Chen019: A bigger fool that follows other fools

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Tell me where Brown sees it that way or admit that you are grasping at straws.

It seems you are grasping at straws I’ve pointed out the logic of it above. I’ll repeat the syllogism here:

1. Population growth is seen as a bad thing for the environment (US 400 million+).

2. Immigration is a major driver of US population growth.

3. Therefore reducing immigration is one effective way to reduce US population growth.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

It seems you are grasping at straws I’ve pointed out the logic of it above. I’ll repeat the syllogism here:

1. Population growth is seen as a bad thing for the environment (US 400 million+).

2. Immigration is a major driver of US population growth.

3. Therefore reducing immigration is one effective way to reduce US population growth.

It is not effective as you yourself admitted here, and even before I do remember others already finding that and other logical flaws on your syllogism.

Also we already saw that your big example for number 2 failed to mention that the domestic immigration in Colorado was the mayor driver there.

Your retardation shows by thinking that posting something repeatedly you will get a different answer.

As for the other points that you show others you are too cowardly to deal with:

Anti-immigrant Leader Admits Using Climate Change for Political Gain -...

While most people were listening to Newt Gingrich speak on Saturday, about 75 people assembled in one of the smaller rooms to hear a discussion entitled “Immigration: The Defining Issue for the Republican Party,” sponsored by American Council for Immigration Reform. The panel’s four speakers included: Robert E. Rector, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS); James G. Gimpel, Professor of Government, University of Maryland; and Rep. Steve King from Iowa. Each speaker had 20 minutes to speak, followed by a question and answer session. The audience boasted a whole host of anti-immigrant individuals including Chad McDonald from NumbersUSA; Wayne Lutton, editor of The Social Contract; Howard Wooldridge, younger brother of anti-immigrant activist Frosty Wooldridge; and James Russell of Catholics for a Moral Immigration Policy.

Lets look at the Heritage Foundation that was mentioned there, it is also an organization dedicated to seed doubts about AGW:

The Video Climate Deniers Tried to Ban - Climate Denial Crock of the Week

YouTube short Video

Anthony Watts was already mentioned in the rebuttal of your retarded idea that me or the environmentalists are going for a “One Child Policy”. What it needs to be pointed out here is that Climate Change Deniers also move and tell anti-immigrants what to do and say.

And it is yet another reason why I do not think that you have any concern for the environment.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

It is not effective as you yourself admitted here, and even before I do remember others already finding that and other logical flaws on your syllogism.

Could you explain why it isn’t effective?

a) Immigration is a significant driver of US population growth.

b) US population growth (upwards 300 mill - projected 400 million + by 2050) is seen as a bad thing for the environment.

I mention the One Child Policy, because that is an alternative means of controlling population growth in the US. I don’t think that would be a good idea though.

[GIGObuster]

And to your “logic” I said:

“Tell me where Brown sees it that way or admit that you are grasping at straws.”

Then you just **repeated **your “logic”. That works alright, it works to show others that you only avoided the fact that Brown is just like the other environmentalists I have referred to in the past. The population is taken into account as a whole, and as immigrants are already included, immigrants can not avoid being inconvenienced also by the solutions that will come to deal with carbon emissions, city planning and population control.

When experts do not see the “obviousness” of a point from a layman, it is more likely that the layman is the one that it is wrong.

And the One Child Policy was a demonstrated straw man used by climate change deniers. And your insistence on its continuing use just shows all who you really are.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

And to your “logic” I said:

“Tell me where Brown sees it that way or admit that you are grasping at straws.”

Then you just **repeated **your “logic”. That works alright, it works to show others that you only avoided the fact that Brown is just like the other environmentalists I have referred to in the past. The population is taken into account as a whole, and as immigrants are already included, immigrants can not avoid being inconvenienced also by the solutions that will come to deal with carbon emissions, city planning and population control.

When experts do not see the “obviousness” of a point from a layman, it is more likely that the layman is the one that it is wrong.

If you find a flaw in my reasoning please point it out.

Ting has mentioned above that immigration is a no-go zone. The reluctance is also discussed here. Not for logical reasons (indeed, I’ve shown you above it is a logical way to reduce population growth). But for political and social ones. The same ones that make it impossible for you to consider reducing immigration The same kind of reasons why you wouldn’t suggest capitalism to Stalin. It’s an ideological non-starter. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, in fact it makes good sense.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

If you find a flaw in my reasoning please point it out.

