# Chen019: A bigger fool that follows other fools **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 18, 2011, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909 "2011-06-18T04:40:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/181 "2011-06-23T20:27:48Z")
I’m treading back into GD territory, temporarily. Just thought I add this little gem: Mexico’s population growth has slowed down considerably. In 1960, the fertility rate was like 6.0+. Now it’s down to 2.1 (World Bank). Call it what you want, but Mexico’s Baby Boom is over. And I have to ask this question: In 20 years, will Mexican immigration (legal/illegal) be that big an issue? Please resume your skewering ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/182 "2011-06-23T21:07:18Z")
> [@user\_hostile](#): > > I’m treading back into GD territory, temporarily. Just thought I add this little gem: Mexico’s population growth has slowed down considerably. In 1960, the fertility rate was like 6.0+. Now it’s down to 2.1 (World Bank). Call it what you want, but Mexico’s Baby Boom is over. And I have to ask this question: In 20 years, will Mexican immigration (legal/illegal) be that big an issue? > > Please resume your skewering I would think so, but that is if we let the politicians supported by unsavory groups continue to do what they are actually doing, and that is: doing nothing about the carbon footprint. > **[Climate Change May Mean More Mexican Immigration](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-may-mean-more-mexican-immigration/)** > > A reduction in crop yields could spur even more migration from south to north, a new analysis finds > [@](#): > > Based on historical patterns of emigration, crop yield and climate change between 1995 and 2005, the researchers project that as much as 10 percent of Mexico’s population could be forced to migrate in coming decades. In essence, for every 10 percent reduction in crop yield as a result of climate change an additional 2 percent of Mexicans would emigrate. The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) estimates that every degree Celsius of warming in global average temperatures means a 5 to 15 percent drop in yield, particularly for corn, in North America. > > The number of climate refugees could be significant, anywhere from 1.4 million to 6.7 million Mexicans, depending on how much warming actually occurs. The researchers attempted to account for other variables that governed migration in the past—from the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to U.S. border control policy—and isolate the impact of climate change. “For NAFTA, we took special pains to ensure the robustness of the result by comparing Mexican states that were greatly affected by NAFTA with those which were not,” Oppenheimer says. So, by controlling CO2 emissions, that is one of the main priorities for environmentalists nowadays, we should see less immigrants thanks to that and thanks to reduced fertility rates in places like Mexico. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/183 "2011-06-23T21:51:38Z")
> [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](#): > > There is a severe difference between someone who only cares about the US environment and someone who cares about the world environment. One is a xenophobic fool with no understanding of basic ecology, the other is an environmentalist. I think you are confusing the two. **What is stupid is thinking it is an either/or question.** You can be concerned about the global environment and the US environment. Perhaps you think [Lester Brown](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59) isn’t an environmentalist. Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/184 "2011-06-23T22:53:59Z")
As mentioned before, just by the article, there is a focus on the whole US population and the carbon emissions. And by looking at his book, _World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse_ the only mention of immigration is referring to all migration, that also **includes domestic migration into Colorado**. [http://www.city-data.com/states/Colorado-Migration.html](http://www.city-data.com/states/Colorado-Migration.html) > [@](#): > > Between 1990 and 1998, Colorado had net gains of 359,000 in domestic migration and 58,000 in international migration The task is clearer now, we should round up all future domestic migrants and send them to exile as they \*\*are \*\*the biggest problem! Not holding my breath for that solution coming from the nativists. As pointed out before, Chen is like the climate change deniers when in desperation to claim that they have a valid point have to cite scientists that in reality do not quite follow all the ideas of the deniers. They may sympathize, but at the end of the day, things like future foreign immigration are not a priority when domestic migrants are also included. It is really interesting to notice that in his book Lester Brown recommends all to check the blog Climate Progress. [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/13/206859/immigration-the-environment-myths/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/13/206859/immigration-the-environment-myths/) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/185 "2011-06-24T00:00:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As pointed out They may sympathize, but at the end of the day, things like future foreign immigration are not a priority when domestic migrants are also included. > / Immigration is a significant factor driving US population growth. And it is easier to reduce immigration than to impose population control methods like China’s One Child Policy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/186 "2011-06-24T00:20:02Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > This goes back to something I’ve been meaning to say for a while: guys, guys, a little focus please. As amusing it is for me to watch \*\*GIGO \*\*and \*\*magellan \*\*have the same damn argument in two separate threads, it gets confusing. So please, if you want to take part in the debate that spawned this little ditty in the first place, I feel the GD thread is a better place for that. > > This thread should be reserved for and dedicated to calling \*\*Chen019 \*\*a scatmunching, disingenuous little pustule. Over and over again. Makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/187 "2011-06-24T00:26:12Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Immigration is a significant factor driving US population growth. And it is easier to reduce immigration than to impose population control methods like China’s One Child Policy. Domestic immigration you mean. 