping people into believing said media person is smarter than everyone else and knows what's really going on.
Whoa, hoss. You go from saying that global temperatures are based on models to say that none of them are scientifically accurate because they haven't been used to predict future behavior. That's a big jump. You see, these datasets are that - actually collected data. Models are used to come up with an average global temperature based on the data. You can't use those models to predict anything. You can, though, use the results from those models to compare the calculated global temperature year to year. Make sense?
The original of Pub with No Beer was written by Gordon Parsons, but the hit was made by his pal Slim Dusty.
You are correct. I overstepped the analysis.
I'm white, male and American. I get blamed for everything else on this planet, so why not that too?
The reparations movement has already shown you don't need to have even been born at the time to be guilty, so there's precedent.
I'm a heavily active home brewer and have been following beer ingredient prices closely. The problem in the US, at least, is the idiotic government subsidies for corn to produce ethanol has caused too many farms to switch away from other crops - for example, hops. There's now a world-wide hop shortage for many varieties of hops - all so we can waste more energy to produce ethanol so that Arches-Daniels-Midland can rake in billions after bribing congressmen.
It's okay though, because driving up food prices isn't going to hurt anyone, and it's very important to get a false sense of accomplishment on environmental issues.
But feel free to make yourself useful and post the climate model average earth temperature formula with it's various input weighted variables. Not a single religious creationist man-made global warming zealot believer has been able to produce any formula with any variables whilst they talk completely out of their asses about changing average temperatures without reference to the vast majority of heaviest weighted variables determining global average temperature. That people like you pretend they are scientifically informed is laughable. Clue # 1: sticking a thermometer in your anus does not measure global average temperature, or give you anything put data trash to plug into whatever secret socialist alarmist formula which isn't dared presented to the public.
It's nothing but a pure hoax. And it will be extremely evident once the formula of global average temperature variables weightings is exposed. Which is precisely why no idiots like you have been able to provide a link to the global average temperature model formula climalarmitologists pretend to be referencing when they talk about predicted and even "observed" changes in the output variable global average temperature.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
/signed
The ethanol scam and subsidies for other failed "alternative energy" ideas is far more damaging to us than supposed global warming. Here's another 1,600 jobs that could be lost because of the cost increase of corn and this isn't the only company that's looking at shutting down plants. Count on food prices going even higher as supply drops.
http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=Pq1Mqi49
If it works, people will want it, and the business won't need welfare to survive. If it doesn't then just like any other business it should be allowed to fail until someone figures out how to make it succeed.
Subsidies on "alternative energy" kill innovation by rewarding failure.
What exactly is "their way"?
Why do you think global warming is a scam?
Do you really think scientists from all over the world, with no social/political/religion connection whatsoever, that are mostly interested in knowing more, enjoy telling us that we're all doomed if we keep burning fossil fuels?
IPCC scientists are mostly American. How could that be interesting for them to tell us that oil and coal are the worst things we could use to get energy?
If global warming is a crime, what is the motive?
From what you wrote, I suppose you could also be interested in :
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm