# Climate Change Affecting Hops Quality?



## Jonez (17/9/09)

http://blogs.pitch.com/fatcity/2009/09/cli...ecting_hops.php


----------



## bum (17/9/09)

Couldn't possibly be. This board has convinced me climate change doesn't even exist.


----------



## Jonez (17/9/09)

bum said:


> Couldn't possibly be. This board has convinced me climate change doesn't even exist.




haha
that may have to do with the CO2 produced by brewing..


----------



## svyturys (17/9/09)

Quick solution.
Poland, Denmark and Tasmania become major hop producing areas. The czech republic starts growing Chardonnay.

Cheers


----------



## warra48 (17/9/09)

Stuff climate change. 
It's just a new method of taxation for governments, and a new money spinning market for the carbon permit traders.
Why else has Al Gore invested heavily in a carbon trading brokerage? 
Yes, my flameproof suit has been donned.


----------



## bum (17/9/09)

Now all you need to do is convince the hops.


----------



## warra48 (17/9/09)

I'm happy to convince the hops, as soon as we have the results of the double blind testing to prove the changes are actually due to climate change.
I'd have thought that changes to the hop crops over several decades could be due to other reasons, or several other reasons, than "climate change".
Have they examined changes in agricultural practices, use of and types of fertilisers, cropping levels etc etc? Maybe the hops themselves are gradually changing their characteristics? Are the growers selecting the most productive varients of the hop rather than those with the best traditional quality characteristics? Just look at what's happened to tomatoes over the decades. That's not down to climate change, just commercial marketing reasons.

I'm all for doing our best to cut down on pollution etc as much as we realistically can, and save energy and water etc etc, but to put all our problems down to just carbon emissions or footprints is a somewhat simplistic view, in my opinion. 

I'm happy to grow most of my own vegetables, and to do it organically. I don't waste water, I recapture most of what I use in brewing for my next batch. However, I don't feel guilty about using a bit of heating in winter to up my comfort level. During summer, we might run our aircon on about 7 or so of the hottest days, but no more. I worked darned hard for 43 years until I retired, and feel I've done my bit. I don't drive a gas guzzling car, I'm quite happy with a small mid sized 4 cylinder job. It's gets us where we need to go.

The little I can achieve in reducing my carbon footprint fades into total insignificance compared to the massive waste I see all around me. If the major cities can turn off their lights for earthday, why can't they program their computers and staff etc to do it all the time?

Rant over, I'm only on my second beer for the day. Flameproof suit still on.


----------



## LLoyd (17/9/09)

warra48 said:


> I'm happy to convince the hops, as soon as we have the results of the double blind testing to prove the changes are actually due to climate change.
> I'd have thought that changes to the hop crops over several decades could be due to other reasons, or several other reasons, than "climate change".
> Have they examined changes in agricultural practices, use of and types of fertilisers, cropping levels etc etc? Maybe the hops themselves are gradually changing their characteristics? Are the growers selecting the most productive varients of the hop rather than those with the best traditional quality characteristics? Just look at what's happened to tomatoes over the decades. That's not down to climate change, just commercial marketing reasons.
> 
> ...



+1 mate.
Most of the crap I hear about how WE have to do something seems to actually mean THEY should do something.....


----------



## Jonez (17/9/09)

svyturys said:


> Quick solution.
> Poland, Denmark and Tasmania become major hop producing areas. The czech republic starts growing Chardonnay.
> 
> Cheers



I like that solution. Tasmania is not that far


----------



## tcraig20 (17/9/09)

warra48 said:


> I'm all for doing our best to cut down on pollution etc as much as we realistically can, and save energy and water etc etc, but to put all our problems down to just carbon emissions or footprints is a somewhat simplistic view, in my opinion.



The best thing most of us could do for the environment is kill ourselves. 

A suprisingly unpopular solution, for some reason...


----------



## bum (17/9/09)

LloydieP said:


> Most of the crap I hear about how WE have to do something seems to actually mean THEY should do something.....



That is a two way street, however. 

And you're right - it is crap. Absolute, self-serving bullshit.


----------



## mwd (17/9/09)

JamesCraig said:


> The best thing most of us could do for the environment is kill ourselves.
> 
> A suprisingly unpopular solution, for some reason...



Actually sounds good to me 95% of earth's population are superfluous to our requirements.

Starting at the prison population.  

Bit like a bloke from Austria in the 30's :lol: 

plus we would have more space to grow the hops.


----------



## Jonez (17/9/09)

No need to get defensive everyone.

Climate change does exist, the planet is indeed warming. It has been proved by the international scientist community. no the governments. The governments have been forced to act and now they have an excuse to introduce more taxes. 

The theory has been there much earlier than Al Gore's campaign. What is still in debate is whether the warming is the result of human activity or not. There are other theories out there which claim the human contribution is negligible.

Cheer up, have a home brew. Nobody is saying you should give up your hobby or you are guilty of anything. I was just being sarcastic and trying to joke a bit in my reply bum.

I was hoping we would concentrate more on what they say it is happening to the quality of hops.

cheers
Jonez


----------



## svyturys (17/9/09)

I like James Craig's idea.
Reminds me of a question I used to ask people in the 80's.
Q. Would you die to save the world?

A. Yes

Q. On New Years Eve every person in the world would take a cyanide capsule, therefore, saving the world. Would you take it?

A. No way!

Q. Why?

A. How could I trust everybody else is taking their capsule?

Bit Off Topic but kinda gives a summary of our global paranoia.

Cheers


----------



## Tony (17/9/09)

warra48 said:


> Stuff climate change.
> It's just a new method of taxation for governments, and a new money spinning market for the carbon permit traders.
> Why else has Al Gore invested heavily in a carbon trading brokerage?
> Yes, my flameproof suit has been donned.



+1

I drive a V8 and happily laugh at people in a Prius as a roll on by.

Climate change all smells a bit like "waepons of mass destruction" to me. Government invests in buisness that will profit from a war and start one to raice revenue. 

War becomes unpopular and is losing votes so lets predict the end of the world and tax everyone more to fix it......... and they will vote for us for our support and environmental friendliness! and love it!

I do think the climate is warming but its a natural cycle IMO. Did the dinosours fart to much and cause the ice age?.......... well now its getting hot. Its natures way. It always finds a way to thin out the numbers when its time.

