# 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:** 14
**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 27, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/261 "2011-06-27T04:03:00Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > You were repeating the same error in GD, so it was appropriate to provide the analysis correcting you. That analysis where you ignore that I replied already to? Sure pile up the jerk moves for all to see. 🙂 Still pending from our fake environmentalists heroes, any evidence whatsoever that shows that the nativist groups that pretend to be environmentalists in the USA are what they pretend to be. In reality they are missing in action on anything related to carbon emissions controls in government. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/262 "2011-06-27T04:13:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That analysis where you ignore that I replied already to? Sure pile up the jerk moves for all to see. 🙂 > > Still pending from our fake environmentalists heroes, any evidence whatsoever that shows that the nativist groups that pretend to be environmentalists in the USA are what they pretend to be. In reality they are missing in action on anything related to carbon emissions controls in government. You didn’t respond to it and simply kept repeating the error. That’s why I had to repeat the correcting post. Another thing you don’t seem to grasp is that what the so called nativist groups do has no bearing on whether claimed environmentalists should consider net zero immigration to address population growth. ---
**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 27, 2011, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/263 "2011-06-27T04:26:41Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > You didn’t respond to it and simply kept repeating the error. That’s why I had to repeat the correcting post. > > Another thing you don’t seem to grasp is that what the so called nativist groups do has no bearing on whether claimed environmentalists should consider net zero immigration to address population growth. Just avoiding what this thread is all about. Yeah, we know already that you chicken out on looking for evidence that they are even doing fig leaf efforts to deal with pollution. PDF file. Race, Migration and the Environment [http://www.newcomm.org/images/stories/ATB/rme\_paper\_final.pdf](http://www.newcomm.org/images/stories/ATB/rme_paper_final.pdf) > [@](#): > > Policy that addresses the over-consumption > of carbon goods is the most > direct way to slow the country’s carbon > emissions. Policy that targets low and > middle-income families, on the other > hand, fails to account for over half of all > carbon emissions. Yet targeting low and > middle-income families is precisely the > strategy implicit in a policy that targets > immigration and immigrants as environmental > hazards. It is possible to create > policies that halt fossil fuel use > while also protecting the incomes of > American families, but regressive anti immigrant > policies do neither.22 ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/264 "2011-06-27T04:33:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is possible to create > policies that halt fossil fuel use while also protecting the incomes of > American families, but regressive anti immigrant policies do neither. Is there an argument lurking somewhere? That’s just a bald assertion which makes little 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 27, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/265 "2011-06-27T04:52:33Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Is there an argument lurking somewhere? That’s just a bald assertion which makes little sense. It makes sense when the proponents of focusing on immigrants effectively do nothing about the carbon footprint. It is in their real nature to deny AGW. And not only that, but that there are technological solutions that would deal with the issue. Of course, since the fake environmentalist groups mentioned in reality deny AGW, then they also think that there is no need to work to help in the implementation of green technologies. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/266 "2011-06-27T04:58:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It makes sense when the proponents of focusing on immigrants effectively do nothing about the carbon footprint. > > It is in their real nature to deny AGW. And not only that, but that there are technological solutions that would deal with the issue. Of course, since the fake environmentalist groups mentioned in reality deny AGW, then they also think that there is no need to work to help in the implementation of green technologies. No, that doesn’t follow. It would still make sense in terms sustainability to reduce population growth by having zero net immigration. Unless you’re so bound by ideology that you can’t contemplate something so ghastly! ---
**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 27, 2011, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/267 "2011-06-27T05:23:06Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > No, that doesn’t follow. It would still make sense in terms sustainability to reduce population growth by having zero net immigration. > > Unless you’re so bound by ideology that you can’t contemplate something so ghastly! Nope, Lester Brown in Plan B mentions on the sustainability part that: > [@](#): > > In a study of local ecosystem sustainability, Mohan Wali and > his colleagues at Ohio State University noted that as temperature > rises, photosynthetic activity in plants increases until the > temperature reaches 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit). > The rate of photosynthesis then plateaus as the temperature > climbs until it hits 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit), > whereupon it begins to decline, until at 40 degrees Celsius (104 > degrees Fahrenheit), photosynthesis ceases entirely.67 > Within the last few years, crop ecologists in several countries > have been focusing on the precise relationship between temperature > and crop yields. One of the most comprehensive of these > studies was conducted at the International Rice Research Institute > (IRRI) in the Philippines. A team of eminent crop scientists > using crop yield data from experimental field plots of irrigated > rice confirmed the rule of thumb emerging among crop ecologists— > that a 1-degree Celsius rise in temperature above the > norm lowers wheat, rice, and corn yields by 10 percent. The > IRRI finding was consistent with those of other recent research > projects. The scientists concluded that “temperature increases > due to global warming will make it increasingly difficult to feed > Earth’s growing population.”68 It is the big issue. And one that in his book will affect immigration, you really thought that I was kidding when I mentioned that he sees immigration getting worse by not doing anything regarding AGW? Well, he does. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/268 "2011-06-27T06:03:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, Lester Brown in Plan B mentions on the sustainability part that: > > It is the big issue. And one that in his book will affect immigration, you really thought that I was kidding when I mentioned that he sees immigration getting worse by not doing anything regarding AGW? Well, he does. Yes, as I have told you - I agree regarding your suggestions about action to address AGW. My point has been about the cowardly avoidance of immigration by environmentalists. ---
**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 27, 2011, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/269 "2011-06-27T06:26:20Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Yes, as I have told you - I agree regarding your suggestions about action to address AGW. > > My point has been about the cowardly avoidance of immigration by environmentalists. And they are not avoiding it, immigrants are part of the population. Sucks, but even if you tell me that you agree with the suggestions about actions to address AGW, it is clear that you do not care that those nativist organizations are treating you like a chump. You continue to support them regardless. Their efforts, and this has been shown many times already, are geared to put and support people in office that are deniers of AGW. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/270 "2011-06-27T06:53:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And they are not avoiding it, immigrants are part of the population. Hehe, nice one. 🙂 **magellan01** explained the distinction above. In terms of the US population, I am talking about future immigration and the impact on the US population. > [@](#): > > If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82% of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants, according to new projections developed by the Pew Research Center. > > Of the 117 million people added to the population during this period due to the effect of new immigration, 67 million will be the immigrants themselves and 50 million will be their U.S.-born children or grandchildren. [http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections](http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections) ---
**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 27, 2011, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/271 "2011-06-27T07:07:31Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Hehe, nice one. 🙂 **magellan01** explained the distinction above. In terms of the US population, I am talking about future immigration and the impact on the US population. And I already noticed that if that is the case, then the point is even less important to be the focus for environmentalists. As pointed before there is nothing in the Pew cites that criticizes the future trends, that is not their job. America is changing, and we should ensure all people do their share to avoid environmental degradation. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/272 "2011-06-27T07:15:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And I already noticed that if that is the case, then the point is even less important to be the focus for environmentalists. > > As pointed before there is nothing in the Pew cites that criticizes the future trends, that is not their job. America is changing, and we should ensure all people do their share to avoid environmental degradation. It isn’t their job. I’m glad you figured that out :smack: And no, it doesn’t mean the point is less important. 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005. That is hardly stabilizing the population! It requires urgent attention and less diversionary tactics from lunatics like yourself. ---
**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 27, 2011, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/273 "2011-06-27T07:19:04Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > It isn’t their job. I’m glad you figured that out :smack: > > And no, it doesn’t mean the point is less important. 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005. That is hardly stabilizing the population! It requires urgent attention and less diversionary tactics from lunatics like yourself. Yeah like if the lunatics you peddle are being taken seriously, or you for that matter. 😛 Really, you can not count, your support in this board is in the single digits. ---
**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 27, 2011, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/274 "2011-06-27T07:32:43Z")
And we already saw how much support is there from the experts that count in this issue in the USA, we already know what a fiasco it was for you to point at one of the few experts that you thought that he supported your point of view. After reading the latest books from Brown, it is clear that your ignorance shows. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/275 "2011-06-27T10:53:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And we already saw how much support is there from the experts that count in this issue in the USA, we already know what a fiasco it was for you to point at one of the few experts that you thought that he supported your point of view. After reading the latest books from Brown, it is clear that your ignorance shows. :smack: I think you’re getting dumber as the thread progresses 🙂 Again, the reluctance to address the issue of immigration is the very reason I started the thread on GD. It’s not because of any rational environmental position, but appears to stem from social and political concerns. We’ve been over this time and again. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/276 "2011-06-27T12:31:38Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > :smack: I think you’re getting dumber as the thread progresses 🙂 > > Again, the reluctance to address the issue of immigration is the very reason I started the thread on GD. It’s not because of any rational environmental position, but appears to stem from social and political concerns. We’ve been over this time and again. Since when did you give a crap about the environment? Since you finally got around to reading the ancient press releases from various discredited neo-nativist groups. ---
**Author:** ![Autolycus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Autolycus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autolycus)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/277 "2011-06-27T12:35:41Z")
Geez get a room you two 😛 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/278 "2011-06-27T14:29:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > For environmentalists reducing population is important, but it applies to all. **It does not makes sense for environmentalists concerned about the sustainability equation in the U.S. to look at immigration**. There are other organizations for that as environmentalists look at the population on the whole. (Brown) Okay. If it does not make sense for environmental groups to look at the sustainability equation in the U.S. and how it might be impacted by immigration, what types of groups would be better suited to do that work? Historically, that type of work was, indeed, done by groups like the Sierra Club. Why are the ill-suited to do it now? And who is better suited to do it? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/279 "2011-06-27T15:19:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Okay. If it does not make sense for environmental groups to look at the sustainability equation in the U.S. and how it might be impacted by immigration, what types of groups would be better suited to do that work? Historically, that type of work was, indeed, done by groups like the Sierra Club. Why are the ill-suited to do it now? And who is better suited to do it? Hypothetically, the organization so best suited would not be an organization concerned with U.S. immigration or population at all; nor with the global population primarily; but with studying the environmental impact of **shifts** in population, through immigration and other demographic factors such as birthrate changes, **from one part of the globe to another;** and then identifying any real environmental problems that emerge from such shifts, and proposing solutions – the kind of solutions that can only enacted at the **international** level. (Because national border controls can only divert the pressure into another channel, as it were, and the net environmental impact in such case might be even **worse** than that of the single country in question doing nothing.) Because **that** and nothing else is the problem properly under discussion here. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/280 "2011-06-27T15:34:06Z")
Ban illegal immigration. U.S. economy collapses even more without dirt cheap labor. Consumption and industrial output plummets, improving the environment. Profit! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909.md?page=15)