It wont work Chump, you are avoiding telling us where Brown agrees with your “logic”. He was pointed by you as the best example of an expert environmentalists that agrees with your ideas so it should be easy to find the quote that agrees that immigration should be the focus. Foreign Immigration is not because it leaves 2 out of 3 persons off the hook. (This is because the fake environmentalists then do not lift a finger to do something about the environmental priorities Brown mentions) and when I read the passages regarding immigration, Brown is referring also to domestic immigration, concentrating on immigration will leave out a higher number of people that will not have to contribute to solve the problem of emissions.

@Chen019

Ting has mentioned above that immigration is a no-go zone. Not for logical reasons (indeed, I’ve shown you above it is a logical way to reduce population growth). But for political and social ones. The same ones that make it impossible for you to consider reducing immigration

And as advised before, you really do not know me. I’m on the record of being pragmatic first and an ideologist later. Pragmatically speaking, you are admitting that concentrating on immigrants in relation to ecological issues will not be easy.

And once again, if it was logical, Brown, as the recognized expert, would had dignified your “logic” by mentioning it at least in his books.

[GIGObuster]

And as he still thinks it can be ignored, this thread is also about the connections climate change deniers have with anti-immigrants. I already knew of the Heritage Foundation and their AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) denial efforts. I was not much aware that they also had it for immigrants. As mentioned before, their main efforts now are to discredit science to then allow industry to continue polluting.

A dark ideology is driving those who deny climate change | Robin McKie

So scientists not only predicted how hot this year was likely to be six months ago, they forecast a decade ago just how much the world would heat up 10 years later. Bear this in mind when deniers tell you climate science is a conspiracy or the work of charlatans. They are talking rubbish.

Such precision is encouraging for it indicates climate scientists know what they are talking about, though at a deeper level, the news is disturbing – for it is clear that few people are actually listening to this message. Why? What lies behind scientists’ failure to get their warning over? Most answers have concentrated on the difficulty of explaining science – riddled as it is with uncertainties and qualifications. And to some extent, these explanations are correct. Atmospheric physics and meteorology are complex. However, there is a second, more sinister explanation, one that forms the focus of Merchants of Doubt, by US academics Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, which is to be published this month by Bloomsbury. This analysis of right-wing politics and its impact on science shows how a handful of individuals have managed to obscure the truth on issues that range from the dangers of smoking to global warming. These right-wing libertarians include such scientists as Fred Seitz and Fred Singer – who both worked on the Cold War projects such as the US hydrogen bomb project and who helped set up institutions like the US’s Heritage Foundation and Marshall Institute.

Funded by corporations and conservative foundations, these outfits exist to fight any form of state intervention or regulation of US citizens. Thus they fought, and delayed, smoking curbs in the '70s even though medical science had made it clear the habit was a major cancer risk. And they have been battling ever since, blocking or holding back laws aimed at curbing acid rain, ozone-layer depletion, and – mostly recently – global warming.

In each case the tactics are identical: discredit the science, disseminate false information, spread confusion, and promote doubt. As the authors state: “Small numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially if they are organised, determined and have access to power.”

Getting people to ignore doing something about the carbon footprint is the true objective for the group.

Lovin’ on Hitler

The Foundations
The tax returns reveal another hidden aspect of many anti-immigration groups — their heavy reliance on funding by right-wing foundations.

Tanton’s most important funding source for the last two decades may well have been the Scaife family, heirs to the Mellon Bank fortune.

Richard Mellon Scaife, a reclusive figure, has been instrumental in establishing right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation and supporting causes like the “Arkansas Project,” an effort to dig up dirt on President Clinton.

Scaife family foundations, including those controlled by Scaife’s sister, Cordelia May Scaife, provided some $1.4 million to FAIR from 1986-2000.

These foundations, along with private trusts controlled by Scaife family members, have also provided millions of dollars to other anti-immigration groups.

The Heritage Foundation is promoting climate change denial. Them funding and advising groups that only pretend to be environmentalists, and pushing the immigrants as a wedge issue among real environmentalists groups is not strange considering that the end results are to get people that deny AGW into power.