🙂 And what I have noticed is that Brown knows where the priorities are. [http://www.odemagazine.com/exchange/1066/lester\_brown\_launches\_plan\_b\_3\_0](http://www.odemagazine.com/exchange/1066/lester_brown_launches_plan_b_3_0) > [@](#): > > Dr. Lester Brown’s latest book points to the proliferation of carbon dioxide in the environment \*\*as the single greatest threat to mankind \*\*and calls for a reduction of 80% by 2020. > > The plan’s prescriptions include: wind generation; lowering income taxes while levying a carbon tax that progressively grows to $240 a ton of CO2; more solar and geothermal power; hybrid cars; and less meat in our diet. (Switching from a meat-rich diet to a vegetarian diet has the same CO2 impact as switching from a SUV to a Prius.) And he is worried about what CO2 will do to the issue of migration in the future: [http://inspirationgreen.org/climate-refugees.html?start=80](http://inspirationgreen.org/climate-refugees.html?start=80) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/188 "2011-06-24T00:38:48Z")
As I said, it’s not an either/or situation. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/189 "2011-06-24T00:48:10Z")
So as the best person the Chen could produce showed what environmentalists are mainly worrying about, one also needs to note that Brown has joined with Al Gore and many other progressives in their efforts to spread the word. AS for Gore: he has also noticed who we need to also pressure for change: [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/22/250926/al-gore-slams-obama-media-merchants-of-poison-pro-wrestling-referees/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/22/250926/al-gore-slams-obama-media-merchants-of-poison-pro-wrestling-referees/) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Finally, and above all, don’t give up on the political system. Even though it is rigged by special interests, it is not so far gone that candidates and elected officials don’t have to pay attention to persistent, engaged and committed individuals. President Franklin Roosevelt once told civil rights leaders who were pressing him for change that he agreed with them about the need for greater equality for black Americans. Then, as the story goes, he added with a wry smile, “Now go out and make me do it.” > > On that final point, Gore urges the people become single-issue voters, which I could not agree more with: > > > [@](#): > > > > To make our elected leaders take action to solve the climate crisis, we must forcefully communicate the following message: “I care a lot about global warming; I am paying very careful attention to the way you vote and what you say about it; if you are on the wrong side, I am not only going to vote against you, I will work hard to defeat you — regardless of party. If you are on the right side, I will work hard to elect you.” > > > > ``` > > Why do you think President Obama and Congress changed their game on “don’t ask, don’t tell?” It happened because enough Americans delivered exactly that tough message to candidates who wanted their votes. When enough people care passionately enough to drive that message home on the climate crisis, politicians will look at their hole cards, and enough of them will change their game to make all the difference we need. > > > > This is not naive; trust me on this. It may take more individual voters to beat the Polluters and Ideologues now than it once did — when special-interest money was less dominant. But when enough people speak this way to candidates, and convince them that they are dead serious about it, change will happen — both in Congress and in the White House. As the great abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass once observed, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.” > > > > ``` As much as he is maligned, Gore is an environmental activist and knows politics, he also learned from theorist Roger Revelle about global warming in 1969. Yep, Gore did not invent it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/190 "2011-06-24T00:54:30Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > As I said, it’s not an either/or situation. Words are cheap, if you were really aware of the global warming issue you would had known most of this already. “the proliferation of carbon dioxide in the environment as the single greatest threat to mankind” -Lester Brown. What politicians that are supported by nativists do is to ignore that. What this shows is that either you are the king of the dupes, or lying about your Global Warming concerns. The groups you follow do not care about the environment. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/191 "2011-06-24T01:13:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As much as he is maligned, Gore is an environmental activist and knows politics, he also learned from theorist Roger Revelle about global warming in 1969. Yep, Gore did not invent it. 🙂 But he really **did** invent the Internet, to the extent such a thing can ever be said of a public official acting as such; and [he **never** actually claimed the distinction.](http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/192 "2011-06-24T03:11:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Words are cheap . I know, it would be better if there was action on both population stabilization and carbon emissions globally. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/193 "2011-06-24T03:18:27Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I know, it would be better if there was action on both population stabilization and carbon emissions globally. Then make sure you **never** support any candidate or organization that is unsound on the latter, even if they take a hard line on U.S. immigration. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/194 "2011-06-24T04:38:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then make sure you **never** support any candidate or organization that is unsound on the latter, even if they take a hard line on U.S. immigration. Am I, pray tell, allowed to donate to my local Save the Bay organization without first seeing how much of their time they spend fighting global warming? That’s bullshit. Unlike some, I can sign on with those taking positive environmental steps because they are positive in their own right. I don’t have to see if they have signed on to some larger doctrine. Please. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/195 "2011-06-24T04:42:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Am I, pray tell, allowed to donate to my local Save the Bay organization without first seeing how much of their time they spend fighting global warming? > > That’s bullshit. Unlike some, I can sign on with those taking positive environmental steps because they are positive in their own right. I don’t have to see if they have signed on to some larger doctrine. Please. Then don’t do it on a shrinking doctrine either. Really, the best non nativist examples from Chen in reality do not help his or your case. They got worse if you have not noticed. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/196 "2011-06-24T04:46:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Then don’t do it on a shrinking doctrine either. Really, the best non nativist examples from Chen in reality do not help his or your case. They got worse if you have not noticed. Not following you on the “shrinking doctrine”. Do you mean one in which the population of the U.S. declines? Something else? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/197 "2011-06-24T04:56:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Am I, pray tell, allowed to donate to my local Save the Bay organization without first seeing how much of their time they spend fighting global warming? Just do enough research first to make sure “Save the Bay” is not some fucking corporate-astroturf front that’s really in the AGW-denial business. Which it might well be, nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/198 "2011-06-24T05:00:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I would think so, but that is if we let the politicians supported by unsavory groups continue to do what they are actually doing, and that is: doing nothing about the carbon footprint. > > [Climate Change May Mean More Mexican Immigration | Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-may-mean-more-mexican-immigration) > > So, by controlling CO2 emissions, that is one of the main priorities for environmentalists nowadays, we should see less immigrants thanks to that and thanks to reduced fertility rates in places like Mexico. Thanks **GIGO** ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/199 "2011-06-24T05:25:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Not following you on the “shrinking doctrine”. Do you mean one in which the population of the U.S. declines? Something else? Turns out that the Colorado water example repeated to dead by Chen does refer to **domestic immigrants** (As in coming from other \*\*American \*\*States), foreign ones and the present population, the local projections for the future are based on that, and when one looks at the numbers, it turns out that the biggest migrant contributor to the population are **the domestic migrants x6**. Good luck on controlling the future movement of those. As mentioned before, there are no specific recommendations to just deal with (future) immigrants in the report, and much less for future foreign immigrants. Concentrating on the ecological impact of future foreign immigrants on that locality is an even less important issue than it was implied by Chen. The focus remains the whole local population, water and global warming. But then again, I warned you before about relying on Chen for cites that are not from the nativists, he usually has to misrepresent them or he gets the wrong conclusion from them. Not that you used to do better. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/200 "2011-06-24T22:25:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Turns out that the Colorado water example repeated to dead by Chen does refer to **domestic immigrants** (As in coming from other \*\*American \*\*States), foreign ones and the present population, the local projections for the future are based on that, and when one looks at the numbers, it turns out that the biggest migrant contributor to the population are **the domestic migrants x6**. > > Good luck on controlling the future movement of those. As mentioned before, there are no specific recommendations to just deal with (future) immigrants in the report, and much less for future foreign immigrants. I don’t have time to go look at that now, but it is not surprising at all that when looking at the sustainability of a specific region, that you’d look into how that population might increase and consider people moving into that region from the rest of the country. You seemed to be excited about this 6X. I don’t know the validity of the number, but it is not surprising in the least that people would be moving into the Southwest from other parts of the country. Does it surprise you? So, when looking at the Colorado River basin i makes sense to take into account the trend of people moving into the region from the U.S. Right? You seem to agree with that. Well, if that makes sense, why doesn’t it make sense that someone looking at sustainability in the U.S., nationally, also look to how the sustainability equation is affected by people moving into the area? It’s basically the same thing. It’s just that in the latter case these people are coming from other countries. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909.md?page=11)