Australian Politics Forum - Boycott Nestle: your kids deserve action!!

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Boycott Nestle: your kids deserve action!!
Reply #15 - Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:41pm

namnugenot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:33am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 2:48am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 1:18am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 11:58pm:

And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point.

Really brother... go on .... Shocked

Read the link you posted.

" courts controversy by

claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles

(first point) and

society should focus on adaptation

(second point)

I've read the article dood, Shocked

So, you were about to expand I believe Shocked

Ok, I already did, but whatever.
Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct.
Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later.

Or lower ones. Just ignoring the dense one for a second Giz and being serious when the climate does change you can't adapt 7.2 billion people because you have to consider not absolutely what the world will support in terms of population at any point in time but what is the capacity for the long term....and it nothing like that number. When population is brought back to that number then a lot of things will resolve themselves.

Hey, we're having a circle party:go find your own! Wink

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Boycott Nestle: your kids deserve action!!
Reply #16 - Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:55pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 2:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 11:25am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 11:21am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:33am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 2:48am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 1:18am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 11:58pm:

And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point.

Really brother... go on .... Shocked

Read the link you posted.

" courts controversy by

claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles

(first point) and

society should focus on adaptation

(second point)

I've read the article dood, Shocked

So, you were about to expand I believe Shocked

Ok, I already did, but whatever.
Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct.
Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later.

Prevention is better than the cure: only a moron would say we have to adapt to higher temperatures SOONER RATHER THAN LATER if they didn't believe humanity was its cause. You are guilty of the same cognitive dissonance i accused the moron in the op of being Grin

Nope. Even Tim Flannery said it (to paraphrase) "If Co2 production stopped tomorrow, it could take up to 1000 years for the temperatures to drop" SO, what should we do in the mean time? Just sit around and suffer the 'effects' and wait?

BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE MAN CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE REMEMBER

True, I don't but you do. And the need for adaption is still the same, whether or not climate change is natural or man made.

As an example, when a bush fire is heading for your house, you evacuate (that's adaption) and hope the firies can stop it before it destroys your house (that's mitigation). Sitting in your house expecting the fire to be stopped is dangerous and possibly lethal.

PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN THE CURE: if you live in the bush you're an idiot!!

Forestry people live far away from trees... idiots don't take precautions and you're obviously talking about an idiot!

I'm not an idiot brother: you are!

secondly: you have never heard the word "NOMENCLATURE" before have you??

Cheesy

Dood, you're an insane character who hates the children: you've been cornered as such for years!!

'Forestry people' huh? Are they like elves or something?

And abuse because you can't answer the argument is your standard response...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Boycott Nestle: your kids deserve action!!
Reply #17 - Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:58pm

namnugenot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:33am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 2:48am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 1:18am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 11:58pm:

And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point.

Really brother... go on .... Shocked

Read the link you posted.

" courts controversy by

claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles

(first point) and

society should focus on adaptation

(second point)

I've read the article dood, Shocked

So, you were about to expand I believe Shocked

Ok, I already did, but whatever.
Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct.
Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later.

Or lower ones. Just ignoring the dense one for a second Giz and being serious when the climate does change you can't adapt 7.2 billion people because you have to consider not absolutely what the world will support in terms of population at any point in time but what is the capacity for the long term....and it nothing like that number. When population is brought back to that number then a lot of things will resolve themselves.

Well possibly. But even during another mini ice-age, like there was in the 16th to 19th centuries, with today's technology we could probably keep most of the population alive.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Boycott Nestle: your kids deserve action!!
Reply #18 - Feb 4^th, 2014 at 4:26pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:58pm:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:33am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 2:48am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 1:18am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 11:58pm:

And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point.

Really brother... go on .... Shocked

Read the link you posted.

" courts controversy by

claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles

(first point) and

society should focus on adaptation

(second point)

I've read the article dood, Shocked

So, you were about to expand I believe Shocked

Ok, I already did, but whatever.
Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct.
Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later.