[magellan01]

Hey, Smartest Person on the Planet Who Feels The Need to Repeatedly Insult Those Smarter Then Him,

You continue to conflate and confuse three issues on the table:

1. the environmental health and sustainability of the planet
2. the environmental health and sustainability of the Colorado River Basin
3. the environmental health and sustainability of the United States
   For 1, immigration matters little. Not zero, but little. It’s not zero because as people move to wealthier countries, like the U.S., their carbon footprint increases.

For 2, The Colorado River Basin was brought up originally to show how a specific area had it’s own valid environmental concerns. And that it was correct and sensible for environmentalists to look at the sustainability of that region* in addition to issues concerning global warming*. Immigration into the region mostly comes from elsewhere within the same country, where there are no restrictions.

For 3, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly in a simple and logical fashion:

A) larger populations place greater stress on the environment.

B) for the U.S., immigration is seen to be a large contributor to our future population growth.

C) it makes sense for environmentalists concerned about the sustainability equation in the U.S. to look at immigration.

So, please stop using factors from #2 to attempt to discount #3. And would you please acknowledge that people can look at the Saving the Bay in their own town AND the limits of humans living in the Colorado River Basin AND the environmental health/sustainability of the U.S. AND global warming. That it is not an either-or proposition. You’ve begrudgingly acknowledged parts of this previously, but seem to slide back into your one-or-the-other ideological comfort zone.

Finally, keeping in mind my 1,2,3 above, rather than be snide or insulting or attempt to hand wave away the point, can you point out the logical flaw(s) in this offered by Chen?

[QUOTE=Chen019]

1. Population growth is seen as a bad thing for the environment (US 400 million+).

2. Immigration is a major driver of US population growth.

3. Therefore reducing immigration is one effective way to reduce US population growth.
   [/QUOTE]

Thank you, Smartest Person on the Planet Who Feels The Need to Repeatedly Insult Those Smarter Then Him. I can only imagine the demands placed on your time from the other 6 billion less intelligent humans seeking your wisdom.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Hey, Smartest Person on the Planet Who Feels The Need to Repeatedly Insult Those Smarter Then Him,

You continue to conflate and confuse three issues on the table:

1. the environmental health and sustainability of the planet
2. the environmental health and sustainability of the Colorado River Basin
3. the environmental health and sustainability of the United States
   For 1, immigration matters little. Not zero, but little. It’s not zero because as people move to wealthier countries, like the U.S., their carbon footprint increases.

And that was the point, the whole attempt from the fake environmentalist immigrant groups was to capture environmentalist organizations to be a copy cat of their organizations and to also minimize what Brown describes as the big issue that is affecting and will affect all (AGW)

@magellan01

For 2, The Colorado River Basin was brought up originally to show how a specific area had it’s own valid environmental concerns. And that it was correct and sensible for environmentalists to look at the sustainability of that region* in addition to issues concerning global warming*. Immigration into the region mostly comes from elsewhere within the same country, where there are no restrictions.

And misleadingly avoided dealing with the fact that the biggest increase of immigrants was from domestic immigration abut 6 times as much.

@magellan01

For 3, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly in a simple and logical fashion:

A) larger populations place greater stress on the environment.

B) for the U.S., immigration is seen to be a large contributor to our future population growth.

C) it makes sense for environmentalists concerned about the sustainability equation in the U.S. to look at immigration.

As much sense as the mice discussing who will put the bell on the cat.

@magellan01

So, please stop using factors from #2 to attempt to discount #3. And would you please acknowledge that people can look at the Saving the Bay in their own town AND the limits of humans living in the Colorado River Basin AND the environmental health/sustainability of the U.S. AND global warming. That it is not an either-or proposition. You’ve begrudgingly acknowledged parts of this previously, but seem to slide back into your one-or-the-other ideological comfort zone.

Nope, you guys want to avoid dealing with the OP, your so called logic of number 3 not only simplifies this issue to a sound bite, it avoids dealing with 4) 5) or 6):

Where are the future immigrants in Browns new books? Oh that is right, coming as refugees to more developed nations thanks to us doing nothing against global warming.