Hops...... there not the only thing that will suffer. There probably hasnt been a change but comercial requirememts have increased so they blame climate change and feed the HB marget lower quality products.

Rant over


----------



## gregs (17/9/09)

warra48 said:


> Stuff climate change.
> It's just a new method of taxation for governments, and a new money spinning market for the carbon permit traders.
> Why else has Al Gore invested heavily in a carbon trading brokerage?
> Yes, my flameproof suit has been donned.




Climate change may exist but your absolutely right.


----------



## tcraig20 (17/9/09)

Tony said:


> Climate change all smells a bit like "waepons of mass destruction" to me.



I have to admit, I would be a lot less suspicious of climate change if the people pushing it didnt have such a long history of using government to enforce bad solutions to largely ficticious problems!


----------



## chappo1970 (17/9/09)

Does anyone remember that in the 70's the world was convinced, by very smart people, that it was getting colder and we were heading into a new ice age? Same sheep different clothes, no?


----------



## Tony (17/9/09)

Chappo said:


> Does anyone remember that in the 70's the world was convinced, by very smart people, that it was getting colder and we were heading into a new ice age? Same sheep different clothes, no?



Same sheep.... Yes.

Remember........ i was born in the 70's ya old bugger....... thats a no :lol: 

And that fella shot JFK from the observatory right...... thats why some guy in a suit shot him before the trial.

It never ends.

I dont believe much of what comes out of the media. The yanks won the first Iraq war by using CNN to broadcast complete lies of what was happening because they knew Sadam would be watching the news.

I dont watch the news any more...... ever. Its only what the government wants you to know and believe..... fed to you at 6pm every night.

cheers


----------



## Jonez (17/9/09)

Tony said:


> ....... I do think the climate is warming but its a natural cycle IMO. Did the dinosours fart to much and cause the ice age?.......... well now its getting hot. Its natures way. It always finds a way to thin out the numbers when its time.


that is part of alternative theory I mentioned. Anyway; the planet is warming, for whatever reason it is, and the article in the link says that hops crops are becoming lower in quality due to the change in the air temperature.



Tony said:


> Hops...... there not the only thing that will suffer. There probably hasnt been a change but comercial requirememts have increased so they blame climate change and feed the HB marget lower quality products.
> 
> Rant over



So you say they could produce hops of the same quality at higher temperatures but chose to blame the warming to hide that they can't supply the demand.


----------



## Tony (17/9/09)

Jonez said:


> So you say they could produce hops of the same quality at higher temperatures but chose to blame the warming to hide that they can't supply the demand.



No......i said ther PROBABLY hasnt been a change and were getting ripped off because im a cospiricy theorist. We get duped in every other way to keep us on the poverty line no mater how hard we work so why would this be different?

Im gunna stop ranting my X file theorys now and let this thread get back on topic. 

cheers


----------



## marksfish (17/9/09)

The truth is out there!!!!! <_<


----------



## bum (17/9/09)

It clearly isn't in here.


----------



## manticle (17/9/09)

Traditionally governements and large businesses have been opposed to accepting climate change as it's likely to impinge on profits so I'm not quite certain of the validity of the 'it's all about the tax' brigade. People have been harping on about icecaps melting for years with no-one listening (David Suzuki is not a new name).

That said - the way governments are starting to deal with it now makes one cynical about their motivations but not flying an aeroplane to work or running your 8 million hp generator to flush your loo can't be a bad thing can it?

Who cares if it's real or not? There's no need to suck up every resource we can JUST because we can. 


Won't someone think of the hops?


----------



## Leigh (18/9/09)

JamesCraig said:


> The best thing most of us could do for the environment is kill ourselves.
> 
> A suprisingly unpopular solution, for some reason...



Not quite...there's nearly 7 billion of us...we just need to drop down to 2 billion.

Volunteers take a step forward....pleeeeease h34r:


----------



## Leigh (18/9/09)

Just as a conspiracy theory...could it be that the nearly 95% of the nearly 7 billion people drink megaswill and its actually the megabrew companies who are getting all the good hops?

The decline in alpha acids in the remaining hops equates to about 0.06% per annum h34r:


----------



## tcraig20 (18/9/09)

manticle said:


> That said - the way governments are starting to deal with it now makes one cynical about their motivations but not flying an aeroplane to work or running your 8 million hp generator to flush your loo can't be a bad thing can it?



On the other hand, taxing the production of the most basic necessity of life and paying farmers to permanently destroy productive agricultural land cant be a good thing can it?


----------



## himzol (18/9/09)

Chappo said:


> Does anyone remember that in the 70's the world was convinced, by very smart people, that it was getting colder and we were heading into a new ice age? Same sheep different clothes, no?



Yes, and before that it was warming:  <_< 

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=DeEDAAA...;q=&f=false


----------



## Phoney (21/9/09)

Tony said:


> +1
> 
> I drive a V8 and happily laugh at people in a Prius as a roll on by.




Why? How much do you spend on a tank of fuel and how much mileage do you get out of that? Especially when petrol was over $1.75 a litre, which it will go back to as soon as the economy recovers.

Say what you like C02 emissions, I dont get why anyone would laugh at people driving cars with good fuel economy. Personally im jelous of prius owners, they use 3.9 L / 100km whereas I use more than double that in a 4 cylinder.


----------



## Nick JD (22/9/09)

Global warming has nothing to do with the globe getting warmer, and everything to do with global resource distribution and world peace. 

20% of the world use 80% of the resources. For China and India to live like us ... we need 4 more Earths. 

Calling those of us who use all the resources "greedy" doesn't work - capitalism embraces greed. 

Telling us we're "destroying nature" does.

Anyway, I'll grow my hops in an airconditioned greenhouse under lights running on petrol generators when all the hippies are driving electric. Oil ought to be cheap when no one wants it ... but yeah, when no one wants it it'll be cheap ... and everyone will want it.

We'll burn every last drop so long as capitalism exists. I suggest not buying beachside real estate.


----------



## marlow_coates (22/9/09)

Jonez,

You got a link to an article stating that the world is warming?
Also, since what time has it been warming?

I have read contradictory evidence, and am skeptical of anyone stating this as a fact without proper evidence.

Not trying to cut you down, I actually enjoy reading anything scientific on this topic, and would like to know where the info comes from.

In case you hadn't guessed, I am in the 'global warming is bullshit' camp, and it's neighbouring site the 'human CO2 production has negligible effect on world temperatures' tent.

