Already explained, so…
Meh. 
Good questions - although unsurprisingly anyone who did so would automatically become an evil nativist in Gigo’s eyes. This stems back to my point about environmentalits being cowed - who wants to incur the wrath of people like that?
You haven’t explained anything. You’ve said you have a non-environmental, but emotional, basis for refusing to allow this to be considered and hence smear anyone who raises it.
Of course there is that, and looking at the big picture, and after looking at the way climate change deniers operate for years, it is clear to me that the nativists/fake environmentalists have some uses for them. Many of the followers of the fake environmentalists are not able to notice when they are being pandered.
That is great and a nice diversion from my question. Why should US population growth and immigration reduction (immigration being the major cause of population growth) off the table as a policy option? That makes no sense from an environmental perspective. You may have other reasons for ruling it out as an option, but in terms of environmental concerns in the US it is only logical to consider it.
Don’t worry about inconvenient facts like cities running out of water! What do you think this is? And any environmentalist who mentions immigration is an evil racist - never ever forget that!
Intellectual climate where suggesting immigration restriction = moral wickedness
:rolleyes: Yes, that would appear to be the case. In any case, Tanton and those who think like him, “nativists” or “White Nationalists” or “racial realists” or whatever you call them, can hardly be characterized nonpreposterously as “environmentalists who mention immigration.” Nor, for that matter, by any description with “environmentalists in it”.
The track record of science when predicting can’t is pretty awful.
Something tells me that prediction assumes current technology and current practices. Probably not a good basis for extrapolation.
But when it comes to pro-immigration organizations, especially the Jewish ones, you never look behind their reasons for transforming America. This is from Frontpagemag (a Jewish magazine) and the article is written by a Jew:
Why Jews welcome Muslims
They use immigration just to feel safe themselves. Nativists use environmental issues just to feel safe themselves. Where’s the difference BrainGlutton?
You don’t see the difference between lobbying for immigration so that immigration doesn’t stop, and lobbying for “the environment” so that immigrations stops ?
Well, then: one’s open, to the point and straightforward; the other is misdirection, muddying up the waters and dishonesty, not to mention the very kind of cowardice and “moral wickedness” (WTF?) the OP is crowing about. Glad we could clear that up for you.
Can’t you read? The reason they are pro-immigration is that they feel safer in a multicultural environment. They don’t care about the immigrants. They just care about what’s best for their own wellbeing. Just like the nativists. If you really want to help poor people, you should not take them to the US at all. Here’s a video to educate you: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs
Yes, moral wickedness. This is achieved by linking racism to any suggestion of reducing immigration. It’s a hugely effective means of shutting down debate and silencing opposition.
You will have noticed that in this discussion there isn’t any real environmental reason to support US population growth, but there are good reasons to suggest it be reduced.
If that suggestion is coming from the mouth of a guy who’s a noted white supremacist and whose “environmentalist” efforts have so far been in fact demonstrably in support of people who are AGW deniers then yeah, that’s a workable link.
You might have noticed that that Clinton link you love bring forth again and again isn’t being attacked on the same grounds, in fact it’s not attacked at all. Not to mention it puts the lie to your seminal assertion that environmentalists never touch population control with a 10 foot pole, but I guess that’s cognitive dissonance for ya.
I also love how you’re now quoting yourself as a proof that your position is supported. Like your usual barrage of repeating the same crap over and over and over ad nauseam isn’t enough, now you’ve gone full recursion. My cardboard cutout can barely keep up !
-
No it isn’t, it’s simply used to create a climate where immigration can’t be discussed any more honestly than the economic benefits of communism under Stalin.
-
If you think I’m some kind of supremacist you haven’t been paying attention. I acknowledge human biodiversity, as does Peter Singer. I suppose you’ll be calling him a supremacist next?
-
The Clinton link is being attacked - read some of GIGO’s comments above.
-
As for environmentalists and population control, see the Sierra Club’s sudden change in the 90’s.
-
I’m quoting my earlier post because it summarizes some of the arguments and evidence that people like GIGO & yourself are determined to ignore.
- Yes it is.
- Tanton’s the supremacist.
- It’s not being attacked on the same grounds. Reading comprehension, dude.
- And since the Sierra Club is the only environmentalist thinktank out there… oh wait, it’s not !
- If it didn’t convince people then, why do you think it’s going to be convincing now ?
Look, whatever, don’t bother. You’re right, I made a mistake. I started engaging you in dialogue again. Couldn’t help myself. I apologize and I won’t do it again.
Sorry, I’ve been conversing with GIGO Buster for so long I’m not used to someone engaging in dialogue. I keep repeating it because he/she simply keeps reciting the same stawmen arguments about population growth not being the only issue & about whether or not some groups lobby against climate change.
People who move to the United States usually increase their level of consumption, and consequently the environmental cost of their existence.
The man behind the Sierra Club’s sudden change is a Jewish donor. But no one checks his real motive behind the action…
Just in relation to the Clinton report - you’ll note that even then they have to absolutely tip-toe around the issue of immigration - despite population stabilization being an important goal.
As for the Sierra Club - it isn’t the only one but it is (from their website) America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization.