I already pointed at research that shows that they are wrong, after that was established then playing the man is needed to be done to show all the source of the misleading information.
I don’t really feel the need to, even if it hadn’t already been well rebutted by GIGObuster. No more than I’d spend time debunking racial IQ cites courtesy of StrmFrnt, homosexuality studies sponsored by Lou Dobson, or responsible social media usage by Anthony Weiner. Sometimes the “ball” isn’t worth spending time on, due to the “man” behind it. That you repeatedly use cites from Tanton’s tentacles is informative enough in itself.
I’ll have a read of the report cited by GIGO Buster. Just looking at the bullet points above it doesn’t appear to address the point about people increasing their carbon footprint once they move from a 3rd world to 1st world country. It seems to sidestep it. Or the points about overall increases in net population.
Are you going to continue ignoring the problems we are having with your sources?
There’s a very good reason immigrants’ carbon footprint increases: their standard of living improves. Very few people in the green movement would argue, “The poor must stay poor for the sake of the environment!”, since the moral shortcomings of that perspective are, IMHO, pretty obvious.
As I’ve pointed out above, saying that data comes from an unpopular figure isn’t persuasive. On that basis you could say the Nazis had anti-tobacco campaigns and identified links between smoking and lung cancer & heart disease. Therefore anti-tobacco campaigns and smoking research is fascist.
In any event, looking at the board of directors of this group I don’t see why you are so concerned. Does Ben Zuckerman strike you as being biased or dishonest?
Good thing I do not work that way, I always look first if the information is faulty or misleading, then after that it is a fair game to look at who is making the flawed claim and the methods and sources they use.
Yes indeed.
You’re overlooking cause & effect. Why does Zuckerman consider that a sensible and responsible policy position?
He’s a Professor of Physics and Astronomy, so I would presume he has based his position on evidence and logic.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/09/magazine/tm-45400/2
I think he’s hit the nail on the head in terms of why these groups have backed away from the issue of immigration. In a nutshell, race trumps their environmental concerns and fear of losing $$$ from wealthy donors, is a key concern.
Is the OP in some kind of time loop, in which he receives spam from long-discredited groups & rushes to announce the “latest news” to people who’ve heard it all before? And who know where it’s coming from?
If you can provide a rational response to these concerns, like those raised by Ben Zuckerman in the LA Times article above, I would like to hear them.
:rolleyes:
As I told you before, you really think all scientists are like the Brain scientist character from Thunderbirds and you continue to think that scientists are experts on everything.
What you are doing is indeed the fallacy of Appeal to Authority
“Brains might had been an expert on all matters of science, but his ass was made of plastic.”
No, I’m saying that you have no reason to dismiss his opinions and data on the basis of bias or dishonesty. It seems the only reason you disagree is because it goes against your own feelings. It seems to me that:
-
Environmentalists realise that increasing population necessarily involves greater resource and environmental depletion.
-
Some of the increasing US population is from immigration.
-
Opposing immigration might lead people to think you’re racist (Tanton! Nativist!).
-
Environmentalists let this fear trump their logical concerns for the environment.
That’s about right isn’t it?
You are really digging back in time too much, looking at modern times:
Zuckerman’s position got even less respect nowadays.
If you read the article you cited, you’ll see that they don’t actually disagree with Zuckerman’s position. They had political concerns about alienating supporters like labor unions and civil rights groups. And as I mentioned above, large donors have indicated they would not support the Sierra Club if they took that position. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/27/local/me-donor27/4
I already looked at the data, his conclusions are misleading.
Nope, it is clear that even after claiming you read the report that discredited what most of your sources said, you really did not read it at all or well.
When the cities with the most immigrants are the ones that are the less emitters of CO2 it is clear that your sources are only looking at averages and not the specific locations that are affected by immigrants, this is misleading on the extreme and it does demonstrate that the ones peddling this disinformation are already discredited, racist charges can be added later based on the funding and orgs that supported this misleading effort.
And? You want me to worry? As I told you many times before, I would worry if your sources would get any headway nowadays, as it is, as long as they do not refuse to get support from nativist organizations their decreasing minority status will be good news.
There is a big problem to solve and attempting to push this immigration issue into the environmentalist problems of the day are just made with an effort to distract and divide the movement. That is, if you are not aware yet, another reason why your sources need to be opposed.
What I conclude in the end is that the real cowardice is in the efforts to divide the environmentalist movement with what amounts to be really a cheap shot. The reality is that virtually all conservatives in office that oppose immigration also oppose doing anything about CO2 emissions, worse, they claim that there is no problem at all.
Until I see any brave efforts by those anti-immigrant organizations to pressure republican leaders to do something about the main causes of the big carbon footprint that the US has, It is clear to me that they are indeed just doing a real coward thing by continuing to accuse the ones that have the least to blame, the immigrants.
I still don’t see how that gets environmentalists off the hook. You cannot ignore the obvious connection between population increase in the US and increased emissions. There’s a basic formula that Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren (currently President Obama’s chief science advisor) suggest of I = P x A x T, where environmental impact (I) is a function of total population (P) times per capita consumption (A, for “affluence”) times the technologies used in production (T).
Between 1990 and 2003, U.S. per capita CO2 emissions increased 3.2 percent while total U.S. CO2 emissions increased 20.2 percent (U.S. Department of Energy). During that same period, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, America’s population increased 16.1 percent.
So what population level do you think the US should aim for? 1 billion? Does it just not matter?
Hardly a cheap shot, population is part of any discussion of environmental impact as set out above in the Ehrlich & Holdren formula.
Btw. Zuckerman edited this book on issues of global warming & human population in the 90’s (before Al Gore made global warming a cool political issue). He’s been entirely consistent on the issue.
That population level will depend on new developments in energy production and CO2 controls that will be in place in the near future.
So that population level does matter, but not as much as the immigrants being a part of it, what matters is that we **all **have to reduce the carbon footprint, and the reality is that solutions like cap-and-trade or a tax on carbon are currently dead in the water thanks also to the support many tea partiers representatives got in the previous election from organizations involved with John Tanton.
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/04/14/white-nationalists-tied-to-tea-parties/
As the results are in, the Republican House is busy refusing to even vote on doing something about the issue, and worse, they are attempting as we speak to underfund even the science organizations that keep track of the problem.
So clearly, there was really no interest by nativists on doing something about the environment, the whole point was an attempt to create a wedge issue, and then to stop any efforts to do anything about the carbon footprint in the USA.