News Analysis by Kip Hansen
Oops, can I say that here? BS? Oh, pretend it means “Barley Science.”
It does, sort of, especially in this instance. You see, it isn’t really science. It is an even worse word than “BS” — it’s the “P-word”. Luckily, I am not shy about using the P-word — so if you are a snowflake, cover your eyes. It Is Propaganda.
Our friend Wills E. covered this story originally here in his piece: “Climate Beer Goggles” our ever-striving editor, Anthony Watts followed up with “Climate Change to cause “dramatic” beer shortages”, and two days later, our 3-hole batter , Eric Worrall, rounded off the story with “Brewers Strike Back at Fake “End of Beer” Climate Change News”. Today, I’m the cleanup hitter on this story.
Beer, apparently, is Big News. It is also very Big Business: over $111 Billion in the United States alone 2017.
In the United Kingdom, the land from whence this story emerges, there are 2,250 active beer/ale breweries.
The original paper was: “Decreases in global beer supply due to extreme drought and heat” by Wei Xie et al. and published in the journal Nature Plants. Among the authors is Dabo Guan.
Ah, but you see, Dabo Guan has been talking out of school — that would be the University of East Anglia — to a journalist from the New York Times, and has let the proverbial cat out of the bag.
James Gorman, on the New York Times’climate beat, writing in their little climate alarm newsletter Climate Fwd:, interviews Dabo Guan and shares the scoop with us:
“Some stories just jump right out at you. When I saw in an email from a scientific journal that they would be publishing an article titled, “Decreases in global beer supply due to extreme drought and heat,” I first thought, “Oh no!” Nobody wants a beer shortage.
Then, I thought, wait a minute, if nobody wants a beer shortage, this is going to really affect views on the importance of climate change. Then I turned to the report itself and the job of interviewing one of the authors. I assumed that the scientist, like the paper, would be, if you’ll excuse the pun, rather dry.
Not so. The scientists were way ahead of me. They had already calculated the appeal of their study. They had talked, over beer, of course, about researching the effect of extreme climate events on what they called “luxury essentials.” Their idea was that the people in rich countries might, rightly, think that possible food shortages and severe economic dislocation would have the greatest impact on the poorest people and nations. They might think that their own lives would not be seriously disturbed.
But, if a beloved alcoholic beverage were at risk, that might catch the attention of the residents of relatively rich countries like the United States and Britain. They might not starve, but sports fans do not live by pizza alone.
So the researchers chose to look at what droughts and heat caused by a changing climate would do to barley, which is a main ingredient of most beers, and which is sensitive to heat and drought. The results were as they expected. Extreme climate events would hurt the barley supply, which would raise beer prices and cause shortages.
Dabo Guan, the researcher I spoke to, talked about the dread possibility of not having a pint at hand when you were watching football. I think, since he is at the University of East Anglia, he may have meant soccer. But the principle is the same, whatever kind of ball is involved.”
I did feel a bit as if I had been hooked by publicity-savvy researchers. But the analysis made sense and checked out with another expert, so it was still a good story.”
The story, manufactured based solely on “IPCC projections” of possible future droughts and heat waves was a propaganda stunt from the beginning. Propaganda hook discussed first, “study” done to fit the desired propaganda narrative. The authors set out to create a paper that they hoped would “catch the attention of the residents of relatively rich countries” and thus encourage them to support the climate policies promoted by the IPCC (and apparently, the University of East Anglia).
I leave it to readers to decide if they think that this is a form of scientific misconduct.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
I have been saying on these digital pages for years that many Climate Science stories and journal articles are written primarily as propaganda. Various Junior Defenders of Climate Science always pile on in comments with accusations of groundless charges being made without any proof. Maybe these people will wake up and see the sunset of science in this little example.
My thanks to Jim Gorman of the New York Times for the details.
Definiton: “Hook” in Journalism: All good stories need a hook—or an interesting angle early in the story—that draws the reader in. In journalism, your hook is what makes the story relevant and grabs the attention of the reader long enough to get them to keep reading.
Competing Interests: The author is a teetotaler and does not drink beer or any other alcoholic beverages, thus has no interests competing with the beer industry.
# # # # #
I look forward to the paper: ‘decreases in global beer supply due to prohibition of Glyphosate’.
That would put the fox among the chickens of the next ‘green’ scare.
dont hold your breath matey
neither barley OR wheat are RR crops…yet
in spite of “mysterious escapes of wheat in ussa” as usual
and frankly with the amount of grog imbibed too often by too many and the family violence/car smashes etc following some drinkers abuse,
it may well be a blessing
and no im NOT saying its just hopheads alone who cant handle their grog.
and no I’m not teetotal but I admit I drink rarely and moderately.
You’re more likely (hah!) to see ‘Huge increase in profits at biochem companies which had to compete with out of patent Glyphosate’.
JF
Don’t think glyphosate can be used on barley.
What these scientists fail to realize, given their complete disconnect with business, economics, and culture, is that the wealthy are already big fans of global warming hysteria because it keeps the little people down, which they are not .. and besides, no matter how much it costs to grow barley, the rich can always afford their beer, let alone their champaign and their $2 thousand a bottle wines in their expansive climate controlled (ha!) wine cellars.
The middle class folk in developed nations can always afford to buy beer too, inasmuch as it is the cheapest buzz available in life. Look at what people pay today for imported and craft brewed beer in the grocery stores as compared to basic American mass produced bland lite beer … let alone what they pay for it in bars and in sports stadiums. Whatever it costs to produce barley – a few cents a pint of beer – and you could increase it by a factor of ten and most consumers would never notice the difference.
Kip
So you’re not in the pay of ‘Big Beer’ then. 🙂
Good catch.
However in the UK soccer is routinely referred to as ‘football’ i.e. a game exclusively played with the foot (except for the goalie of course).
American football seems a strange interpretation of Rugby, but in Rugby the ball can only be passed from the hands backwards, with one exception, a drop kick, when the ball is dropped from the hands and kicked as it touches the ground.
Oddly, it’s still referred to as football occasionally (the RFU is the Rugby Football Union).
No. Entirely wrong. The ball may be kicked forward at any time without the drop kick being used BUT
1/. No player in front of a team mate who does this may take part in any play whatsoever until the player who has made the kick has overtaken him on the field. He is ‘off side’ until then.
