Anybody Not Believe in Global Warming Anymore? Make Your Case In Here. (2 Viewers)

[Sand]

I also don't understand, as an independent, why so many conservatives tend to be the ones that doubt the existence of global warming. It makes conservatives look stupid, and liberals look smarter, frankly. I don't believe this to be the case. Yet many on the right seem to have adopted this ignorant denial of GW as part of their ideology. Again, it makes sense for a conservative to be opposed to liberal SOLUTIONS to global warming, because they usually involve draconian restrictions on business. But the proper alternative, it seems to me, is to come up with responsible pro-buisness alternatives to these solutions (for instance, the removal of restrictions on the expansion of nuclear energy, or an attempt to replace our oil and coal needs with natural gas). But to play this stick your head in the sand game and deny that there is even a problem- I don't get it.

The problem is that we are looking at several "solutions" to GW that are anything but. What good is the massive transfer of wealth to 3rd world countries supposed to accomplish? Answer: non - but we see a lot of attention paid to it because it means a large transfer of wealth. No wonder they are so interested. Cap and trade? Even if it works exactly the way they want it to the temperature drop they calculate is .5 a degree C. Wha? Seriously? What the #### good is that? That is a meagerly pittance of a result for a massive outlay of wealth. Ridiculous it is even being considered.What should be done is to stop the massive expansion in the studies on climate change, stop the transfers of wealth to 3rd world countries under this heading, and direct all that money toward internal R&D in this country on alternative energy production techniques, starting with solar panels. That way the US sees an ROI on that money in the form of job creation and lasting technology as well as reducing CO2 emissions.What the liberals are doing in this arena is farcical.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

There's plenty of room for legitimate debate regarding global warming, all in terms of what is to be done? For instance, I remain unconvinced that severe self-placed restrictions on our economy will have any effect other than to hurt our economy. However, to deny the existence of this problem, and its seriousness, and the fact that it is largely man-made, is quite silly at this point. It reminds me of the anti-evolutionists, and quite often they are the same people. When scientists tell you something, its wise to believe them.

So the current trend of global warming is due to the human race and we must do something about it. Now I am one of those crazy people that believe that the planet is over 3 billion years old. I also believe that there have been massive changes in the planets climate and it will only continue to change. Is it really that crazy to say that the earths climate will continue to change as long as the planet is around and even if humans do everything possible to have it stay the way they want it, good old mother nature will do as she pleases?

 

[Red Eyed and Blue]

I also don't understand, as an independent, why so many conservatives tend to be the ones that doubt the existence of global warming. It makes conservatives look stupid, and liberals look smarter, frankly. I don't believe this to be the case. Yet many on the right seem to have adopted this ignorant denial of GW as part of their ideology. Again, it makes sense for a conservative to be opposed to liberal SOLUTIONS to global warming, because they usually involve draconian restrictions on business. But the proper alternative, it seems to me, is to come up with responsible pro-buisness alternatives to these solutions (for instance, the removal of restrictions on the expansion of nuclear energy, or an attempt to replace our oil and coal needs with natural gas). But to play this stick your head in the sand game and deny that there is even a problem- I don't get it.

just a guess, but I'm thinking you must hate twitter.

 

[Fennis]

I also don't understand, as an independent, why so many conservatives tend to be the ones that doubt the existence of global warming. It makes conservatives look stupid, and liberals look smarter, frankly. I don't believe this to be the case. Yet many on the right seem to have adopted this ignorant denial of GW as part of their ideology. Again, it makes sense for a conservative to be opposed to liberal SOLUTIONS to global warming, because they usually involve draconian restrictions on business. But the proper alternative, it seems to me, is to come up with responsible pro-buisness alternatives to these solutions (for instance, the removal of restrictions on the expansion of nuclear energy, or an attempt to replace our oil and coal needs with natural gas). But to play this stick your head in the sand game and deny that there is even a problem- I don't get it.

just a guess, but I'm thinking you must hate twitter.