Your efforts are only helping polluters and really helping make your pet issue about future immigration worse, so:

Nice Job Breaking It, Hero.

@magellan01

Finally, keeping in mind my 1,2,3 above, rather than be snide or insulting or attempt to hand wave away the point, can you point out the logical flaw(s) in this offered by Chen?

Already done, what you and he is doing is avoiding the larger issue to score a cheap point. it is indeed like claiming that the cat is bad. well, as it should had been clear by the latest reports, the immigrant’s footprint is not as bad as you want it to be, there are sinister reasons why this reckless attempt to control environmentalist organizations came to be.

@magellan01

Thank you, Smartest Person on the Planet Who Feels The Need to Repeatedly Insult Those Smarter Then Him. I can only imagine the demands placed on your time from the other 6 billion less intelligent humans seeking your wisdom.

As Brown, who is the smarter one, would tell you the big issue is AGW. In his books, foreign immigrants coming as refugees to more developed nations thanks to us doing nothing against global warming is a warning.

Knowing where the priorities are, then it is reckless to ignore the groups that are misguiding people into action that in reality avoids dealing with the main issue. And when the AGW deniers are also paying for most of the efforts of the anti-immigrants it doesn’t take a genius to see that the intention is to do nothing about the main issue. And then the hypocrisy is exposed from guys like you. There is really no effort whatsoever to protest the inaction of the politicians elected that should be doing something to stabilize the environment.

So here is your chance once again to show all this is nothing but a bunch of Hippocrates that are attempting to blame others so as not to do anything for the environment. Can you link to current efforts like the environmentalists are doing from anti-immigrant organizations doing something remotely like this?:

28 groups to rally at Statehouse in opposition of Gov. Christie's...

Twenty-eight groups will converge this morning on the steps of the Statehouse to voice their opposition to Gov. Chris Christie’s environmental policies.

Members of the Sierra Club, Blue Wave NJ and the American Jewish Committee will be among those rallying.

Or just give up and acknowledge that those fake environmentalist anti-immigrant groups are in reality anti-environmental too.

[GIGObuster]

Correcting that last item:

@GIGObuster

So here is your chance once again to show all that this is something more than just a bunch of Hippocrates that are attempting to blame others so as not to do anything for the environment. Can you link to current efforts like the environmentalists are doing from anti-immigrant organizations doing something remotely like this?:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/28_groups_to_rally_at_statehou.html

Or just give up and acknowledge that those fake environmentalist anti-immigrant groups are in reality anti-environmental too.

[Chen019]

@magellan01

Hey, Smartest Person on the Planet Who Feels The Need to Repeatedly Insult Those Smarter Then Him,

You continue to conflate and confuse three issues on the table:

1. the environmental health and sustainability of the planet
2. the environmental health and sustainability of the Colorado River Basin
3. the environmental health and sustainability of the United States
   For 1, immigration matters little. Not zero, but little. It’s not zero because as people move to wealthier countries, like the U.S., their carbon footprint increases.

For 2, The Colorado River Basin was brought up originally to show how a specific area had it’s own valid environmental concerns. And that it was correct and sensible for environmentalists to look at the sustainability of that region* in addition to issues concerning global warming*. Immigration into the region mostly comes from elsewhere within the same country, where there are no restrictions.

For 3, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly in a simple and logical fashion:

A) larger populations place greater stress on the environment.

B) for the U.S., immigration is seen to be a large contributor to our future population growth.

C) it makes sense for environmentalists concerned about the sustainability equation in the U.S. to look at immigration.

So, please stop using factors from #2 to attempt to discount #3. And would you please acknowledge that people can look at the Saving the Bay in their own town AND the limits of humans living in the Colorado River Basin AND the environmental health/sustainability of the U.S. AND global warming. That it is not an either-or proposition. You’ve begrudgingly acknowledged parts of this previously, but seem to slide back into your one-or-the-other ideological comfort zone.

Finally, keeping in mind my 1,2,3 above, rather than be snide or insulting or attempt to hand wave away the point, can you point out the logical flaw(s) in this offered by Chen?

Thank you, Smartest Person on the Planet Who Feels The Need to Repeatedly Insult Those Smarter Then Him. I can only imagine the demands placed on your time from the other 6 billion less intelligent humans seeking your wisdom.