2/. Should the ball not touch the ground before going ‘out of play’ or ‘in touch’ the kick is invalid, if it took place outside the most defensive quarter of the field – the last 25 yards of the pitch towards the goal line. Instead of a throw in where it cross the touch line, it will be a scrum back where it was kicked.
3/. The drop kick is only used on two occasions. It is used to restart the game after either a try (goal), or the ball going out of play behind the goal line and play area behind the goal, or it may be used to score a goal This is not a high scoring goal and is usually reserved for tight games where teh opponents defence is so good that a try – carrying the ball across the opponents goal line and touching it down, is almost impossible.
4/. A penalty kick in which the ball may go directly to touch, or in fact over the goal is allowed from anywhere. And is awarded in cases of rule infringement of a moderate nature.
5/. A free kick, which cannot be used to score a goal; or go directly to touch is awarded in some other cases.
6/. Dribbling the ball on the ground by repeated kicking is perfectly legal provided it does not go to a player in front of you. However due to the ball shape it is very hard to control.
Kicking, in Rugby, unless from a penalty, almost always results in loss of possession of the ball, so its use is limited to desperate defence where the yards gained are worth the loss of possession, or because the defence is to tight that the only way past it is over it, either to score a field goal via the drop kick, or because you have an olympic sprinter who can run as fast as you can kick, and who starts behind you and ends up catching the falling ball deep in enemy territory. If he can stay on his feet long enough to allow your thugs – the forwards – to catch up and support him, you may retain possession of the ball.
If he becomes isolated and thrown down however, the other team will get a free penalty kick themselves or gain possession as you are not allowed to retain possession on the ground. Once you are on your knees or lower, unless you can get up again immediately you are out of the game until you stand up. This is as much a safety rules as anything.
Games in very wet conditions where running forwards against opposition gets very tiring are often characterised by a series of kicks from one team to the other as if a mistake is made and possession retained its a lot easier way to make up 40 yards. than stumbling forward in the mud.
Rugby is a curious game with more tactics than soccer, and its less likely to end in a goalless draw. since penalties within 50 meters of the opponents goal line can nearly always be kicked into scoring penalty goals.
No goalkeeper can defend a goal that starts 3 meters above ground level!
Defending against the ‘try’ – a touch down over the goal line – is much more possible. But here the ‘goal’ is 50 meters wide, so no goalkeeper exists.
All games produce tactics appropriate to the rules. Rugby tactics are finely tuned in terms of risk/reward ratios. High risk strategies carry high rewards and high penalties for failure sometimes.
Kicking in open play is high risk. Put it can put players well behind the opponents defence line in possession of the ball. That’s why it isn’t the normal play, but it is permissible and its done a lot.
Of course thsi has nothing whatsoever to do with climate, but a lot to do with beer, which is de rigeur at any Rugby match.
I agreed with all that until the last sentence.
At Kingsholm cider is de rigeur at any Rugby match.
My bad. Of course apple growing will be affected by Climate Change too.
All of you soccer and rugby fanatics need to chill out, as Kip claims to be the clean-up hitter, which is baseball. And, as the clean-up hitter is supposed to do, Kip has hit a home run.
Ron ==> Thanks — I never hit on homerun on the baseball diamond, happy to get credit here.
See all that in action next weekend when Allblacks (NZ) take on Australia at Nissan Stadium in Japan! Off the scale . . .
I prefer cricket. The rules are much simpler.
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that’s in the side that’s in goes out, and when he’s out he comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out. When they are all out, the side that’s out comes in and the side that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.
Anybody else has a vote for footy?
SHOOT. ME. NOW.
Makes offside look trivial.
Cricket, with cucumber sandwiches, breaks for inclement weather, and all that, is a different cup of tea.
And after 5 days the match end in a tie.
Cricket is then most assuredly the most popular activity of all mankind: Continually the old in-out in-out…
I always thought that limeys (East Anglia!) liked warm beer.
Tepid Ale, cold beer at the Caxton Gibbet.
Rugby and football (soccer in the USA) are derivatives of the same game, the origin of which goes back hundreds of years.
The games was named bu the English aristocracy, who didn’t play it, because it was payed on foot rather than on horseback as all their sports were.
Incidentally, only the in the USA is football called soccer. The rest of the world calls it football.
Once again, America leads the way forward in naming sports 😜.
Cricket, and it’s cousin Baseball, are two games the world needs much more of.
Hang on, always been Soccer in New Zealand and Australia except recently the younger generation use both names.
Reminds me of a decade or so ago when my work sent me to Calgary CA for some training.
The hotel bar had a football game on. Lots of people were excited about it, something called “The Grey Cup”. I had no clue it was the Canadian Football League’s equivalent of “The Super Bowl”.
I knew there was such a thing as “Canadian Football” but I’d never seen and didn’t expect it to be so different.
I didn’t know what was going on. It seemed that added 30 yrds (meters?) to the field, 10 to each end zone and 10 in the middle.
It also seemed that each team had only 3 downs to get a first down. (Or maybe it was a touchdown?)
Then, when the ball was hiked, EVERYBODY went downfield for a pass.
(I know I could look up the rules but I’m attempting to communicate how strange it was to me at time.)
But everybody at the bar had a beer.
At least something was normal to someone who would rather have been home with his family.
I wish global warming was true and it was destroying the beer industry…and the entire alcohol industry.
Bill Hicks was right about booze when he said of alcohol advertising (as broadcast in between war on drug ads during the Reagan era),
“Drink beer, drink beer, drink beer!
Why?
“Because it makes you slow, stupid and docile — and that’s the way we like you!”
Au contraire dear fellow. Not drinking at all makes you slow, stupid and docile. And pathetic.
Tell that to teetotaler Kip – who seems to be very bright and well informed. 🙂
Both my parents were alcoholics, incidentally, and made all their children suffer tremendously as a consequence of their soul-destroying vice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHsNYu6jB6Y
(adult language warning!)
Khwarizmi
There is such a thing as responsible drinking.
Most who enjoy alcohol are entirely responsible. Alcoholics are in the minority.
There are too many minority groups running the western world without adding yet another cause by which we must all judge ourselves.
