The solution to what? And if your answer is anything other than “the solution to the U.S. sustainability equation”, we have clear evidence that you have not and are not addressing what Chen brought up in his GD thread. And if you are talking about the “the solution to the U.S. sustainability equation”, I’m sure you’ll be able to explain how that equation is helped by more immigrants and not fewer.
I thank you for substituting the cite you provided for the answers requested. Aside from the fact that the author’s thrust is GLOBAL and you once again conflate the different issues and avoid addressing the one Chen originally brought up, I thank you because your own cite demonstrates that these so-called environmentalists are not acting as scientists, but as agents of some perceived social justice. This is what is at the heart of your argument and just about every cite you’ve provided. This latest one makes it crystal clear. So, I do thank you for at least providing clarity.
I guess the days of environmental science are behind us. It’s some supremely comical shit that the side that is always chanting about science!, science!, science! doesn’t even understand the importance of it’s most fundamental tenet: the gathering of facts with a cold, unbiased, objective eye. Instead, they see “science” as some malleable mortar to shore up the misshapen bricks of a contorted kumbaya ideology.
Like I said, that is some funny shit.
I think that’s about it. One can only take Mr. Martini responding to any and all appeals to logic with “I bet a nickel” only so many times before you want Nurse Ratched to pop a handful of pills into your own cup.
And seeing that the “logic” of the Chen is just ignoring the middle, one then has to look at the other subject of the OP.
As noticed by the Southern Poverty Law Center on their Green wash report, the most disturbing connection is the one I noticed with Nativist groups and Global Warming deniers.
When the people giving money to those groups are also involved with AGW deniers and even the same groups are involved in denying also the science, it is not hard to see why is that.
There is a lot of overlapping with people that hate specific immigrants with well to do people in this country. The hypocrisy is a double one, because members of those groups attempt to pass themselves as liberals, and then their environmentalism is as true as a 3 dollar bill.
You are still insisting on denying the forum where we are, now that is dumb.
My point about science was only for the pedantic reasons why it is ridiculous to focus on immigrants when for the big issue it barely registers, environmentalists have other considerations to take into account. You may think that thanks to your ideology you can dismiss what the environmentalist is saying here, but the point was to show what even locally environmentalists are doing, pretending that this is not the case is part of the denial of the changes that are happening among environmentalist groups.
What you see as funny shit is the focus Brown and others have, what you are stupidly forgetting is that Brown recommended Grist. Blame Chen for bringing Brown to the discussion expecting something different.
[Well I also warned magellan to not ignore that Chen is a klutz when looking for unbiased sources and he ends up misrepresenting them. But I just knew magellan would ignore the warning]
I don’t perceive Chen as being klutz-like in the least. Well no more than anyone can appear unklutz-like when he is banging his head against a stone dolt that refuses to answer even the simplest questions directly. You, on the other hand, come off like a pinata with a voice box inserted in it. Every time it gets hit with a question, we get to hear one of a few prerecorded comments having nothing to do with what is asked.
Do you feel that more forum-appropriate than the Mr. Martini comparison? I do aim to please.
I gave Chen plenty of opportunity to demonstrate that that association was a false one by pointing at the current efforts those nativists are doing by demanding action from the elected officials that those groups helped get in to power. On carbon emmisions they show that indeed they are as good as a 3 dollar bill.
He failed to find any cites that shows what they are doing demanding action on carbon emissions now, maybe you can?
Close but no banana you numbskull, I was giving you a chance, a more intelligent fellow would had recognized by know that the good sources Chen used were misrepresented and back down at least on that. The fact that you do not even want to acknowledge that just shows that indeed you are not even able to notice when you are digging your own hole.
The point was that for expert scientists that are working on the issue, immigration barely registers. Lester Brown’s expertize comes from an agricultural and population management, he has the credentials, so what is his focus once again?
[QUOTE=Lester Brown - Plan B]
The four mutually dependent Plan B goals—stabilizing climate,
stabilizing population, eradicating poverty, and restoring
the economy’s natural support systems—are all essential to
restoring food security. It’s unlikely that we can reach any one
without reaching the others.
Eradicating poverty is not only the key to population stabilization,
political stabilization, and a better life, it also provides
hope. As Nobel laureate Mohammed Yunus, founder of the
Grameen Bank for micro-credit in Bangladesh, has pointed out,
“Poverty leads to hopelessness, which provokes people to desperate
acts.”3
[/QUOTE]
Once again, there are other organizations that can have immigration as a focus, environmentalists have a bigger picture to look at and as in the USA they are dropping the elitism of the past and they are reaching to the ones most affected by pollution, it is no wonder that a neutral position is the logical one for them.
It is just that much to your chagrin, many environmentalists that disagree with the neutral position are actually in favor of defending immigrants nowadays.
I thought “focusing on a single issue” was a summary of your posting history, dude. It’s not like it’s leaving you a lot of room to be sarcastic about it.
Well, once again the “logic” you had was shot a few posts ago, so I’m glad that you are conceding the point by not replying on that.
Your silence and reactions to what the fake environmentalist nativist groups don’t do when action is needed on the “stabilizing climate” part of the equation, speak louder than words.
Bullsh1t, I have told you repeatedly I agree with you on other aspects of addressing global warming. Unfortunately, you lack the ability to put aside your bias even for the sake of argument.
You have not shown any evidence whatsoever that you understand what the whole issue is, just by your use of the “one child policy” copy paste point you demonstrated who you are listening to.
Indeed, you are following the methods that Anthony Watts (well known climate change denier) used against Gore, that and other clues show that the “stabilizing climate” part of the equation is blatantly ignored by you and the ones that you are following, and in reality you do not care that that is the case, as long as they follow your pet subject.
Of course the retarded part (from you and your nativist friends) comes by noticing what Lester Brown mentioned: ignoring the “stabilizing climate” part of the equation will lead to more immigration in the future, not less.
Yes, and you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge on this forum the obvious point that Magellan01 & myself have made. Such a closed mind, impervious to logic and evidence
Already done, and that attempt at ignoring that it was replied already shows that you are dumb for still making an argument that ignores the middle and the preponderance of evidence of why neutrality was chosen.
I just have to thank once again Lester Brown for pointing me to Grist.