Marlow


----------



## bum (22/9/09)

I'm lazy and stupid too.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (22/9/09)

It it wasn't for bum's interjections to lighten the mood I think I would go crazy in all the climate change threads that pop up here.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (22/9/09)

marlow_coates said:


> Jonez,
> 
> You got a link to an article stating that the world is warming?
> Also, since what time has it been warming?
> ...



Marlow,

posted this before, and I think I'll stop trying to convert people, but the worlds leading sciencits almost universally agree that the world is warming because of human activity. 

The intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) are a really brainy bunch, and in their 2007 report says with "90% certainty" that human activities are the cause of recent global warming. This position has been ratified and reiterated by a plethora of science academies and professional societies around the world.

Basically, because I lack the technical training to really understand the science, I am more than willing to believe what the IPCC says - its membership includes literally the most important, most widely published, field-leading scientists from a variety of disciplines/countries. I'm much more likely to believe them than the politicians, or my what mates down the pub say.


----------



## manticle (22/9/09)

JamesCraig said:


> On the other hand, taxing the production of the most basic necessity of life and paying farmers to permanently destroy productive agricultural land cant be a good thing can it?



I'm not quite sure what you mean.

By 'production of the most basic necessity of life' do you mean carbon? Water?

Also curious about the other part. Not saying you're incorrect - just not sure wha you're referring to. Who's paying who to destroy what and where?

As I said - the necessity to have less impact on the environment and the way governments handle it all are two separate things in my book.


----------



## marlow_coates (22/9/09)

JohnAnchovy,

Cheers for the link. 
Read the part 1 that says temps are rising, and hard to disagree with such a group of boffins as them.

It is just that I have read elsewhere, that in recent years (since 2001), satelite data has shown a plateau and small drop in global temperatures.
I read this in a talk given by Peter Ellis, who works with the Advisory Committee of the Carbon Sense Coalition. A group who seem to disagree with the global warming theory in recent years (and most especially the carbon links to any temperature trends).

Link to graph and other evidence they go by:

http://carbon-sense.com/category/the-evidence/

I know this is just another group of scientists stating their point, with data that supports their view, but like most of these groups they seem pretty convincing. And like you said, without being an expert in the field (I am not) you just have to pick who you trust the most.

Also, I agree when you said this topic comes up way too often, and I have not seen anyone converted to the other side of the argument from posts on here.

Cheers again for the link,

Marlow


----------



## jonocarroll (22/9/09)

JonnyAnchovy said:


> posted this before, and I think I'll stop trying to convert people, but the worlds leading sciencits almost universally agree that the world is warming because of human activity.
> 
> The intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) are a really brainy bunch, and in their 2007 report says with "90% certainty" that human activities are the cause of recent global warming. This position has been ratified and reiterated by a plethora of science academies and professional societies around the world.
> 
> Basically, because I lack the technical training to really understand the science, I am more than willing to believe what the IPCC says - its membership includes literally the most important, most widely published, field-leading scientists from a variety of disciplines/countries. I'm much more likely to believe them than the politicians, or my what mates down the pub say.


I guess, in essence, _this_ is what I mainly have a problem with. It doesn't help that I've just finished reading 'Bad Science' by Dr. Ben Goldacre. Great book btw.

The above attitude - that science is too hard, and therefore no-one properly understands it - is utter crap. It's the reason why we have to write 'popular science' news articles in baby-talk, despite the fact that the finance section of the newspaper may as well be in Greek for all I can understand. The finance section assumes that if I wanted to know what was in there, I would either already know how to read it, or would go and find out how. The science section assumes that this is impossible.

In a perfect world, the results of experiments, models, and research would be presented _prima facie_, and people who were interested in the topic would have the ability to read through and make their own conclusions. People with the required scientific background and interest could rebutt the conclusions drawn from the results and suggest changes to the methods. 

This is not a perfect world.

Instead we get a 'summary' of various research -- which, if you've ever read or written a scientific paper, will look pretty bogus -- from 'top scientists' because we're all too stupid to understand. There's no section of 'criticisms or other models'. For example, if the 'studies' were actually meant to reach a conclusion, and not just float political ideals, we would see another mass-publicised 'summary' which would include



> "some scientists are concerned about potential biases of the report's lead authors, who have been shown to favor their own research."





> "Arctic Sea ice is melting faster than predicted by climate models. Research conducted by the U.S.-based National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Snow and Ice Data Center demonstrates that the 18 models on which the IPCC has based its current recommendations could already be out of date, and that the retreat of the ice could already be 30 years ahead of the IPCC's worst case scenario."


 


> "In January 2005, Dr. Chris Landsea who was already an author on the 2001 report (TAR), withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report claiming that the portion of the IPCC to which he contributed had become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns. He published an open letter explaining why he was resigning and to "bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process". The conflict centers around Dr. Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to "recent
> hurricane activity", which Landsea described as a "misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC". He has stated that the process of producing the Fourth Assessment Report is "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and "scientifically unsound". Landsea writes that "the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author.""



Now, sure, most people who complain about something that the government has approved of are called 'conspiracy theorists' but I don't think it's too much to ask to have a real, actual, thorough investigation of the current data. Granted, this data is extremely complex (something that most people seem to ignore in assuming that a single variable is the alpha and omega of the equation, nicely summarised in the above book by the phrase 'I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that') but what we need is a review that _does_ take into account the actual errors and uncertainties, rather than dumbing it down to an opinion that is '90% confident'. This includes using the models that give the best fit to the observables, not the best fit to 'positive climate change' by people who work in... whatd'ya know - climate change - who are out of a job if it doesn't exist.

Hmmm... that turned into a nice rant, eh? My point is - *don't* go trusting these summary sources as gospel. Read through the summary, then have a look at those references. Then have a look at the criticisms of those references, and weed out anything that was done badly. If everyone did this, sure - we might not get a definitive answer about climate change (there may not be one to get) but at least people would STFU about something they have no actual grasp of and stop pretending to be a further source of authority. When enough people ignore the criticisms and re-hash the existing statements, soon enough the debatable fact is an unambiguous, undeniable, unanimous fact.

For hundeds of years, authority figures (yes, they too would have been called literally the most important, most widely published, field-leading scientists from a variety of disciplines/countries) said the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe. Look how well that turned out.



"marlow_coates" said:


> hard to disagree with such a group of boffins as them


No! It's NOT!!!