Remember what happened in the USA during the Prohibition period.
People kept drinking and the gangsters profited.
Dear HotScot,
I’m not in favor of banning anything that informed adults wish to put into their own bodies – not even heroin. But I am in favor of better education on medicine, biology, and the consequences of bad drug decisions. (Alcohol is a drug: a very dangerous and debilitating one – let’s not kid ourselves)
In fact, I’ve actually been drunk a few times myself during my life – believe it or not!
(NAC is the best antidote to such stupidity, btw – don’t believe me; try it) 🙂
I totally respect teetotallers.
Alcohol is a dangerous addictive drug, and some people are just unable to use it sensibly. And they have no option but to not drink.
Statistically alcohol is far far more dangerous than heroin.
Others consider – and its a view that I almost hold myself – that the game is not worth the candle. The day after is worse than the pleasure of the night before. Even moderate drinking makes you dull the next morning.
On the other hand alcohol consumption is one of the two main ways that civilisation has managed to avoid the penalties of drinking contaminated water. Small beer is alcoholised water, and in times past everyone in Europe drank alcohol in small quantities all the time to prevent stomach based infections. The other is boiling it to make e.g. tea. Which is overwhelmingly the Asian prophylactic.
So there are arguments every which way.
“Moderation in all things” is the watchword and if you can/t be moderate, abstain.
Leo Smith
Absolutely.
Those with drinking problems should be judging themselves based on responsible drinkers. The rest of society shouldn’t be forced to change because a minority group finds it difficult to control their behaviour.
But that is most certainly the policy of the left.
Nor am I having a go at Khwarizmi. He/she is entitled to his/her opinions and knows better than most the misery alcohol can cause, but it is a minority problem.
Leo Smith – October 19, 2018 at 1:52 am
Brilliant, Leo, a truly brilliant mindset.
So you ”totally respect” all of the religious fanatics around the world, ESPECIALLY the Muslim “suicide bombers” ….. and all members of the different TERRORIST organizations that have been and are raping, beheading, bombing and shooting innocent people where ever they find them.
There’s not much worse than a “reformed” drunk telling others how they should live their life.
@ Samuel C Cogar “totally respect teetotallers” vs. “”totally respect” all of the religious fanatics…raping, beheading, bombing and shooting innocent” How did you even begin to compare the two? One is a self imposed choice that affects nobody. The other affects outsider in an attempt to forward the fanatics beliefs on others. You’ve comparison is apples to space craft.
The Cogar makes these leaps of illogic on a regular basis, but from time to time he actually makes sense. This, however, is not one of those times. 🙂
The thing that purifies the water in making beer (and liquor) is boiling the water in the process the alcohol and spices (notably hops) act as preservatives after the brewing. Beer happens to also be a good source of high GI carbs. And making beer out of the grain is less wasteful than it going to rot… this last _was_ a major consideration back when beer was ‘invented’.
(Wine, on the other hand, being the result of the crop rotting. And the result being distilation to keep the wine from rotting _too much_. Another option was the Methodist invention of grape juice pasteurization…)
When the world is returned to pre-civilization levels by anti-progressive politicians the advantages of alcoholic drinks will be ‘rediscovered’.
“The rest of society shouldn’t be forced to change because a minority group finds it difficult to control their behaviour.
But that is most certainly the policy of the left.”
Then why is it mostly Bible-thumping ‘Righties’ that are on the abstinence bandwagon?
Your argument is clearly self-inconsistent.
Prohibition in the US was originally a “progressive” cause. Williams Jennings Bryan, a bible banger, was also a progressive politically, and a great advocate for Prohibition.
Hard-right conservatives mostly adopted prohibition after it was already in place, or repealed.
“markie October 19, 2018 at 11:59 am
“The rest of society shouldn’t be forced to change because a minority group finds it difficult to control their behaviour.
But that is most certainly the policy of the left.”
Then why is it mostly Bible-thumping ‘Righties’ that are on the abstinence bandwagon?”
Well, its like pornography, where the religious right is allied with the irreligious (and incredibly so sometimes) feminist left.
Although you are correct about vice, not too many on the left against it. Oh, sure, they want to legalize things, but basically only to tax and regulate it…
markie October 19, 2018 at 11:50 am
Think you mean fermentation.
Distillation of wine produces brandy, from the Dutch for “burnt wine”.
Tom…
I speak from my perspective in a southern US state not yet out from under the Baptist battle against booze. And am limiting myself to “recent” history.
Progressives clearly don’t have a lockup on bad ideas… or good ideas. But my point is that mankind is doing better by most measures than 600 years ago. So take that perspective on progressive rather than 20th aand 19th century political movememts.
John…
That’s what I meant. I left it to “leap of deduction” on part of my audience. Perhaps I should not have, others may not fill in the space which you did.
I plead lazyness due to my head/chest cold. If not for that I’d not be here at all… Stir-crazy leads to ‘Netz use.
ALLAN MACRAE – October 19, 2018 at 6:46 am
“DUH”, …. your personal bias is “showing” when you post such silly retorts as above.
Me thinks that 90% of all Biblical nurtured fanatics and Koran brainwashed Islamicist (Muslims) are “self-claiming” teetotalers of alcoholic beverages. A Mohammed “NO-NO”, me thinks.
And maybe you’ll didn’t know or had forgotten that Prohibition in the US was instigated by the “anti-alcoholic beverages” religious fanatics and teetotalers.
Cheers
P.S. – the google/youtube censorship algorithms are now on steroids, and even quotes and actual video titles won’t net what you’re after. YOu only get what the results Goggle wants you to see (usually CNN!!).
A metaphorical kick in the arse to Nick Stokes for defending their evil policy.
(I have a page of examples, none relevant to this topic – all “Trump can’t win” + election night meltdown compilations, all hidden by google)
It is in the interest of academics to publish papers. This subject was deemed likely to get published. The misconduct is on the part of the journal that published blatantly falsified research.
It was obvious that there had been no decline in barley production. It was obvious that most of the costs of beer are not barley. It was obvious that the growing range of barley could be moved.
It is obvious that the conclusion was written before the research.
You can’t fault a dog for barking at the moon if its trainer has given it a treat every time it yowls.
Good to see you here M Courtney.