Or lower ones. Just ignoring the dense one for a second Giz and being serious when the climate does change you can't adapt 7.2 billion people because you have to consider not absolutely what the world will support in terms of population at any point in time but what is the capacity for the long term....and it nothing like that number. When population is brought back to that number then a lot of things will resolve themselves.

Well possibly. But even during another mini ice-age, like there was in the 16th to 19th centuries, with today's technology we could probably keep most of the population alive.

Depends on how long it lasts, the willingness and ability of those who have to distribute and the spread of technology but ultimately you can't eat technology and at those times you had less than a billion people. You look at events now where there is an impending really bad weather event and the pictures of empty shelves. Now we have 7.2 not 1 so even with willingness and today's technology it's a big ask. We're subject to the same constraints as everything else.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Boycott Nestle: your kids deserve action!!
Reply #19 - Feb 4^th, 2014 at 4:45pm

namnugenot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 4:26pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:58pm:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:33am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 2:48am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 1:18am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 11:58pm:

And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point.

Really brother... go on .... Shocked

Read the link you posted.

" courts controversy by

claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles

(first point) and

society should focus on adaptation

(second point)

I've read the article dood, Shocked

So, you were about to expand I believe Shocked

Ok, I already did, but whatever.
Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct.
Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later.

Or lower ones. Just ignoring the dense one for a second Giz and being serious when the climate does change you can't adapt 7.2 billion people because you have to consider not absolutely what the world will support in terms of population at any point in time but what is the capacity for the long term....and it nothing like that number. When population is brought back to that number then a lot of things will resolve themselves.

Well possibly. But even during another mini ice-age, like there was in the 16th to 19th centuries, with today's technology we could probably keep most of the population alive.

Depends on how long it lasts, the willingness and ability of those who have to distribute and the spread of technology but ultimately you can't eat technology and at those times you had less than a billion people. You look at events now where there is an impending really bad weather event and the pictures of empty shelves. Now we have 7.2 not 1 so even with willingness and today's technology it's a big ask. We're subject to the same constraints as everything else.

I don't believe so. I'm not saying it would be cheap, easy or even terribly tasty. But ultimately doable. Massive hothouses to grow grain crops, or even yeast substitute foods. Hell even algae and some species of seaweed could be cultivated if we had to.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Boycott Nestle: your kids deserve action!!
Reply #20 - Feb 4^th, 2014 at 6:29pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 4:45pm:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 4:26pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:58pm:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:33am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 2:48am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 1:18am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 11:58pm:

And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point.

Really brother... go on .... Shocked

Read the link you posted.

" courts controversy by

claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles

(first point) and

society should focus on adaptation

(second point)

I've read the article dood, Shocked

So, you were about to expand I believe Shocked

Ok, I already did, but whatever.
Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct.
Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later.

Or lower ones. Just ignoring the dense one for a second Giz and being serious when the climate does change you can't adapt 7.2 billion people because you have to consider not absolutely what the world will support in terms of population at any point in time but what is the capacity for the long term....and it nothing like that number. When population is brought back to that number then a lot of things will resolve themselves.

Well possibly. But even during another mini ice-age, like there was in the 16th to 19th centuries, with today's technology we could probably keep most of the population alive.

Depends on how long it lasts, the willingness and ability of those who have to distribute and the spread of technology but ultimately you can't eat technology and at those times you had less than a billion people. You look at events now where there is an impending really bad weather event and the pictures of empty shelves. Now we have 7.2 not 1 so even with willingness and today's technology it's a big ask. We're subject to the same constraints as everything else.

I don't believe so. I'm not saying it would be cheap, easy or even terribly tasty. But ultimately doable. Massive hothouses to grow grain crops, or even yeast substitute foods. Hell even algae and some species of seaweed could be cultivated if we had to.

They don't send sufficient to places like Africa now when they aren't hard pressed...I can't see even that if a scenario in that sort of vein happened...just saying...not saying something like that is not doable...I just can't see it being done.

Back to top

IP Logged