ETA: That was his version of Twitter

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I also don't understand, as an independent, why so many conservatives tend to be the ones that doubt the existence of global warming. It makes conservatives look stupid, and liberals look smarter, frankly. I don't believe this to be the case. Yet many on the right seem to have adopted this ignorant denial of GW as part of their ideology. Again, it makes sense for a conservative to be opposed to liberal SOLUTIONS to global warming, because they usually involve draconian restrictions on business. But the proper alternative, it seems to me, is to come up with responsible pro-buisness alternatives to these solutions (for instance, the removal of restrictions on the expansion of nuclear energy, or an attempt to replace our oil and coal needs with natural gas). But to play this stick your head in the sand game and deny that there is even a problem- I don't get it.

just a guess, but I'm thinking you must hate twitter.

 

[StrikeS2k]

However, to deny the existence of this problem, and its seriousness, and the fact that it is largely man-made, is quite silly at this point. It reminds me of the anti-evolutionists, and quite often they are the same people. When scientists tell you something, its wise to believe them.

You were doing so well until the "largely man-made" part. There are scientists who believe it's man made and there are scientists who believe man has little or nothing to do with it. If I'm to believe the scientists...which group should I believe?

From what I've been able to learn about this issue, the vast majority of scientists around the world believe WITH AUTHORITY that it's largely man-made. The ones that don't are usually cranks of some sort. A few months back I had dinner with a woman, friend of my moms, who is a scientist who works for NASA charting asteroids at JPL. She told me that the acceptance of the seriousness of man-made climate change is universal among every scientist she knows. That's anecdotal, of course, but it made a large impression on me.

Is this like how you think there is so much racism amongst cops because you have one black friend who got harrasssed in a park?

Admittedly, that made an impression on me too. But this issue does seem to be a lot more quantifiable, don't you think?

Scientists continue to be surprised by new data that suggests they don't understand the true causes of climate change. They just recently acknowledged that the earth has in fact been cooling for years and will not be warming for at least another decade. Much of their opinion is formed from computer modeling and there's an old saying in computer programming: "garbage in, garbage out". IOW, if they program their models incorrectly the results of those models cannot be trusted. Many of the scientists listed as having endorsed the U.N.'s IPCC's global warming study have said they do not in fact support it and that it is misleading and or flat out inaccurate. I'm not saying GW isn't happening, or that man isn't a part of it, but I disagree with you that it is fact that we are a MAJOR contributor. We simply don't know at this point.

 

[3C's]

However, to deny the existence of this problem, and its seriousness, and the fact that it is largely man-made, is quite silly at this point. It reminds me of the anti-evolutionists, and quite often they are the same people. When scientists tell you something, its wise to believe them.

You were doing so well until the "largely man-made" part. There are scientists who believe it's man made and there are scientists who believe man has little or nothing to do with it. If I'm to believe the scientists...which group should I believe?

From what I've been able to learn about this issue, the vast majority of scientists around the world believe WITH AUTHORITY that it's largely man-made. The ones that don't are usually cranks of some sort. A few months back I had dinner with a woman, friend of my moms, who is a scientist who works for NASA charting asteroids at JPL. She told me that the acceptance of the seriousness of man-made climate change is universal among every scientist she knows. That's anecdotal, of course, but it made a large impression on me.

Maybe you should point her here. Page 3 starts some quotes from scientists that don't accept WITH AUTHORITY the "consensus" that global warming is man made. Maybe she just doesn't know these people.

 

[Werewolf Moderator Fan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Interesting timing.

 

[Parrothead]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Interesting timing.

But the science is settled!!!!

 

[SHOUT]

The term is Climate Change.

Learn it, live it, love it.

See that is the key problem with the term Global Warming, it makes yahoos think everywhere is supposed to get warmer. This is in fact incorrect. There are critical spots that get warmer that effects the ecosystems everywhere.

But if you really cared you would know all of this by now and not be interested in a single season's temperature in isolated locations.

Carry on....

 

[Black Box]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Interesting timing.

But the science is settled!!!!