Nicely summarized

And it seems that the answer is no, GIGObuster cannot point to any logical flaws in the argument above. However, he/she certainly is an expert at hand waving and name calling

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Nicely summarized

And it seems that the answer is no, GIGObuster cannot point to any logical flaws in the argument above. However, he/she certainly is an expert at hand waving and name calling

piffle, this was already explained. You are just showing all that you are avoiding the followups to that “logic”. 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)

Suffice to say is that you are like the mice that after a discussion they agree that the cat is bad, but first, you misunderstanding about the nature of the threat or the hare brain idea on what to do. And then the cowardice appears when we (not you, you will continue to think the mice will put the bell in the cat) realize that you are afraid to deal with what it is happening around that.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/03/14/207650/heritage-foundation-epa-clean-air-act/

Heritage Foundation asserts our air would have magically cleaned itself without the Clean Air Act

Magical thinking and Alice in wonderland logic is what you have.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

piffle, this was already explained. You are just showing all that you are avoiding the followups to that “logic”. 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)

Fail. Re-read magellan01’s post above.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Fail. Re-read magellan01’s post above.

Cowardly avoiding the other issues already posted, and your “logic” was already explained, it fallaciously avoids dealing with the main environmental issues.

[GIGObuster]

And the “logic” of ignoring the OP is clear, the hypocrisy is too big to ignore, but our “heroes” here in this thread will manage.

http://www.splcenter.org/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-the-hypocrisy-of-hate/what-is-greenwashing

Tanton’s funders aren’t much different. The Swensrud Foundation has long supported U.S. Inc., FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that began life as part of FAIR. (Two of Swensrud’s trustees, Nancy S. Anthony and Steven B. Swensrud, now sit on FAIR’s board.) It also backs three conservative groups that have ridiculed the idea of global warming: the Heritage Foundation, the Young America’s Foundation, and the Washington Legal Foundation.

The chief political allies of FAIR, NumbersUSA, and most of the country’s other major nativist groups are found in the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, headed by U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), a former FAIR lobbyist. The caucus’ 95 members score an average 11% on the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) scorecard. Similarly, Reclaim American Jobs, a new worker-friendly congressional caucus started by Beck, has 27 members with an average 8% LCV score.

The activists behind the latest greenwashing attempts are engaging in a series of cynical, self-interested attempts to recruit environmentalists that have little to do with a serious effort to confront environmental problems. The hypocrisy of their claim to be “progressives” is, in many cases, self-evident. But their well-orchestrated attempts in the past, like the 2004 siege of the Sierra Club, should serve as a warning — the nativists, like wolves in sheep’s clothing, are wily and capable opponents.

“John Tanton and the anti-immigration network he built have been greenwashing their racist agenda for far too long,” said Tarso Ramos, executive director of Political Research Associates, a Massachusetts organization that has long monitored the American radical right. “These folks haven’t done a thing to reduce American consumption rates, constrain extractive industries or hold polluters accountable. Yet they’re working overtime to convince actual environmentalists to do their dirty work — blaming immigrants for environmental degradation.”

[GIGObuster]

And our “heroes” here are now managing to avoid dealing even with the environmentalist that they claimed was supportive of their position.

Plan B is an integrated program with four interdependent
goals. We are not, for example, likely to stabilize population
unless we can also eradicate poverty. Conversely, we cannot
restore the earth’s natural systems without stabilizing population
and climate, and we are not likely to stabilize climate unless
we also stabilize population. Nor can we eradicate poverty
without restoring the earth’s natural systems.

-PLAN B 4.0
Lester Brown
Mobilizing to Save Civilization
EARTH POLICY INSTITUTE

Is is all related for an environmentalist, demanding that environmentalists concentrate on a side issue only helps the organizations that in reality support the big polluters.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

And our “heroes” here are now managing to avoid dealing even with the environmentalist that they claimed was supportive of their position.
Is is all related for an environmentalist, demanding that environmentalists concentrate on a side issue only helps the organizations that in reality support the big polluters.