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (22/9/09)

marlow_coates said:


> I know this is just another group of scientists stating their point, with data that supports their view, but like most of these groups they seem pretty convincing.



I totally disagree. 

The carbon Sense Coalition are basically loosely-organized lobby group - not a scientific body (most of the members aren't even scientists!). Details about the membership of their advisory board can be found here. None of them are climatologists or climate scientists, and your man Ellis doesn't even appear to have a PhD. 

Compare this to the internationally recognised members of the IPCC who all have extensive research histories and countless publications in peer-reviewed journals.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (22/9/09)

QuantumBrewer said:


> I guess, in essence, _this_ is what I mainly have a problem with. It doesn't help that I've just finished reading 'Bad Science' by Dr. Ben Goldacre. Great book btw.
> 
> The above attitude - that science is too hard, and therefore no-one properly understands it - is utter crap.



QB, I'm not insinuating that, and I agree that people _should _actually look at the evidence themselves. However I think it is completely ridiculous for you to think that a layperson will be able to assess the validity of EXTREMELY complicated climate modelling techniques. We can look at the macro-detail, and assess for ourselves precisely how the project has been carried out, but we NEED to rely on executive summaries to explain the complexities for us, and to validate the modeling techniques used.


----------



## Adamt (22/9/09)

Sorry for just kinda jumping in here, but anyway.

An executive summary/abstract is not meant to detail the entire body of work, if it did, why would there be a body of work following it? The executive summary/abstract should summarise the work for a prospective reader so that they may make a fairly quick choice whether or not the work is relevant to their interests, and worth their time to read some or all of the main body.


----------



## altone (22/9/09)

phoneyhuh said:


> Why? How much do you spend on a tank of fuel and how much mileage do you get out of that? Especially when petrol was over $1.75 a litre, which it will go back to as soon as the economy recovers.
> 
> Say what you like C02 emissions, I dont get why anyone would laugh at people driving cars with good fuel economy. Personally im jelous of prius owners, they use 3.9 L / 100km whereas I use more than double that in a 4 cylinder.



Ok, I'm not going to buy into conspiracy theorists or whether global warming is "real" or not.
I do think we should all do our bit to conserve stuff - be it water, fuel, nature reserves or annoying possums.

Having said that, don't be envious of Prius drivers and the fuel economy - it's rubbish!!!
Driving round town, stop - start - they are great. 

I have the need to drive to Bendigo on a fairly regular basis (about 200k - mainly freeways)
Last visit, I used my mates Prius instead of my usual Camry wagon - it used more fuel than the Camry.
Going quick and up hills without much stop and start - the Prius is a flop.

City driving - it's terrific - country/long distance - not so good.

Now, back to pedalling this bike to generate more power, my PC screens getting dim :lol:


----------



## Tony (22/9/09)

phoneyhuh said:


> Why? How much do you spend on a tank of fuel and how much mileage do you get out of that? Especially when petrol was over $1.75 a litre, which it will go back to as soon as the economy recovers.
> 
> Say what you like C02 emissions, I dont get why anyone would laugh at people driving cars with good fuel economy. Personally im jelous of prius owners, they use 3.9 L / 100km whereas I use more than double that in a 4 cylinder.



It gets 9 to 9.5L/100K's. highway driving which is most of what it does.

I have had 2 different work cars in the last couple years. One was a 6cyl falcon that used the same and now a diesel 4WD monstosity that uses about 10.5L/100K,s

I will take the V8 any day. Although i do like the little diesel VW Golf Sports models. They go like the clappers and are great on fuel. Im not against fuel efficiency...... more that a bigger motor if set up corectly will use less fuel than most think due to not having to work as hard on the road. I just feather the pedal..... no harsh accelerating, and im out in front of cars off the lights. It just rolls up so easy. I dont have to work it at all. You hear the 4's reving away, drinking fuel under acceleration......... and yeah i laugh  

How much fuel will a prius use towing half a tonne of dirt in a trailer? My V8 only goes up 1 or 2L / 100k because it has the torque to handle it and i dont have to push down on the pedal much more than normal.

Will a prius tow half a tonne up hill?...... i doubt the VW would either.... so whats better for me?

Edit: speeling


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (22/9/09)

Adamt said:


> Sorry for just kinda jumping in here, but anyway.
> 
> An executive summary/abstract is not meant to detail the entire body of work, if it did, why would there be a body of work following it? The executive summary/abstract should summarise the work for a prospective reader so that they may make a fairly quick choice whether or not the work is relevant to their interests, and worth their time to read some or all of the main body.




Yup. I think that's pretty well taken for granted. 

What I'm getting at is I think QB is kidding himself if he thinks anyone, without any training in complex statistics and mathematical modelling techniques, can assess if someone's climate modelling methodology is solid or not. I struggle with long division FFS.

I wouldn't expect someone to be able to front up and perfectly understand complicated passages from Deleuze or Derrida without some basic background in continental philosophy, why should you expect me to be able to grasp the ins and outs of climate science without a basic background in science-based disciplines?


----------



## himzol (22/9/09)

Well I personally don't consider anybody smarter than me, they just know different stuff.

However on the whole Climate Change and specially CO2 emissions subject .. I'll keep my wood fired Pizzas and bubbly beer thanks just the same.

I got very Sceptical when they said that an element which is the basic building block of every life form on this planet (Carbon) was considered a polutant....started reading a lot, the more I read the less I believed in the whole "global Warming" thing, oops sorry the "concencus" these days is "Climate Change". I'm constantly told I shouldn't question those that know better, bullshit! The whole point of Science is to question and remain Sceptical.

As for Climate Change in general...Yes it does.


----------



## altone (22/9/09)

Tony said:


> It gets 9 to 9.5L/100K's. highway driving which is most of what it does.
> 
> I have had 2 different work cars in the last couple years. One was a 6cyl falcon that used the same and now a diesel 4WD monstosity that uses about 10.5L/100K,s
> 
> ...



Yep probably why I used more fuel with the Prius than my Camry on the Bendigo run - so gutless you tend to push 
harder on the accelerator to compensate.

You're 100% right on this, if you regularly tow a trailer or carry a load, the V8 can be economical.
If you potter round town and the heaviest thing you carry is a shopping bag then go the Prius or a little golf diesel.

Horses for courses.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (22/9/09)

himzo said:


> The whole point of Science is to question and remain Sceptical.