The article assumes that there will be no development of drought tolerant barley varieties.
Your comment is apt about change of range.
Africa is a potent source of wild type barley and an incubus for further adaptive varieties.
Lost Crops of Africa: Volume I: Grains (1996)
Gathering grains from grasslands is among the most sustainable organized food production systems in the world. It was common in the Stone Age3 and has been important almost ever since, especially in Africa’s drylands. For millennia people living in and about the Sahara, for instance, gathered grass seeds on a grand scale. And they continued to do so until quite recently. Early this century they were still harvesting not insignificant amounts of their food from native grasslands.
However, in previous centuries the grains of the deserts and savannas were harvested in enormous quantities. In the Sahel and Sahara, for example, a single household might collect a thousand kilos during the harvest season.4 The seeds were piled in warehouses by the ton and shipped out of the region by the caravan-load. It was a major enterprise and a substantial export from an area that now has no equivalent and is often destitute.
https://www.nap.edu/read/2305/chapter/17
Beyond their direct use as cereals, Africa’s wild grasses may also have international value as genetic resources. Some are related to species used elsewhere for food or fodder and are likely to have genes of international importance—particularly because many of them have outstanding tolerance and resistance to heat, drought, drifting sand, and disease. On the other hand, some might prove weedy when taken out of the desert and introduced to more salubrious situations.
Thank you for the link. It’s the sort of thing that real Environmentalists ought to be pursuing. It’s fascinatng. More reading will take place later.
I am particularly intrigued by this passage from just after the part you quoted.
Barley is already the most drought and salinity tolerant of the main cereal crops. It is grown on a large scale in southern Iraq and Khuzistan which are just about the hottest and driest farming areas in the World. However the population being moslems and thus not being able to use it properly it is mostly used as cattle feed (there is non-alcoholic beer in Iran, but it is awful, which is odd since e. g. the Czechs manage to brew quite creditable non alcoholic beer).
As far as we know beer was invented in this very area (the Zagros mountains):
https://www.penn.museum/sites/biomoleculararchaeology/wp-content/uploads/firstwinebeeranalytchem.pdf
You’re pointing to a problem that exists and is largely ignored by most people.
Publish or Perish plus an oversupply of PhDs creates the condition where there is intense competition to get published. Journals favor papers with novel results, but which do not challenge the orthodoxy. The result is that most published research findings are false. link There’s no penalty for being wrong so there’s no disincentive for publishing crap, only rewards.
There is a huge problem for civilization as we know it. Civilizations used to collapse all the time. Until a few hundred years ago, Malthus’ analysis was correct. Then we started doing more and more with less and less. Running out of resources became less and less of a problem.
The trouble is that technological progress requires scientific breakthroughs. If science stalls out, we’re in big trouble.
CAGW is a made up problem. Bogus science is a real problem. That’s what the world’s brightest minds should be concentrating on.
cB, and unit train loads of PhDs are drawn from students that wouldn’t even have deluded themselves into thinking of a scholarly education 3 generstions ago. In Canada, at least, the level of government funding for universities came to be based on enrollment numbers! Guess what!
An old friend who was a professor, years ago told me the university had to add a pre-year on to prepare throngs of illiterate students and those needing remedial math before their real studies began! This was all socialist “industrial democracy”in action. Most of them took already corrupted sociology, psychology and political science, further sanitized of any intlectual content.
Engineering and the hard sciences survived the disembowelment until recently. Climate science opened the door to let in the hordes starting off as an evironmental option in geology which over half of the students opted for (guess what half!).
The sudden flow of cash initiated by the marxy agenda of NWO persuasion changed the cenre of gravity and now. Venerable geology is now a subdepartment headed by guys like Mann. The recent PhD handed to a student in Australia for a thesis finding housekeeping negligence of UKMO’s temperature station records is an example. It was accepted here at WUWT as a wonderful piece of work, paying no mind to the trivial subjrct it was for yhe highest academic level granted!
Is it any wonder there is a refusal to debate. Is it any wonder thoughtful laymen have no trouble deconstructing the pap ground out by hundreds of thousands of these minions (my estimate based on the fact that 97% Cook surveyed abstracts from 12,000!! papers published in one decade ~ thats 6 or 7 papers per academic workday).
“An old friend who was a professor, years ago told me the university had to add a pre-year on to prepare throngs of illiterate students and those needing remedial math before their real studies began!”
Yep.
I started high school in Ontario, Canada in 1979. I know there was “grade inflation” then, because my father showed me his Eighth Grade math book from the 40s and I could barely do any of it. (BTW, that’s as far as he got, as he was 14 and had three brothers in uniform with three sisters working in the war industries and someone had to run the farm. Went into a life of carpentry and could calculate things in his head that kids these days couldn’t do with a “computer”, i.e., social media connection device. But I digress).
In those days, you could only go to a 4-year university if you went to Grade 13 (level 5 they called it).
Four years would allow you to go to community college (level 4). You had to do at least three years and they would allow you into trade school.
I had to get six Grade 13 credits. As my skills were more attuned to reading and writing, I already had advanced English and History credits, so had to get THREE math (calculus, trig, algebra I think) to graduate.
To my eternal shame, only managed two and missed the opportunity for summer school, so decided to head to Europe then to community college. Never looked back, as most of my uni-educated friends, while pleasant and easy to talk to about many things, did not actually go into any field their degrees (and student debt) required.
So, if back in the 80s it took 5 years (with a ton(ne) of math (with history, science and English being required as well) to get into uni, and 4 to get to community college, I ask:
1) what did they think would happen when you added Politically Correct nonsense to High School curicula
2) you removed an entire year of instruction?
Oh, and posted this yesterday re: 97% (i.e., its a very, very broad “climate change paper” brush they were using):
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Criticism: All climate related papers not on the list endorse AGW.
Rebuttal: While there are thousands of climate related papers in the scholarly literature only a small percentage of them even mention “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW) let alone explicitly endorse it.
M Courtney ==> The researchers “manufactured” a story — they did not falsify research. It is easy-peasy to write a paper, with more-or-less solid “data” about how all the Bad Things projected by the IPCC to happen by 2100 to “cause” any bad effect you wish to choose.