Actually, science is never "settled" (or at least it shouldn't be). That is one of the strong points about science.Which brings up an interesting question. If that is the case, do we really want to base policy on science?

I'd say yes--it can give good answers. But I wouldn't want to go "all-in" on a policy based simply on science, imo. Sort of along the lines of what Tim is saying.

 

[Black Box]

The term is Climate Change. Learn it, live it, love it.See that is the key problem with the term Global Warming, it makes yahoos think everywhere is supposed to get warmer. This is in fact incorrect. There are critical spots that get warmer that effects the ecosystems everywhere.But if you really cared you would know all of this by now and not be interested in a single season's temperature in isolated locations.Carry on....

So what you're saying is that the scientists need better marketing people. Because it was a really bad idea to call it "Global Warming" first, and then switch it all up to "Climate Change". Just saying.

 

[StrikeS2k]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Interesting timing.

Oh come now. Those are just some cranks, whatever a crank is.

 

[Sand]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Interesting timing.

But the science is settled!!!!

Actually, science is never "settled" (or at least it shouldn't be). That is one of the strong points about science.Which brings up an interesting question. If that is the case, do we really want to base policy on science?

I'd say yes--it can give good answers. But I wouldn't want to go "all-in" on a policy based simply on science, imo. Sort of along the lines of what Tim is saying.

The problem is that the science in this case is so immature that scientists were dumbfounded by an expected 30 year cooling period (10 of which has already happened and wasn't expected).The science here really is in the nascent stage. In that sense it is very dangerous to base policy around it. I say take the middle road and invest in US R&D to both capture what is looking like a global movement and make sure we are at the forefront of that and to throw Algore over to Finland so he can make money there on cars instead of making it on the backs of the American people by screaming "GW" at the top of his lungs.

 

[pantagrapher]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Interesting timing.

Oh come now. Those are just some cranks, whatever a crank is.

I don't know if they're cranks, but Corbyn and Easterbrook are the same two skeptics trotted out during just about any discussion of global warming. I'm all for them having their say, but it's disheartening that the article linked gives the viewpoint of these two skeptics equal weight to the vast majority of climate scientists whose research supports the theory of global warming.

 

[Black Box]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Interesting timing.

But the science is settled!!!!

Actually, science is never "settled" (or at least it shouldn't be). That is one of the strong points about science.Which brings up an interesting question. If that is the case, do we really want to base policy on science?

I'd say yes--it can give good answers. But I wouldn't want to go "all-in" on a policy based simply on science, imo. Sort of along the lines of what Tim is saying.

The problem is that the science in this case is so immature that scientists were dumbfounded by an expected 30 year cooling period (10 of which has already happened and wasn't expected).The science here really is in the nascent stage. In that sense it is very dangerous to base policy around it. I say take the middle road and invest in US R&D to both capture what is looking like a global movement and make sure we are at the forefront of that and to throw Algore over to Finland so he can make money there on cars instead of making it on the backs of the American people by screaming "GW" at the top of his lungs.

Also a good point. Perhaps my statement would be better if it took into account the age/maturity of the science as well.

 

[timschochet]

I've spent this entire thread attacking conservatives and their "head in the sand" approach, IMO, to this issue. But liberals, if anything, are even worse. Please explain, Mr. liberal, if you are truly concerned over this problem, why do you fight all attempts to increase nuclear energy? It's the cheapest energy known to mankind, and with further technology (see fusion) it could eventually make all of our energy problems obsolete. Yet liberals won't even discuss it.

And why are they opposed to natural gas? We have it in abundance, and we could get some from Russia as well (a much better trading partner, IMO, than the middle east.) But no. Liberals want to spend useless money on solar energy and other alternatives which will NEVER provide a substitute for carbon based fuels.

My only conclusion is that liberals are beholden to the crazy environmentalists, whose goal is to alter human existence- they don't want us to find means to continue our civilization, they want to destroy our civilization, and capitalism along with it. I realize this is an extreme statement but I don't know how else to interpret their response to these issues.