I would have thought the point of science was the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the world through observation and experimentation. 

rejecting a theory ratified by a huge number of experts and backed up by a large amount of observational evidence is't really being scientific now, is it?


----------



## himzol (22/9/09)

> I would have thought the point of science was the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the world through observation and experimentation.



Whish is questioning while remaining sceptical of the outcome....



> rejecting a theory ratified by a huge number of experts and backed up by a large amount of observational evidence is't really being scientific now, is it?



I haven't rejected the theory, I'm sceptical of it and Until I am convicedby the "observational evidance" I will question their findings. 

So far what I have read points to the warming period as having finished, even though the level of CO2 is increasing. 

Personally I hope they are right, the thought of a cooling planet scares me more than that of a warming one.

H.


----------



## bum (22/9/09)

So that thing about no one being smarter than you...


----------



## Tony (22/9/09)

boddingtons best said:


> You're 100% right on this, if you regularly tow a trailer or carry a load, the V8 can be economical.
> If you potter round town and the heaviest thing you carry is a shopping bag then go the Prius or a little golf diesel.
> 
> Horses for courses.



I will drink to that!

cheers


----------



## jonocarroll (22/9/09)

JonnyAnchovy said:


> QB, I'm not insinuating that, and I agree that people _should _actually look at the evidence themselves. However I think it is completely ridiculous for you to think that a layperson will be able to assess the validity of EXTREMELY complicated climate modelling techniques. We can look at the macro-detail, and assess for ourselves precisely how the project has been carried out, but we NEED to rely on executive summaries to explain the complexities for us, and to validate the modeling techniques used.


I don't understand this reasoning - lay people shouldn't be expected to understand the science, but they can be allowed to make sweeping remarks about the validity _en masse_? My problem is that while a summary is a nice thing to have, it must;

- address any shortcomings of the models used
- put into context the results and uncertainties therein
- consider the results in the context of the hypothesis of the study.

The report you quote fails on several counts here - results quoted without reference to what was actually measured, with which hypothesis, and lacking contextual uncertainties. Half of this isn't the researcher's fault - these studies are usually looking for 'is climate change happening', and a study like that tends to say little more than 'yes'. Conclusive? Hardly. The question "is climate change happening?" is almost useless in this context. 

The correct question should be "is the global climate (whatever that is defined to be) doing something abnormal?" This _is_ an enormously difficult question to pose - since we have no idea what 'normal' is for the climate. This is where the models come into play, but there's no mention of what these models are modeling, how good they are at it, their uniqueness, or whether or not they're just 'climate change' models made to predict sea-level rises 8 times out of 10. People seem quite happy to reason that if this is such a difficult question, then anyone who has an answer must have done a damn fine job of it. Bullshit.

It's certainly true that not everyone can understand the science, but I say if you can't swim, get out of the pool. Science doesn't have to be for everyone, but if someone can't understand that a particular model that predicts a 1m/century rise in sea-levels is based simply on volume of ice melting is perhaps, not particularly sophisticated, then I don't want them claiming to be an authority on the subject.



JonnyAnchovy said:


> What I'm getting at is I think QB is kidding himself if he thinks anyone, without any training in complex statistics and mathematical modelling techniques, can assess if someone's climate modelling methodology is solid or not. I struggle with long division FFS.
> 
> I wouldn't expect someone to be able to front up and perfectly understand complicated passages from Deleuze or Derrida without some basic background in continental philosophy, why should you expect me to be able to grasp the ins and outs of climate science without a basic background in science-based disciplines?


Exactly. People who don't understand enough about statistics and modeling shouldn't be making value judgments on research. Simple.

Using your analogy, If I was to flip through Dissemination should I then be qualified to tell someone else whether or not a particular piece properly addresses the mind/body dichotomy? I think not. Yet it's appropriate for people to see this review (even if they didn't read it), take it as gospel that the results are unambiguous, and pass on that conclusion to others.



himzo said:


> I'm constantly told I shouldn't question those that know better, bullshit! The whole point of Science is to question and remain Sceptical.


Well, not the point of, but the method by which it improves.


----------



## Jonez (22/9/09)

marlow_coates said:


> Jonez,
> 
> You got a link to an article stating that the world is warming?
> Also, since what time has it been warming?
> ...




marlow
I wasn't going to post anymore here as I see the thread got out of topic and I have no interest in arguing about climate change. I did not know there was this attitude towards the topic here or whether it had been discussed before. 

I only posted a link about hops quality being affected by a change in temperature (if you read the article well, it actually asks to "set aside the arguments over global warming and just assume it is not up for debate") and everybody run to hug their fermenters and overreacted. 

Honestly, there are thousand cases that prove the planet is getting warmer.(eg. seasonal changes affecting farming, ocean temperatures increased and resulting in record number storms per year, etc) All this corroborated by data. . You can be sceptic about humans being responsible but can't deny what is evident. I can't remember when was last time I met someone that believes the average temperature is not increasing. So I did not think I needed to show you data to talk about this. Anyway, I am sorry to create such a stress.

Can I just recall this post and we all forget we had this discussion?


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (22/9/09)

QuantumBrewer said:


> I don't understand this reasoning - lay people shouldn't be expected to understand the science, but they can be allowed to make sweeping remarks about the validity _en masse_?



I think I must have been a little unclear - I see the role of bodies like the IPCC as necessary for advising policymakers and the public about these issues. They need to synthesise masses of highly technical research into a form we can understand and use. I mean, the whole academy (sciences AND humanities) is structured around this division of intellectual labour - we can't all assess the validity of research techniques and findings in disciplines we're not familiar with - that's what peer-review processes are for. 


It sounds like you're advocating a technocracy - where all decisions related to the climate are left to climate experts - to those capable of understanding the ins and outs of the science. This is obviously ridiculous for an issue like climate change, due to its entangement with economics, politics, ecology, diasporas, epidemiology, ethics, etc. etc. etc. no one person can assess all that shit - we need to rely on the opinion of experts, who have the skills to look at all the evidence available and make recommendations, which we in turn can vote on. 




QuantumBrewer said:


> My problem is that while a summary is a nice thing to have, it must;
> 
> - address any shortcomings of the models used
> - put into context the results and uncertainties therein
> ...