In this case, they decided to write how IPCC-Climate-Change would increase the price of beloved beer by lowering barley yields. Since the IPCC Scenarios call for the downturn of all agricultural output, this is easy.
With lowered yield of barley guaranteed by nonsensical chaotic model projections, one can then say if a product is in low supply and high demand, the price will increase! Thus Beer will be more expensive!
The point is that they first decided to write that beer was threatened, then did a study to show it.
They could have chosen anything — champagne — expensive perfume, luxury automobiles, silk — and done the same thing.
A fine point you arguing. It’s agreed that they did not falsify their raw data.
But I dispute that they did not falsify their interpretation. By pre-selecting their conclusion they falsified the process of investigation and thus, I think, did falsify the research.
They only looked for data that supported their conclusion. They didn’t look for data that contradicted their conclusion.
That’s not how science works. So what they were doing was false science – falsified research.
M Courtney ==> “By pre-selecting their conclusion they falsified the process of investigation and thus, I think, did falsify the research.” Works for me, but probably wouldn’y hold up in an academic hearing.
Of course, this is why I wrote about it in the first place….
I thought your article was worth engaging with.
And my argument wouldn’t hold up in an academic hearing.
After all this paper, having been published, is by definition “good science” by the standards of current academia.
But I still blame the journal.
Here in OZ beer is a religion and the mere act of wasting or spilling beer is a crime , I’m sure this whole story was aimed at us but we’re to busy drinking to give a rats bum hole .
You sure about that? In S Africa we used to use beer to douse the fat fires on the Braai, and improve the flavour of the steaks and Boerewors .
Even in the UK steak-and-ale pies are popular. Beer is for more than drinking.
Leo Smith
Try and pry a pint of Guinness out an Irishman’s hand.
Cold dead body comes to mind, and it won’t be the Irishman’s.
King Otto, Charlemagne’s no-good son, tried to insult John Scotus Eriugena (the most educated man in Europe) in the pub by demanding loudly in front of the gathered :
Quid distat inter sottum et Scottum? (What’s seperates a Scott and a Sot?)
Answer, to gasps from the crowd :
Tabula tantum. (Latin – the width of the table Sir).
As far as I know he was not shadow banned.
Charlemagne had no son named Otto. The straight man for this amusing but poorly substantiated anecdote seems to be Charlemagne’s grandson Charles the Bald. While no one ever called him Charles the Great like his illustrious grandfather, I think he was a relatively successful king and certainly shouldn’t be described as “no-good.”
OH NO!
The whole world has discovered my grilling “Secret Ingredient”!!!!
(I knew I should have applied for a copyright or patent or something…8-)
theyre having a special run of “strawberry beer” in adelaide to help the growers….I pass.
ps anyone else note this dweeb used ONE and only one person(no name no pack drill) to assure him it was good science…after the admissions of a desired result end- then managing to” find/create” a method to prove it
ffs
Sounds like NZ is joining the EU – that’s normal in Belgium and Brussels. Not just strawberries either.
“Barley, beer, and BS”
Yes sir, a lot of BS in climate impacts research
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/06/21/climate-change-impacts1/
…I leave it to readers to decide if they think that this is a form of scientific misconduct….
On the contrary! ANYTHING which may interrupt the free flow of Beer is a critical issue, and everything should be relegated to a secondary consideration until that issue is dealt with. If there is the slightest possibility that there may be problems it is essential that they are brought to the fore as soon as possible
However, readers might wish to note that warnings of concerns that do not come to pass damage the warning party. (Cite Aesop (Perry index 210) 600BC). In this case there are a lot of beer-drinkers, and so proof of an incorrect prediction will reach a large number of ears. Which may not help the producers of this propaganda quite as much as they think…
https://cloudwaterbrew.co/
Beers with a climate theme.
JeffC ==> I’m a fan of Aussie Lawn Bowling — every time a bowl is made, one has time to check the barbie, put the grandkids to bed, and get a snack then make it back to the easy chair to see where the ball ends up.
Lawn bowls is on par with curling.
Watching the winter olympics on tv, they were showing replays of the curling ‘action’.
As with lawn bowls, you could have hit the ‘pause’ button for the whole event and not missed a thing.
Some human endeavours have no practical point to them.
The IPCC is another example.
Which you also hit the ‘pause’ button on and not miss a thing.
Mr. ==> LOL….
There is another P word – paranoia.
The over-reaction to a trivial or even imaginary stimulus.
It is Climate Change Alarmism in microcosm.
Paranoia comes on from the long term consumption of depressant substances.
NOT substances that make you sad or morose, quite the contrary in fact. In the short term, these substances make you happy/euphoric through their promotion of Dopamine (Serotonin also) in the brains of the consumers. They reduce inhibition typically, creating a (very false) feeling of self-confidence.
However, they are substances that reduce activity in yours/mine/ours/everyone who takes them Nervous Systems.
Not the very least alcohol
A very real problem comes from our brains getting used to the substances – Homeostasis.
Increasing amounts are required.
This ‘author’ is also teetotal yet is sitting in a pub right now. Watching and learning.
I watch the interweb for news, use it to take health care courses, especially food, drink, addiction and human behaviour. Hence why I’m in the pub, to double check what I’m being told.
I quit smoking and drinking simultaneously and the event to occasion that has put me in the cross-hairs of the Health Service ever since.
I have met quite a few doctors & nurses via my 6-monthly checks.
Every single one of them, man, woman and girl will say that quitting smoking is easy, quitting booze for 3 years or less is easy but quitting booze for more than 10 years is, to them, mindblowing.
They really are full of professional and personal admiration at that.
These are health professionals – they have ‘seen it all’
And they have seen a good deal more.
Recent UK figures say that of the 40 million or so active and legal drinkers here, they are getting through 35 millilitres of neat spirit daily (3.5 units of alcohol)
This is what the Tax Man says from the revenue he collects.
My little story:
About 3 years ago and in a small but busy shop, someone next to me shot a blast from one of those fancy French perfume puffers. It went in the completely wrong direction, missed the intended target (them) and hit me fully in the face.
I damn near had to be carried out of the shop, such is my sensitivity to alcohol now- after 15 years of non-drinking.
How much alcohol was in that perfume puffer blast, slightly less that 35 millilitres I’d venture.