Fail. Re-read magellan01’s post:

Originally Posted by magellan01
Hey, Smartest Person on the Planet Who Feels The Need to Repeatedly Insult Those Smarter Then Him,

You continue to conflate and confuse three issues on the table:

1. the environmental health and sustainability of the planet
2. the environmental health and sustainability of the Colorado River Basin
3. the environmental health and sustainability of the United States
   For 1, immigration matters little. Not zero, but little. It’s not zero because as people move to wealthier countries, like the U.S., their carbon footprint increases.

For 2, The Colorado River Basin was brought up originally to show how a specific area had it’s own valid environmental concerns. And that it was correct and sensible for environmentalists to look at the sustainability of that region in addition to issues concerning global warming. Immigration into the region mostly comes from elsewhere within the same country, where there are no restrictions.

For 3, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly in a simple and logical fashion:

A) larger populations place greater stress on the environment.

B) for the U.S., immigration is seen to be a large contributor to our future population growth.

C) it makes sense for environmentalists concerned about the sustainability equation in the U.S. to look at immigration.

So, please stop using factors from #2 to attempt to discount #3. And would you please acknowledge that people can look at the Saving the Bay in their own town AND the limits of humans living in the Colorado River Basin AND the environmental health/sustainability of the U.S. AND global warming. That it is not an either-or proposition. You’ve begrudgingly acknowledged parts of this previously, but seem to slide back into your one-or-the-other ideological comfort zone.

Finally, keeping in mind my 1,2,3 above, rather than be snide or insulting or attempt to hand wave away the point, can you point out the logical flaw(s) in this offered by Chen?

Thank you, Smartest Person on the Planet Who Feels The Need to Repeatedly Insult Those Smarter Then Him. I can only imagine the demands placed on your time from the other 6 billion less intelligent humans seeking your wisdom.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Fail. Re-read magellan01’s post:

Are you such an idiot that has failed to see I replied already to him?

Never mind, we already established that.

As we already established that you were an idiot for thinking Brown was helping you more. Brown does not look at curving immigration as a solution, but notices that immigration is a symptom for not dealing with the main issues.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Are you such an idiot that has failed to see I replied already to him?

Never mind, we already established that.

As we already established that you were an idiot for thinking Brown was helping you more.

Fail. Re-read magellan01’s post:

Originally Posted by magellan01
Hey, Smartest Person on the Planet Who Feels The Need to Repeatedly Insult Those Smarter Then Him,

You continue to conflate and confuse three issues on the table:

1. the environmental health and sustainability of the planet
2. the environmental health and sustainability of the Colorado River Basin
3. the environmental health and sustainability of the United States
   For 1, immigration matters little. Not zero, but little. It’s not zero because as people move to wealthier countries, like the U.S., their carbon footprint increases.

For 2, The Colorado River Basin was brought up originally to show how a specific area had it’s own valid environmental concerns. And that it was correct and sensible for environmentalists to look at the sustainability of that region in addition to issues concerning global warming. Immigration into the region mostly comes from elsewhere within the same country, where there are no restrictions.

For 3, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly in a simple and logical fashion:

A) larger populations place greater stress on the environment.

B) for the U.S., immigration is seen to be a large contributor to our future population growth.

C) it makes sense for environmentalists concerned about the sustainability equation in the U.S. to look at immigration.

So, please stop using factors from #2 to attempt to discount #3. And would you please acknowledge that people can look at the Saving the Bay in their own town AND the limits of humans living in the Colorado River Basin AND the environmental health/sustainability of the U.S. AND global warming. That it is not an either-or proposition. You’ve begrudgingly acknowledged parts of this previously, but seem to slide back into your one-or-the-other ideological comfort zone.

Finally, keeping in mind my 1,2,3 above, rather than be snide or insulting or attempt to hand wave away the point, can you point out the logical flaw(s) in this offered by Chen?

Thank you, Smartest Person on the Planet Who Feels The Need to Repeatedly Insult Those Smarter Then Him. I can only imagine the demands placed on your time from the other 6 billion less intelligent humans seeking your wisdom.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Fail. Re-read magellan01’s post:

Obviously you are so emotional by just repeating and expecting a different reply.

You are also demonstrating that by not waiting to see if more was added to the reply.

As I said:

"We already established that you were an idiot for thinking Brown was helping you more. Brown does not look at curving immigration as a solution, but notices that immigration is a symptom for not dealing with the main issues.