The report I linked to was a synthesis report, designed for plebs like me, and written in uber-easy to understand language. If you look at the IPCC publications form the last few years here, you'll find a WEALTH (hundreds, maybe thousands of pages) of technical data, explanations of the modelling techniques used, methodology reports, technical papers etc. etc. Geek-out 'till your heart's content.




QuantumBrewer said:


> these studies are usually looking for 'is climate change happening', and a study like that tends to say little more than 'yes'. Conclusive? Hardly. The question "is climate change happening?" is almost useless in this context.



Totally Agree, but the IPCC doesn't ask the obviously banal question 'is climate change happening'? They are interested at looking at the CAUSES and EFFECTS of climate change. Maybe back in the 90's people were asking "is it happening", now the question is "is it anthropogenic?" (to which the world's leading scientists answer a resounding "yes"),"What are the concequences of climate change?" and "what can we to to intervene?"


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (22/9/09)

Jonez said:


> I am sorry to create such a stress.
> 
> Can I just recall this post and we all forget we had this discussion?



No Stress man, and as you can see no personal mudslinging going on - just a good ol' debate. Marketplace of ideas and all that... 

Once I get my keg system set up by the end of the month you guys can all come over and we can all hug and be friends. I'll cook lentils with solar energy for everyone and tony can do burnouts for our entertainment in his V8.

w00t.


----------



## himzol (23/9/09)

> So that thing about no one being smarter than you...



I didn't say they weren't smarter, I said I didn't consider them smarter...they just know different things.

they may have a lot of knowledge in one area.... lets say - computer modeling, can they rebuild a motor cycle engine that their mate insists on red lining  or for that matter a brew a decent beer .. Just because someone has an alphabet following thier name doesn't mean they know how to change a tap washer..



> No Stress man, and as you can see no personal mudslinging going on - just a good ol' debate. Marketplace of ideas and all that...
> 
> Once I get my keg system set up by the end of the month you guys can all come over and we can all hug and be friends. I'll cook lentils with solar energy for everyone and tony can do burnouts for our entertainment in his V8.
> 
> w00t.



Ohhh, I hate lentils, can you do a solar BBQ


----------



## Pennywise (23/9/09)

himzo said:


> Well I personally don't consider anybody smarter than me, they just know different stuff.



Well said


----------



## marlow_coates (23/9/09)

Geez, you go away for the night, and miss out on a tonne of responses :icon_cheers: . Ok,

Jonez, don't stress about the line of this thread. 
Arguments / rational discussions like this tend to take place regularly. Also, the reason I asked for any evidence is because the idea the world is warming is, IMHO, not a fact. There is some recent evidence to say that it is now been cooling for several years (see link I added). This flies in the face of CO2 causing global warming, as CO2 continues to rise while, if this evidence is correct, temperatures are actually dropping.
I am not saying the link is conclusive proof, but it made me skeptical, and was really just interested.

QB, when I said it was hard to disagree with boffins such as them, I meant that it is hard to prove them wrong without my own analysis of complex data, and therefore can't say conclusively either way.
They are a respected group of scientists (from what I can gather) and it would be foolish IMO to just say they are wrong without conclusive counterevidence of reasonable quality.

JohnAnchovy, Mr Ellis does not have a PhD, and that does not bother me at all. His talk was well written and researched with interesting historical information on the development of global climate knowledge, and he made some powerful arguments against the current theory of global warming.

The IPCC report is not 100% conclusive, and I will be skeptical of its findings for now due to any political agenda.

Marlow


----------



## Jonez (23/9/09)

marlow_coates said:


> Jonez, don't stress about the line of this thread.
> Arguments / rational discussions like this tend to take place regularly. Also, the reason I asked for any evidence is because the idea the world is warming is, IMHO, not a fact. There is some recent evidence to say that it is now been cooling for several years (see link I added). This flies in the face of CO2 causing global warming, as CO2 continues to rise while, if this evidence is correct, temperatures are actually dropping.
> I am not saying the link is conclusive proof, but it made me skeptical, and was really just interested.
> ...
> ...




Marlow,

I just had a look at your link, a minute ago. I don't have the time to read it all right now, but from the main page I can read they admit there exists a "current global warming" that is what I had said. I don't have arguments to say what the causes are or whether we are guilty, or whether the government should do this or that, or ban homebrewers 

What I do believe is: the period of warming is being more severe than before (that is, recent times. I am not going back to the dinosaurs era)

So with all this in mind, I was curious about the effects of this in hops. It is evident that it affects other crops.
Anyway, I'll drop it there.

JOnez


----------



## marlow_coates (23/9/09)

Jonez, 

If you do have the time to read a little more of the page (and it is in interesting read), they say that there has been a period of global warming up until 2001, after which global temperatures have been dropping.

They agree that the planet has been warming, but only until 2001. 
But from the graph of temperature readings taken from a satelite system (apparently quite accurate but who knows), it appears that this warming period is over and begining to reverse.
This would mean that global warming is not currently occuring (if the evidence is correct of course, and I am aware there is evidence from other sources that contradicts this)

This is the basis of why I asked, and why I added the information I had read.

I don't disagree with the term global warming, as it obviously happens. But so does global cooling, and if we are at the start of a global cooling cycle then it really debunks all the political agenda targeted at reducing emmisions etc...

I don't believe human activity is reponsible for the temperature variations around the globe either.

Again, I don't know any of this for sure, and I am only going off what information I have read (the reason I like these posts and hearing other sides of the story), so all this is really just my opinion.

Marlow


----------



## bum (23/9/09)

himzo said:


> I didn't say they weren't smarter, I said I didn't consider them smarter...they just know different things.
> 
> they may have a lot of knowledge in one area.... lets say - computer modeling, can they rebuild a motor cycle engine that their mate insists on red lining  or for that matter a brew a decent beer .. Just because someone has an alphabet following thier name doesn't mean they know how to change a tap washer..



They can probably express themselves clearly, without saying contradictory things that make them seem a bit daft.

I'll take the bait, though. I'll put it to you that whatever it is they earned their "alphabet" in is a more useful (and difficult to master) skill than the changing of a tap washer.


----------



## hairyson (23/9/09)

marlow_coates said:


> Jonez,
> 
> If you do have the time to read a little more of the page (and it is in interesting read), they say that there has been a period of global warming up until 2001, after which global temperatures have been dropping.
> 
> ...