The doctors & nurses filling in questionnaires as I do, tell a story of consumption less than half of what the Tax Man says. And he reckons 25% of of all alcohol is off his radar and untaxed.
Its just a small lie.
Everyone does it.
Nobody will get hurt.
Fine. Have it your way,
However, ans its not often I appeal to authority, but what I have found inside the last 15 years puts me into agreement with this guy:
https://postimg.cc/bdn7xW5N
If the link/image don’t work, it is a picture of A. Einstein, overlaid with a quote of his:
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted in important matters”
You see who I’m looking at – EVERYONE who drinks – as *everyone* working inside the UK’s National Health Service will attest and agree.
Isn’t that a truly awful thing to have to say. It has everything. Sadness to the power of one hundred.
Climate Change IS NOT the problem. It is symptomatic of a much greater one.
Our food is, or the lack of proper nutrition.
Yes Sugar. I’m looking at you.
Addictive.
Depressant.
Nutrient free
Who suggests to us what is good to eat if not doctors, widely regarded to be the heaviest (secret) drinkers.
A fact verified by their high (in the Top 3) suicide rate
Right, I’ve gotta get back to some Data Adjustment, nobody will mind, its only a small adjustment and anyway AND it’s for Everyone’s Good in the long term.
Be honest now……
Have tour ‘hackles’ risen?
Do you hate me?
Am I on an agenda?
I can handle alcohol.
If you think any of those things, you are as much of the current problem as is M. Mann or A. Gore
Not simple is it
And you seem to be a case in point.
It’s perfectly possible to enjoy stimulants and depressants in moderation without serious side effects for most people. Granted, a minority are more severely affected and need to be more careful, but don’t let that lead you to lump everyone together.
define ‘moderation’
Having the common sense not to cause oneself harm from any activity. This applies to drugs, food, water, and even exercise. Sheesh!
Not understanding that basic concept invalidates any warnings you care to impart.
A man goes to his doctor, and his doctor tells him he does not have long to live. The doctor recommends abstaining from smoking, drinking and sex.
The man asks if he will live longer if he complies. The doctor says: “No, but it’ll seem like it!”
Enjoy your seemingly long life. I’ll enjoy my immensely more pleasurable life. Neither of us will get out alive anyway.
You’re barking in the wind, Zig. Peta is a PITA.
a wee bit of paragraph edit went astray up there but not too bad.
A big question that Health Service practitioners will ask is about food.
Always elicits a ‘less than truthful’ response except that The Lie is patently obvious.
Sex and waist size.
A boy with a waist of greater than 37 inches has been eating vast amounts of sugar.
No, it is NOT caused by eating saturated fat and is not a ‘beer belly’
Now you see the epic lie that doctors tell – brought about by one guy with a very dominant personality who cherry picked his scientific data and has derailed health science so badly that there are not the words to describe it.
Sound familiar? There *is* precedent for Climate Change.
That guy, Ancell Keys is responsible for what is written on (easily) 33% of ALL death certificates these days and modern-day doctors are still following his guidance – because they are paranoid about getting something wrong’ – *because* they have had their strength of character, free will, self-confidence completely trashed by eating and drinking chemical depressants.
They follow their own advice and why not, *everyone* enjoys a drink or two ‘now and again’
I know what, we’ll adjust the tape-measures. That’ll fix the problem.
Oh, you already did,The 37″ figure is for UK men, it is 40″ in the US
Data Adjustment. Doncha just love and it is sooooooo good for Everyone.
Why not adjust the graph of barley yield from ‘Worldwide’ to ‘USA-wide’ while you’re on?
The Drunk, in his fake euphoria, has put himself in the spotlight.
The more he tries to pretend he is not drunk, the more obvious it is that he *is* drunk and reveals just how dependant he.
Sorry Mr Einstein, what were you saying…….
Peta of Newark – October 19, 2018 at 2:12 am
”WOW”, me thinks the above is a prime example of falsely claiming that …… “association = causation”.
Ethyl alcohol (ethanol) vapor should not cause a violent “allergic” reaction if inhaled into healthy lungs. The human body is partly “powered” by the “burning” of ethyl alcohol.
My wife is violently allergic to perfumes. Can’t go near some shop just because of the ambient odors.
Hah.
The first thing I smell in perfumes is _not_ the alcohol. You must be trying too hard… and with common toilet water or after-shave.
Yes. Many scents do, too, make me ill. But it is the botanical involved. This is confirmed by my being reactive to the same botanical in its natural form. And the alcohol ruled out due to other perfumes not bothering me.
I see much bias in your report.
“Yes Sugar. I’m looking at you.
Addictive.
Depressant.
Nutrient free”
It might be addictive and depressant but definitely not nutrient free, to the contrary sugar is all nutrient, which is the reason we have a “sweet tooth”. Under natural conditions things that taste sweet (berries and fruits mostly) are usually good to eat.
its nutrient free as it surves no nutritional need
it does provide high calorie for energy IF the people using it actually were working hard(very hard) to utilise it
99.9% sure dont
I will, if very hungry and unable to eat have ONE lolly to keep the stomach rumbles n low blood sugar at bay. I seriously don’t know anyone of my friends that wouldnt eat either half or the entire pack.
“its nutrient free as it surves no nutritional need”
Try to get along without carbohydrates for a while. It can be done with a high-fat diet but it isn’t easy.
If you bump into the head cardiologist carrying doughnuts and chocolate to their cardiology meeting, they’ll explain that, in moderation, sugar is far better for you than any sweetener – especially aspartame and steviol glycosides. I met one the other day who went on to say that the rubbish that goes into diet drinks is much more harmful than natural sugars.
On the beer subject, I thought we ferment hops (not barley) to make it. The barley is however turned to malt which is then added to the hop fermentation for depth of flavour and colour. Beer can be made without barley.
Looking back to high school chemistry, the sugars are converted to alcohol by the yeast.
These come from the barley as well as the hops.
http://www.howtobrew.com/book/introduction
Thanks tty for that wonderful reference.
The third world and the neolithic shows the modern East Anglian Scientist how things are done.
As expressed before, as an East Anglian, I find the output of the university embarrassing and apologise to every one here for this conduct.
Hops is complexing flavor and bitter. Fermented grains provide the sugars.