 

[Sand]

I've spent this entire thread attacking conservatives and their "head in the sand" approach, IMO, to this issue. But liberals, if anything, are even worse. Please explain, Mr. liberal, if you are truly concerned over this problem, why do you fight all attempts to increase nuclear energy? It's the cheapest energy known to mankind, and with further technology (see fusion) it could eventually make all of our energy problems obsolete. Yet liberals won't even discuss it.

Don't make me come after you.

 

[whitem0nkey]

Religion is a big reason on why some people dont

.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

However, to deny the existence of this problem, and its seriousness, and the fact that it is largely man-made, is quite silly at this point. It reminds me of the anti-evolutionists, and quite often they are the same people. When scientists tell you something, its wise to believe them.

You were doing so well until the "largely man-made" part. There are scientists who believe it's man made and there are scientists who believe man has little or nothing to do with it. If I'm to believe the scientists...which group should I believe?

From what I've been able to learn about this issue, the vast majority of scientists around the world believe WITH AUTHORITY that it's largely man-made. The ones that don't are usually cranks of some sort. A few months back I had dinner with a woman, friend of my moms, who is a scientist who works for NASA charting asteroids at JPL. She told me that the acceptance of the seriousness of man-made climate change is universal among every scientist she knows. That's anecdotal, of course, but it made a large impression on me.

This again?

 

[Ozymandias]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Interesting timing.

Oh come now. Those are just some cranks, whatever a crank is.

I don't know if they're cranks, but Corbyn and Easterbrook are the same two skeptics trotted out during just about any discussion of global warming. I'm all for them having their say, but it's disheartening that the article linked gives the viewpoint of these two skeptics equal weight to the vast majority of climate scientists whose research supports the theory of global warming.

I agree. The problem is, the vast majority of scientists never predicted this global cooling when they ran their computer simulations. I happen to agree that increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere will probably capture more heat from the sun; however, we do not know if there are countervailing factors, which mitigate or eliminate that effect. And I have an objection to being taxed because of incomplete science, which has shown itself to be incapable of predicting a decade's worth of climate data.

 

[tommyboy]

global cooling, get used to it

 

[Sarnoff]

Homer: Oh Lisa! There's no record of a hurricane ever hitting Springfield.Lisa: Yes, but the records only go back to 1978 when the Hall of Records was mysteriously blown away.

 

[saintsfan]

The main problem I have is that the sample size for this is so ridiculously small. The planet could warm for 100 years in a row and it would STILL be a ridiculously small sample size. If the planet goes through a cold snap for 20 more years, I don't see how anybody can possibly say that the globe is "warming." IMO, we don't know enough about the complexities of the environment to cripple our economy in the name of "saving the planet."

In any event, I think it would be a great idea to develop nuclear energy and natural gas, which we have huge reserves of. They are cleaner and better for our national security. Solar and wind aren't going to support our economy any time soon, if ever. I agree with Tim, in that, liberals lack of support for nuclear and natural gas shines the light on their real intentions, which, IMO, have nothing to do with the environment.

 

[SHOUT]

In any event, I think it would be a great idea to develop nuclear energy and natural gas, which we have huge reserves of. They are cleaner and better for our national security. Solar and wind aren't going to support our economy any time soon, if ever. I agree with Tim, in that, liberals lack of support for nuclear and natural gas shines the light on their real intentions, which, IMO, have nothing to do with the environment.

This Climate Change believer is all in favor of nuclear energy.

 

[kupcho1]

I've spent this entire thread attacking conservatives and their "head in the sand" approach, IMO, to this issue. But liberals, if anything, are even worse. Please explain, Mr. liberal, if you are truly concerned over this problem, why do you fight all attempts to increase nuclear energy? It's the cheapest energy known to mankind, and with further technology (see fusion) it could eventually make all of our energy problems obsolete. Yet liberals won't even discuss it.

Don't make me come after you.

:golfclap:

 

[kupcho1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Interesting timing.

Not sure what this "BBC" is (could be some sort of Newsmax offshoot), but found this interesting:

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

They use a lot of weasel words like "average" and "virtually", so I'm not sure if this can be taken WITH AUTHORITY, but it does seem kind of science-ish.