Some of these arguments deliberately mis-represent data. Natural systems have significant variability on small timescales (look at a plot of temperature over a 48 hour period), but we need to understand longer-term trends. The mean global temperature has been on a rising trend since the 1950s. Within that larger trend are of course periods where the year-on-year trend was reversed (i.e. there was a mini cooling trend). Climatic events like El Nino and La Nina produce such short term affects. In 1998, an El Nino event caused the hottest recorded temperatures globally (maybe even the hottest for over 100,000 years? someone may correct me here). Two recent La Nina (cooling) events in 2007 and 2008 have caused recent cooling. If you were to only view this period (1998--present) in a temperature plot vs time such as this one http://carbon-sense.com/2009/09/19/temp-vs-co2 of course you'd think there is a cooling trend. Instead perhaps look at plots over a longer term, such as the ones at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/, and you get a feel for how there can be these short-term cooling trends within a longer-term trend.


----------



## LLoyd (23/9/09)

Don't apologise QB. I thought you were sticking to your principles and simply questioning my questioning. No harm it that.


----------



## Jonez (23/9/09)

glaab said:


> *Mars*
> 
> The planet Mars is also exhibiting a warming trend. A 2007 National Geographic article states: "*Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a naturaland not a human-inducedcause. **Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun*. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said._"_



Very interesting. That will be a good argument to prove the warming is not man made. On the other hand, they admit the planets are warming. This contradicts the articles on Marlow's link where they say there has been a cooling since 2001.


----------



## Leigh (23/9/09)

JonnyAnchovy said:


> I would have thought the point of science was the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the world through observation and experimentation.
> 
> rejecting a theory ratified by a huge number of experts and backed up by a large amount of observational evidence is't really being scientific now, is it?



But what are they comparing the observations against? Climate is a function of geological time. Global Warming is premised on a graph that was produced in the 80's that even the IPCC has admitted is statistically incorrect (remember the hockey stick?) as it accumalates multiple datasets and extrpolates outside of the measured range.

Al Gore in his mocumentary included the hockey stick...first year stats tells us you never draw a relationship through multiple sets of data (tree rings, ice cores, thremometre measurements, satellite measurements, sediments etc). First year stats also tells us that your accuracy gets worse outside of the region of the primary dataset...

So what we have is a loose relationship between all of these parameters over the last 30-100 years between "actual" measurements and other data, all plotted on one graph, with one line, and worse, extrapolated outside the range for 1 to 10,000 years (depending on which version you look at). To make matters worse, it is plotted against a "normalised" year of 1900, which on closer analysis is one of the best years to give the biggest difference in apparent temperature today!

Plot each dataset individually (as stats tells you that you must), and perform a sensitivity analysis (i.e. normalised to a few different years) and you get a very different result. This is the graph in the great swindle movie...in that one the normalised year was chosen to show the least difference between 1900 and today...

So which is more right? 

As to the IPCC. I always find it amusing that scientists from companies like Exxon are accused of having an agenda, but apparently the paid members of the IPCC don't...LMAO


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (23/9/09)

Leigh said:


> As to the IPCC. I always find it amusing that scientists from companies like Exxon are accused of having an agenda, but apparently the paid members of the IPCC don't...LMAO



Exxon is a business with a vested interests, the IPCC is a scientific body.


----------



## Leigh (23/9/09)

JonnyAnchovy said:


> Exxon is a business with a vested interests, the IPCC is a scientific body.



So what exactly constitutes a scientific body? 

And why do you assume that a scientific body also does not have a vested interest? 

Would be interesting for the government funded scientists on the IPCC to come out and say "climate change doesn't exist" and do themselves out of a job?


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (23/9/09)

QuantumBrewer said:


> Scientific theories work like this: If it explains your data, then it's a good theory. If you can find a single example where it doesn't work when it should - either you qualify where and when the theory can and can't be used, or you throw it out like yesterdays rubbish and start again. If the arguments from the dissidents can't be explained away using the theory/models, then the theory/models is/are useless. Pretending that the dissidents don't count just hides the problem.



This makes it obvious you're totally missing my point. I think we're basically arguing along the same lines - for the need for solid science, rigorously critiqued, analyzed, tested, adjusted and argued. 

What I'm arguing is that:

a) the members of the IPCC are field leading scientists who don't cling to a any quasi-religious "humans, bad. climate hotter" mantra. They base their opinion and recommendations on rigorously scrutinized science. they adapt their models and recomendations based on this science.

B) the science involved in climate modeling is ******* difficult. I'm relatively stupid. I lack even the most basic skills needed for assessing if a certain methodology or model is good or bad science.

c) This means I have to defer to someone (or preferably a group of people, who cover the various disciplinary niches necessary for coping with something as big as "climate") who CAN assess the validity of the methodologies and models used.

d) While it would be nice to live in a wonderful utopia where we have the time, funding and support to all become well-versed across a range of scientific and arts disciplines, this isn't pragmatically possible. This is why we have a division of intellectual labor. 

e) for the purpose of policy formation, especially on urgent issues, we sometimes have to just have to rely on whatever the scientific community is telling us the most complete theory to date.



I'm getting a bit bored of this now. I need to start hitting people up for advice on the design and setup of a miracle box party-rig to cope with all this hot weather we've been having lately.....

edit: crap. b ) was replaced by an emoticon again. Told you I'm not all that bright.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (23/9/09)

Leigh said:


> So what exactly constitutes a scientific body?




a professional organization dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. NOT a company dedicate to the persuit of a profit.




Leigh said:


> And why do you assume that a scientific body also does not have a vested interest?



I don't believe in objectivity at all, in any context, I think everything is always already contigent, ideological and political, but for the sake of not upening up a whole new can of worms - I wanted to keep it simple, and keep the argument in a positivist vein. 

lets not get into ******* ontology and epistemology - at least no until I get myself my afternoon coffee!


----------



## OzMick (23/9/09)

glaab said:


> Some people just need something to worry about. I read a few weeks back that of 3000 people surveyed recently over 800 believed the Millenium bug was a real threat. No surprise there but in 1999 the number was around 70% so some are lying or forgot their stance. The interesting bit was that of the 800, over 700 also believed in "global warming" when only about 50% of the general pop believes in it. If I can find the report I'll post it here, it was from some USA Uni. I never believed in either but the same guys I know who preached about the Millenium bug are now on the global warming bandwagon. No death threats please,...