Stuff with no side effects generally has no effect at all. The poison is in the dose, not the drug.
Beer is mostly malted barley, with hop extractions as a flavor/preservative, as with IPA ale. Ale just uses a different type of yeast, and therefore a differing brewing method.
Other way around.
Barley, or indeed any grain, is malted (germination started then halted by cooking) to generate sugars and startch. These are then cooked (mashed) allowing enzymes to turn them into sugars that yeast can eat and turn into alcohol and CO2.
Hops are added purely for their preservative qualities, although we now use them primarily for taste. They do not add any sugars to be fermented.
Interestingly, some grains such as millet do not have the required enzymes for the mashing process. In Africa, women chew millet and spit it out during the grinding process, because our saliva contains these enzymes. Chew bread for several minutes, and you’ll find it becomes sweet because these enzymes turn starch into sugar.
I could go on about amalyse and betalyse enzymes, but I’m sure that’s enough.
Beer can be made with almost any grain, but not without grain. Typically that grain is barley, although some heathens use wheat, millet or even rice (ugh!).
Sorry, I’m a bit of a purist, as my quantity of comments on the subject may indicate. As a brewer, I feel I’m entitled to an opinion on this subject, however.
Ale without hops is ale, ale with hops is beer.
It may be instructive to learn that Humulus lupulus , the hop plant, has interesting relatives: it’s a member of the Cannabaceae.
JF
The alcohol comes from the barley. The hops just provide the bitter taste. “Ale” in contrast to “Beer” was traditionally brewed without hops, though nowadays hops are usually added to ale as well.
And yes, you can make “beer”, or at least a alcoholic beverage, from virtually any vegetable matter that contains sugars and/or starch. But most of them won’t be particularly pleasant to drink, to put it mildly.
“though nowadays hops are usually added to ale as well.”
Indeed.
As some have called it: over-hopped soda pop.
I’m biased a bit because I’m a lager/pilsner guy, and I think I’m allergic to some of the hops they used. But my hangovers now have the added bonus of a sinus problem that more than outweighs the taste of the previous evening.
Things like sugar, fat and salt all taste good because they are very high value to our diets. Vinegar, etc tastes sour because it comes in food that’s gone bad. Our bodies have very basic ways to make sure we get the proper nutrients.
tty ==> You are correct, tty. Sugar is the energy component of food, and the most necessary factor to sustain life. Our bodies convert what we eat into sugar to be ‘burned’ for energy to do nearly everything (we do have a backup plan, but it is a little gruesome, as the body consumes itself under starvation scenarios).
The latest mouse study (yes — yet another mouse study) claims to prove that it is the FAT content of diet that causes obesity.
In a way it is correct. Fat is essential, particularly for humans with their extraordinarily large brain (which is very largely fat). Under natural conditions fat is a scarce resource, it is very scarce in vegetables, but somewhat more abundant in meat (and particularly in marrow and brains). Since fat is normally a scarcer resource than carbohydrates the body hoards fats and preferentially burns carbohydrates for energy. So, yes, the fat you eat tends to be put away at various places around your body in case of future shortages.
By the way, one of the best ways to find out if prehistoric bones have been used by humans is to see if they have been bashed open to get at the marrow and brains. No other animal ever figured out that you can use rocks for that.
Moderator: I think I just found a bug here. I had written the above and sent it but had misprinted my email. I got a warning and hit the “back” button provided, corrected the email and hit “post” again, and found that my post had moved to the bottom of the posts instead of where it belonged.
It is the intake of more food energy than is output in metabolic process energy that causes obesity.
markie ==> If it were only that simple there would be no obesity epidemic and obesity cures would be a dime a dozen.
See mine: Modern Scientific Controversies Part 4: The Obesity Epidemic
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense above. Eschew eristic.
How about another P word: Pervert, as in “Perverting science in the name of their religion.”
The results were as they expected.
Of course.
Then our next endangered species must surely be the frog. After all, it lives on water and hops.
Tim ==> Very very punny!
I think it was quite a leap.
There is no problem with BS. Bovine Scatology is a long practiced science, usually practiced in places where fermented barley products are consumed around a table or bar and some simulated war with round or oblong ball of some sort is broadcast on a video screen. In fact, there will be large groups of practitioners gathered this very evening.
Next they’ll be telling us about future decreases in global pizza supplies due to climate change. It would be a perfect storm in terms of outcries, causing folks to vote Democrat, and give Trump the boot in 2020. Yep, no beer and no pizza, that’s the ticket. Why haven’t they thought of this before?
You left out the heat stress on football players that extra 1degree is dramatic so the whole game will have to be shut down. So no beer, pizza or football and the perfect voter appeal.
Bruce ==> Easy to write a similar study to prove that pizza will be endangered, or at least priced out of range for the average citizen. Let’s see — pizza needs cheese — heat waves reduce milk output of cows — gonna be too hot for most cows under 8.5 by 2050…..
The war on butter, eggs, cheese, red meat, sugar and salt is/has been a perfect lead in to AGW “oh no it’s worse than we thought” just like the exaggeration of any “bad” weather. Follow the money. The talking heads and ignorant science writers need fodder to feed to the masses. Bread and circus, beer and football, not much different but less people die at least.
It always comes up in climate pseudoscience have we reached peak beer yet?
“They might not starve, but sports fans do not live by pizza alone.”
Umm, this one does. Can’t stand alcoholic beverages of any kind, especially beer.
The Brits have a wonderful description of the differences between football and rugby:
Football is a gentle game played by ruffians.
Rugby is a rough game played by gentlemen.
The differnece is Rugby has the violence on the field, Soccer off the field.
Reminds me of an acquaintance (a professor at the Smithsonian by the way) who is an avid baseball fan. He once characterized baseball as being “much more complex than chess but less violent”.
Whenever I see an economic statistic in the hundred billion dollar range, I wonder about it. The US automotive industry contributes 3% to 3.5% of GDP, and this year GDP is $19.4 trillion. So at most, the automotive industry contributes $679 billion. I find it very, very difficult to believe that the beer industry would be 16.3% of the automotive industry, or 0.57% of GDP.
My father was an alcholic and so is my ex. Bring on AGW.