 

[3C's]

Religion is a big reason on why some people dont

Global warming appears to be a religion for some people.

 

[siffoin]

The main problem I have is that the sample size for this is so ridiculously small. The planet could warm for 100 years in a row and it would STILL be a ridiculously small sample size. If the planet goes through a cold snap for 20 more years, I don't see how anybody can possibly say that the globe is "warming." IMO, we don't know enough about the complexities of the environment to cripple our economy in the name of "saving the planet."

In any event, I think it would be a great idea to develop nuclear energy and natural gas, which we have huge reserves of. They are cleaner and better for our national security. Solar and wind aren't going to support our economy any time soon, if ever. I agree with Tim, in that, liberals lack of support for nuclear and natural gas shines the light on their real intentions, which, IMO, have nothing to do with the environment.

I'm not sure that you could make a realistic argument that nuke can support our economy anytime soon either. Here's why. Currently the US uses about 4 terrawatts of energy. 1 large nuke power plant can produce 1 gigawatt of energy. So at current energy usage, we'd need about 4000 nuke power plants to supply our energy needs. Obviously that is not realistic. But let's say nuke could/should produce 25% of our needs...that means we'd need 1000 large nuke plants...about 900 more than we have right now.Even if there were no restrictions, realistically, how long do you think it would take for us to build 900 nuke power plants? (multi-decades...and probably more time than it would take to incorporate other "alternatives")

Now personally in regards to energy/climate change et al...you could consider me a "liberal". But I'm for a much more regional/holistic approach to the solution.

As an example...I think the East coast should be chock full of nuke plants. The SW...should encourage solar. The mid-west wind. We should efficiently utilize our reserves of natural gas. I live in Idaho...here we have solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal. In Idaho we already can produce enough energy for all of our needs and then some.

I believe the more we can encourage a wide-span approach...the better our economy will be. Culturally and historically, as a country, we are best adapted to shifting towards the innovative. We should not lose that characteristic. Green jobs can make up for losses we've sustained to India and China. They can re-invigorate manufacturing and re-employ the workforce. Having a national and equal focus on nuke, solar, wind, geothermal, natural gas etc AND a national "manhattan" style mandate to ger'er done NOW will make us stronger, wealthier. A faster path towards energy independence can only be a good thing.

Note: we'd only need to harness 1/30,000th of the energy the sun shines on the earth to supply all of our energy needs. In regards to alternatives imo Solar is KEY...Wind is only a supplement.

 

[Werewolf Moderator Fan]

1 large nuke power plant can produce 1 gigawatt of energy.

1.21 Gigawatts??!

 

[saintsfan]

The main problem I have is that the sample size for this is so ridiculously small. The planet could warm for 100 years in a row and it would STILL be a ridiculously small sample size. If the planet goes through a cold snap for 20 more years, I don't see how anybody can possibly say that the globe is "warming." IMO, we don't know enough about the complexities of the environment to cripple our economy in the name of "saving the planet."

In any event, I think it would be a great idea to develop nuclear energy and natural gas, which we have huge reserves of. They are cleaner and better for our national security. Solar and wind aren't going to support our economy any time soon, if ever. I agree with Tim, in that, liberals lack of support for nuclear and natural gas shines the light on their real intentions, which, IMO, have nothing to do with the environment.

I'm not sure that you could make a realistic argument that nuke can support our economy anytime soon either. Here's why. Currently the US uses about 4 terrawatts of energy. 1 large nuke power plant can produce 1 gigawatt of energy. So at current energy usage, we'd need about 4000 nuke power plants to supply our energy needs. Obviously that is not realistic. But let's say nuke could/should produce 25% of our needs...that means we'd need 1000 large nuke plants...about 900 more than we have right now.Even if there were no restrictions, realistically, how long do you think it would take for us to build 900 nuke power plants? (multi-decades...and probably more time than it would take to incorporate other "alternatives")

Now personally in regards to energy/climate change et al...you could consider me a "liberal". But I'm for a much more regional/holistic approach to the solution.