Sorry, but the Millenium Bug is/was very real, which was the reason that so much work *could* be (and was) done behind the scenes to ensure that things would be fine the next day (in vast contrast to the global warming theory, where everything is up for debate, and not arguing for or against in this post, just killing off some FUD). In most circumstances it wouldn't have done anything in any case, but when you see news items such as this http://www.channelweb.co.uk/crn/comment/22...ds-test-4807172 that indicate how much big business still relies upon a 50 year old programming language, you want to be very sure that banks aren't cocking up your transactions. Hardly apocalyptic, but if banks had beggared up everything for even a few hours it would have been an absolute bitch to recover from. Likewise, if a power plant had control valves tied up to open or close based upon time of day for peak/offpeak demand things could have gone screwy resulting in brownouts/blackouts potentially. Maybe not, but not impossible.


----------



## jonocarroll (23/9/09)

If that's your view, then so be it. The view taken (I'm going to speak for a few people here, apologies if this is inconsistent with your actual view) by the people arguing against you is;

-- the IPCC report _*was done poorly*_ and proper scrutiny has _*not*_ been applied, yet you seem to be trying to defend their claims to the nth degree. You *can't* defer the criticisms of a piece of science yet at the same time defend it as an authoritative source.

-- the opposing views to the IPCC report have all but been swept under the rug (okay, this one's probably the media's fault).

-- if you don't understand the scientific methodologies used, you can't critique them. Just as you have deferred your requirement to understand the science (by finding what you deem to be an appropriate authoritative source) you must also defer your requirement to critique that source (by finding an equally appropriate counter source).

In the end, it's not really fair for you to say you have an opinion of the interpretations and conclusions of the research any more than it's fair to have an opinion on whether or not you have a particular viral infection. Doctors are trained to be able to interpret those results. Scientists are trained to interpret the scientific results. This analogy is rather apt, since I have the same annoyance at lay people who do try to interpret medical results. In that case, you end up with (as an example from 'Bad Science') the british measles-mumps-rubella-vaccination-causes-autism scare. In this case, you end up with the worldwide global-warming-is-coming-to-kill-your-family-and-your-beloved-childhood-pets scare. In both cases, this is distinct from what the 'truth' may be, and what the research predicts (these two may indeed be separate statements).

We can certainly end this here. Hopefully it has been a useful discussion on the interpretation of scientific research. 

Wait, weren't we talking about hops?


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (23/9/09)

QuantumBrewer said:


> -- if you don't understand the scientific methodologies used, you can't critique them. Just as you have deferred your requirement to understand the science (by finding what you deem to be an appropriate authoritative source) you must also defer your requirement to critique that source (by finding an equally appropriate counter source).



That's the point. I've explicitly said I'm not critiquing the methodologies - I'm relying on what I thought was a general consensus in the scientific community, and on the findings of a group of very respected real scientists; the IPCC.

anyhoo - been a good day of chatting, and a great way to procrastinate and avoid a mountain of work I've had building up.

now about that miracle box chiller..... want to put some of your science training to work in designing one for me QB?


----------



## jonocarroll (23/9/09)

Oh, one more point, since it's likely to come up in a reply;

You might say that we 'need' the watered-down science for the policymakers. I say bollocks to that. If the policymakers don't understand the science properly, they stuff up the policy. Clearly, the policymakers have no sense of scientific rigor. Ideally, if they couldn't understand it, the policymakers would obtain the services of unbiased reseachers to compile a complete review of the thing they are making policy for (criticism of the IPCC report states that this _didn't happen_ and authors gave preferential treatment to their own work). But to do this, the policymakers need to understand whether or not the researchers they have hired are able to/have done an unbiased, fair study (people gladly accepted the IPCC report, with no mention of the criticisms). The only way around that is to hire another group of researchers to find out if the first group did an unbiased study... and so on ad infinitum.

The alternative would be to train scientists on policy making. Sure, this requires a lot of work too, but is less dependent on tough statistics (which can throw the results completely) and (I suppose) more dependent on legal training and the like that have well-defined methods. If you stuff up the policy, you can go back and change it. If you stuff up the statistics, people believe the results anyway.


----------



## jonocarroll (23/9/09)

JonnyAnchovy said:


> That's the point. I've explicitly said I'm not critiquing the methodologies - I'm relying on what I thought was a general consensus in the scientific community, and on the findings of a group of very respected real scientists; the IPCC.


Hopefully you now realise that it's not quite so much of a consensus as the media would like you to believe. Maybe all of the criticisms can be explained away be the science. Maybe they can't. That's not for you and I to worry about.



JonnyAnchovy said:


> now about that miracle box chiller..... want to put some of your science training to work in designing one for me QB?


Wasn't someone selling these recently?

Depends how efficient you want it to be. Small esky + 3m of beer line + bag of ice will do it.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (23/9/09)

QuantumBrewer said:


> The alternative would be to train scientists on policy making.



I'm guessing you already know this, but Einstein was actually offered the job of president of Israel sometime early on in the game (early 50's I think.....can't find it on wiki).

Wonder what the world would have looked like today if he accepted......


----------



## Brewer_010 (23/9/09)

We should all be tending to believe the science given our hobby is based on it. And give the planet the benefit of the doubt. It is pretty irrelevant whether we caused global warming it or not, we know burning oil and coal is no good, so let's change. 

This article is from New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2032...r-drinkers.html about the saaz growing area.

The vast majority of science suggests that the planet is warming, and thus having an effect on these hop growing regions. 

So "Stop Global Warming or Kiss Your Saaz Goodbye"!

Save the polar bear or the mighty Saaz hop?? I'll be doing my bit to save the saaz (and the Hallertau)


----------



## himzol (23/9/09)

bum said:


> They can probably express themselves clearly, without saying contradictory things that make them seem a bit daft.



If haven't explained my self clearly, and you think me daft...so be it.



> I'll take the bait, though.


If it seems I was baiting anybody, then I apologise, this was not the intent. The intent was to explain that knowledge in a specified area of expertise does not make you smarter than anybody else, who may have knowledge in another area, which in it's own way is just as usefull



> I'll put it to you that whatever it is they earned their "alphabet" in is a more useful (and difficult to master) skill than the changing of a tap washer.


No disagreement on the difficulty...how usefull it is depends on the application.

As an example, my qualifications were next to useless to me or anybody else for a period of about ten years while I was in managment..the skills I had learned aquireing those letters behind my name, were not being applied.

Himzo.


----------