Josie ==> My sympathies to all those whose lives have been made harder by a family member suffering from alcoholism. Whole cultures have been destroyed, in part, by the genetic propensity in some populations to alcoholism.
Canada has now released the demon of marijuana on its entire population — legalized and State-sponsored recreational pot — and not the tame, ditch-grown pot of the 1960s, but super-charged bred-for-effect pot of the 21st century.
Time will record the toll of this human experimentation on the people of Canada.
All populations were probably originally very sensitive to alcoholism (like e g Inuits still are). However in cultures where alcohol has been used for a long time the more sensitive genotypes have mostly been killed off by now.
Just a nit to pick: Inuit is both singular AND plural.
So: one Inuit, two Inuit.
BTW, on topic, the plural of beer is also beer…
When ya got 4 guys looking in the fridge and there is only 1 beer, plurality never comes into it, it’s every man for himself.
I suppose that “Inuits” might be meaningful if it were to refer to all Eskimo groups, to include the Inuit of Greenland and eastern Canada, the Inuvialuit of western Canada, the Iñupiat of northern Alaska and the Yupik of western and southern Alaska and eastern Siberia, but those groups don’t like to be called “Inuit”.
I should have said, those non-Inuit Eskimo groups.
Can we ratchet up the “Doom and Gloom” any higher?, yes we can. However, in the USA, it’s the land of the free and the home of the brave. Not the land of the regulated and home of the paranoid. Around here, we don’t ASSUME. Prove it or get laughed at. They haven’t proven anything but their ability to spew crap. Haha
Kip, a crafty finish to the ridiculous tale of forgone ale. You mention the use of the “hook” in journalism or in a good story. You explain it as an “angle” you take to draw the reader in. You probably know historically that in fishing, the hook is a synonym of ‘angle’, known from the famous treatise on “fishing with an angle” from the 15th Century, attributed to a Juliana Barnes. Here is the link. It is a thorough treatise covering every aspect of the manufacture of the tackle including the horsehair line and the hooks, how to fish, the baits, the months of the year, etc. etc. BTW, the fishing metaphor is indeed apropos suggesting the desperation in trying to find an angle to hook the uncooperative fish to one’s line.
http://flyfishingattheriver.com/fishing.html
Gary ==> Fascinating. Worth the read.
Though I have spent half of my adult life living on a boat and at sea, I am not a fishermen myself. I bring fishermen along and let them “have all the fun” and feed me delicious fruits of the sea.
When my youngest son crews with us, he feeds us more lobster than we can eat, and catches so many fish we have to give it away.
“I am not a fishermen myself”
You could be, if your name was Sybil.
President Trump should immediately have the Department of Agriculture enact the Barley Extinction Emergency Reserves (BEER). This initiative would require the government to massively increase the number of grain silos solely using American steel and filled with American grown barley. This strategic reserve would be used to offset declines in barley crop yields and keep the beer flowing. Sounds like a win win win. Same should be done with corn for cattle.
As announced yesterday, the CBC is releasing a weekly newsletter “what on Earth”…
Guess who is number one off the presses?
Michael Mann!!!!!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/what-on-earth-newsletter-climate-change-1.4866240
The tone and how their CBC science reporters are collaborating to this garbage shows how Trudeau’s Canada agitprop knows no bounds.
Heh, “guru”. As mentioned often, its a cult…
As for the CBC: soon, probably much sooner than liberals (and Liberals [and NDP and Greens]) think, there will be a retribution, ala Doug Ford being elected in Ontario. And the squealing hasn’t even started.*
* quick translation for non-Canadians: we elected a fiscal conservative here in the province of Ontario. The reaction from the Usual Suspects was as fun to watch as it was predictable:
https://www.google.ca/search?{google:acceptedSuggestion}oq=%22Doug+Ford%22+climate&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Doug+Ford%22+climate
BTW, I’ve said often that “journalism” in general these days (particularly for climate and environmental issues) usually consists of:
1) advocacy group releases sciency-sounding news release based on no real science
2) an over-educated, under-taught liberal arts grad calling oneself a “writer” re-types it into clickbait
3) an over-educated, under-taught liberal arts grad calling oneself an “editor” approves it
4) an over-educated, under-taught liberal arts grad calling oneself a “publisher” hits “send”
I’ve also determined that the ages of 2, 3 and 4 are usually about 23, 25 and 26. Unless there is a “senior editor” of 27…
So true… I noticed there are less comments in the CBC forums as they must suppress many opinions which is driving their discussions to irrelevance.
Yes, funny how a publicly-funded network can do that to people…who fund it.
I’ve been meaning to try some analysis on the Toronto Star’s website. First, they cancelled comments, then they moved to a paid subscription model.
As I said when they cancelled commenting: to my shame, I would often go back to the same article again and again to comment. Those clicks had to count for SOMETHING.
Now, I may skim the headlines, might click, probably not, but if I do, its once.
How is that a better model?
Then again, like the grumpy old straight white guy that I am…I don’t go where I’m not wanted. Nor does my money (or my time). Like many (not all straight, white males, either), I”m taking my bat and going home.
The remaining liberals and progressives can have fun trying to contain their SJW offspring…
Meh, it only means growing our barley in Greenland like Vikings all over again.
Umm……just for the fun of it.
In a way it is correct. Fat is essential, particularly for humans with their extraordinarily large brain (which is very largely fat). Under natural conditions fat is a scarce resource, it is very scarce in vegetables, but somewhat more abundant in meat (and particularly in marrow and brains). Since fat is normally a scarcer resource than carbohydrates the body hoards fats and preferentially burns carbohydrates for energy. So, yes, the fat you eat tends to be put away at various places around your body in case of future shortages.
By the way, one of the best ways to find out if prehistoric bones have been used by humans is to see if they have been bashed open to get at the marrow and brains. No other animal ever figured out that you can use rocks for that.
Yet another ignorant inflammatory paper. The authors are too stupid to think that crops and growing techniques can be modified by farmers and agricultural interest. Only a religious fanatic can see things so too dimensionally.
Looks like the once-stout scaremongering industry is aleing.
According to an article I read yesterday, beer demand has been down sharply, including premium and craft beers. The cause was blamed on the legalization of weed.
There will be plenty of barley left for those of us who prefer alcohol to cannabis.