As an example...I think the East coast should be chock full of nuke plants. The SW...should encourage solar. The mid-west wind. We should efficiently utilize our reserves of natural gas. I live in Idaho...here we have solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal. In Idaho we already can produce enough energy for all of our needs and then some.

I believe the more we can encourage a wide-span approach...the better our economy will be. Culturally and historically, as a country, we are best adapted to shifting towards the innovative. We should not lose that characteristic. Green jobs can make up for losses we've sustained to India and China. They can re-invigorate manufacturing and re-employ the workforce. Having a national and equal focus on nuke, solar, wind, geothermal, natural gas etc AND a national "manhattan" style mandate to ger'er done NOW will make us stronger, wealthier. A faster path towards energy independence can only be a good thing.

Note: we'd only need to harness 1/30,000th of the energy the sun shines on the earth to supply all of our energy needs. In regards to alternatives imo Solar is KEY...Wind is only a supplement.

I used the word "liberal", but i probably should have used another word because, clearly, there are people who I would consider liberal who are not against nuclear or natural gas, and you appear to be one of those. You are correct, a multi-tiered energy policy would be best. We should definately do research into solar and wind, but in the short term, I think natural gas provides the best alternative. Nuclear down the line when we've had a chance to build more plants (truth be told, the wackos are the reason why we don't have MORE nuclear energy right now).The kind of people I'm talking about aren't really interested in solving our energy problems. They are interested in destroying capitalism and that's where I have a problem. The US shouldn't become a third world economy just to please these people.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Looks like we can finally put the nail in the coffin of Global Warming. Ridiculous that some people believe in this.

 

[timschochet]

Looks like we can finally put the nail in the coffin of Global Warming. Ridiculous that some people believe in this.

You're way too smart for this.

 

[Ignoramus]

Looks like we can finally put the nail in the coffin of Global Warming. Ridiculous that some people believe in this.

Here in Houston, it's 34.9°F and actually getting colder.

 

[mr roboto]

I for one would welcome our global warming overlords. It's ####### cold in the North right now.

 

[skol asylum]

Cyclical solar activity covering up the opposite effects of global climate change?

 

[skol asylum]

73 today in Phoenix. Perfect.

 

[GLOBAL WARMING]

I for one would welcome our global warming overlords. It's ####### cold in the North right now.

Unfortunately, I am just a lord. I hope to make overlord some time in 2016.

 

[Jayrod]

I've been double fisting aerosol cans all week trying to get this place warmed up.

 

[Rich Conway]

Looks like we can finally put the nail in the coffin of Global Warming. Ridiculous that some people believe in this.

You're way too smart for this.

Agreed. There's a much more current thread on global warming that could have been bumped.

 

[chet]

Coldest month in a century.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I've been double fisting aerosol cans all week

 

[Sarnoff]

Looks like we can finally put the nail in the coffin of Global Warming. Ridiculous that some people believe in this.

I'm surprised the fad lasted this long. People will believe anything that fits on a t-shirt.

 

[Rove!]

ing this to bump it in August

 

[Treynwreck3]

Looks like we can finally put the nail in the coffin of Global Warming. Ridiculous that some people believe in this.

Here in Houston, it's 34.9°F and actually getting colder.

Worst excuse for a snow day ever. People will do anything for a day off. Harumph!

 

[phatdawg]

Screw global warming, I would be happy with a dose of neighborhood warming

 

[Wrigley]

Coldest month in a century.

-13 on the way to the gym this morning.

And I thought it was cold for the Bears/Cowboys MNF game.

 

[Apes with Guns]

Why didn't anyone tell me that weather = climate? ####...I had it wrong this whole time!

 

[DocHolliday]

Global warming causes extreme cold temperatures. Wait for summer. We will feel the heat of global warming then.

 

[Treynwreck3]

Global warming causes extreme cold temperatures. Wait for summer. We will feel the heat of global warming then.

Bring it! I wish it was August and 100 degrees. I could be in my pool with a cold beer in my hand.