24 Breweries Join Call to Action on Climate Change

It's kind of neat to see conservative culture warriors embracing such an openly postmodern approach to empiricism. Like, relativism is evil when it comes to accepting the gays, but when we're talking about meteorological data then to each his own.

 

As conspiracy theories go, this one is a dilly. The overwhelming majority of American earth and weather scientists, working in hundreds of private universities and in public universities funded and supervised by all 50 states (red as well as blue), have apparently decided to risk their personal credibility and endanger their careers to tell a complex, well-coordinated lie for no apparent reason. Thousands of other scientists in countries ranging from Australia to Ireland to China, in a remarkable display of cooperation with the U.S., have subjected themselves to similar risks, with a similar lack of possible rewards.

 

A cursory study of the history of science will reveal that a "consensus of scientists" has been wrong repeatedly over the centuries. But seriously, this time they're right because now we have computers and electronic stuff and besides, any contrary data is created by "deniers" who are only in it for the money.

 

Climate change is serious business. What It translates to is they are trying to have as little impact as possible on pollution levels. If you are against that then just how much pollution does a brewery need to spew out for you to like them? Do you chuck beer cans in the lake too?

 

But ignoring Science completely is the solution? Studies will be done, findings will be found. Opinions will be made, and when our general knowledge advances, new studies will be done to make new findings that may contradict previous ones. That is how this works.

 

Marketing nonsense. As was mentioned, if they really felt that strongly about it they would shut down. After all, they are trading profits for the earth's well-being... And that is using their own logic.

(non-political)

I do not subscribe to the notion of human-induced (anthropogenic) climate change because the people that feel the most strongly about it are the same ones that stand to make money from the resulting regulation.

Further, the scientific basis for it has been debunked (climategate and other fraudulent data exposures). Moreover, the proponents change their positions when the "evidence" no longer suits their points of view.

5 years ago: "Warmer winters = climate change!"
Now: "Colder winters = climate change."

Sure.

They just change the name every time it gets laughed out of the room.

Global warming>climate change>anthropogenic climate change>chaos weather.

 

Giving up is one response... or you can come try a real solution, e.g. make your processes more efficient, use renewable energy sources, use packaging that is more readily recyclable...

 

I like how you dismissed his response and then you conveniently applied your own definition of "solution" to make it seem like your idea has more merit ("real").

Bravo.

 

1. As has been said again and again, there are plenty of ways to address climate change other than elminating all consumer goods. That is a red herring designed to shut down debate
2. It is impossible to tell who will benefit without knowing what 'regulation" is proposed. The scientists do not know if there will be a carbon tax, cap and trade, or other policy measures. In fact it is quite possible there will be no policiy measures passed in the US. The notion that scientists are conspiring to distort science because of an interest in policy is not credible, though it does reflect the apparent motivations of many deniers
3. Climategate did not involve fraudulent data. It involved poor wording in an emaoil about ajusting a chart to make what was real, more visible in the graph. The Denier industry took it out of context and lied about it
4. Warmer global average temps + climate change. And are happening. Changes in wintertime precipitation patterns in North America leading to more snow are not inconsistent with that.

 

saying that anyone who cares about climate change is not serious unless they shut their business sure sounds without merit to me. If they were lobbying against dirty water, would they need to shut down, or try to reduce their water pollution? How about particulates from power plants? The logic is no business shouild complain about any environmental problem unless they are willing to shut down. Its an absurdity, and a way to shut down the argument.