Chen019: A bigger fool that follows other fools

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

1. You say I think the global solutions can be ignored. Please read my post #9 above. I explicitly agreed with you on that point.

Talk is cheap, but then again this shows that I’m correct, your heroes think that you are a chump.

@Chen019

2. Population growth is cited as a material concern by the Clinton Sustainability Task Force report. I have given you a very tangible example in terms of water shortages.

The only reference to immigration is on the historical section. Global Warming is referenced 40 times.

@Chen019

3. Population growth in the US is largely driven by immigration.

http://www.splcenter.org/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-the-hypocrisy-of-hate/the-greening-of-hate-an-essay

First, some facts to put population growth and immigration into perspective. The U.S. population is currently 308 million and could reach between 399 million and 458 million by 2050. While immigration accounts for approximately one-third of U.S. population growth, natural increase accounts for the other two-thirds. Because the U.S. has a relatively youthful population, births continue to outnumber deaths, though that could change as the population ages. Future levels of immigration are hard to predict and will depend to a large extent on the state of the U.S. economy. For example, immigration levels have decreased since the beginning of the current recession.

@Chen019

4. Therefore it is logical from an environmental perspective to reduce immigration to the US.

Nope, it is not the main driver, and even less if we agree that it is the future immigrants that are the issue.

@Chen019

5. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t address the other matters you raise, but immigration restriction is a logical policy option for environmental reasons.

As pointed out before, impractical, misleading and just avoids dealing with the main issues.

And finally, you are really deluded huh? You really think you are making a good impression? You are still stupidly pretending that the Colorado cite is not helping me more than it is helping you and I will let you into something, I actually used that site ages ago to deal with a climate change denier. I just wanted to see how far would you go with it before making notice that you clearly were not aware of what the focus of the paper really was.

I don’t think that immigration was ever mentioned then, but indeed global warming and sustainability was.

So, might as well make a notice here that you have demonstrated to all that you are only just pretending to know about global warming, just like your nativist cites, in reality you are not involved at all in demanding that the current congress critters do something about the issue just like your nativist sources pretend to say that they do.

[elbows]

Dude, get your head out of your ass, already.

It’s not about the number of people, okay? The problems of the worlds environment do not lie on the shoulders of families of 10 and 12 in places like Indonesia, Mexico or Nepal. The problem is the consumption of the family of 2 in California. Why? They drive 2 or more cars, have fridges and air conditioners, that require more power plants, they was their cars with water cleaner than most of the world drinks, etc, etc ad infinity. The solution isn’t to let in less people it’s for the people who consume at such a pace, (Western Nations) to conserve. How could it be any clearer?

You know why environmentalists aren’t all over the immigration issue? Because, unlike you, they are smart enough to recognize that immigration helps drive an economy. How’s that work? Well, it turns out that kids raised in prosperity are rarely as driven as persons newly arrived who’ve been denied opportunity all their lives. Who knew? (Well, actually, everyone but you.) Yeah, your kid is going to get a college education, own a home, work a good job, educate his children and generally have a nice life. While he may have people working under him, odds are, he won’t actually have employees, he will be satisfied with his nice life, no need to be all driven.

Of course, there are exceptions, there are home grown dynasty builders, of course. But new immigrants drive the economy with their very dreams of prosperity. Thinking people see, recognize, and understand this, that’s why no one’s taking up the cause as you’d like to see.

Oh, and their not racist shits, of course.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Nope, it is not the main driver, and even less if we agree that it is the future immigrants that are the issue.

Strawman again. It is a significant driver of population growth which is an issue. See above.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Strawman again. It is a significant driver of population growth which is an issue. See above.

What a deluded fellow. The focus of the paper is the degradation thanks to global warming. So tough, the full perspective of the issue will have to be considered whereas you like it or not.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

What a deluded fellow. The focus of the paper is the degradation thanks to global warming.

Please refer to my comment # 9 above. I agree with you regarding global warming.

Nonetheless, population growth in the US is a material issue, particularly in relation to water sustainability.

Therefore it is logical from an environmental POV to consider reducing immigration to alleviate this pressure on the population & demand on resources.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Please refer to my comment # 9 above. I agree with you regarding global warming.

And I already replied to that silly affirmation, talk is cheap. But demonstrated ignorance is comedy gold!

@Chen019

Nonetheless, population growth in the US is a material issue, particularly in relation to water sustainability.

And as the perspective should had given you a clue already, It helps me more than it helps you.

But go ahead and show all once again what a dunderhead you are, you are welcome as I like to see the evidence of your incompetency for all to see.

@Chen019

Therefore it is logical from an environmental POV to consider reducing immigration to alleviate this pressure on the population & demand on resources.

Therefore it is logical to realize that you are deluded in other way: By thinking that in a pit thread you would continue with the argument, it is not that office you dummy.

Just **repeating **your way out is just showing to all that you are either out of ideas and sources, pathetic.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

And I already replied to that silly affirmation, talk is cheap. But demonstrated ignorance is comedy gold!

I keep repeating it because you somehow you don’t seem to understand that you can address a problem in more than one way.

One of the easiest and most logical ways to stabilize the US population is via immigration restriction.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

I keep repeating it because you somehow you don’t seem to understand that you can address a problem in more than one way.

Nope, as it has been demonstrated it is done to scapegoat the big polluters.

@Chen019

One of the easiest and most logical ways to stabilize the US population is via immigration restriction.

One of the easiest ways to show idiocy, repeat sorry points and still pretend that this is the place to make them.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Nope, as it has been demonstrated it is done to scapegoat the big polluters.

I think you mean exculpate? Also, what has been demonstrated is that it is logical for environmentalists to be concerned about population growth and immigration one way to address that.

As indicated above, there are non-environmental and political reasons to avoid discussing immigration restriction.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

I think you mean exculpate?

[I just knew that was wrong, yes exculpate] and once again you avoid dealing with the ones that are getting exculpated.

@Chen019

Also, what has been demonstrated is that it is logical for environmentalists to be concerned about population growth and immigration one way to address that.

Assumes current evidence, have you really read the previous discussions? Of course you did, what did we found was that virtually all scientific groups and important environmentalist groups dropped that focus, before you reply, get into your head that I’m referring to the current state of affairs, your logic is rancid as it is several years old.

@Chen019

As indicated above, there are non-environmental and political reasons to avoid discussing immigration restriction.

And the nativists are the ones that demonstrate the use of non-environmental and political ways to attempt to get their way, but you are dumb enough not to notice.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

, get into your head that I’m referring to the current state of affairs, your logic is rancid as it is several years old..

I am referring to the current state of affairs too:

The ten cities on this list are the ones with the most acute exposure to problems that could cause large imbalances of water supply and demand. There are a number of metropolitan areas that could face similar problems but their risks are not quite as high. The water problem for U.S. cities is, although it may not be evident, one of the largest issues that faces urban areas over the next ten years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

I am referring to the current state of affairs too:

http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water

Not a mention of immigration there, yep, lets concentrate on population as a whole then.

What a maroon!

[Chen019]

Population growth in the US is largely driven by immigration. Therefore it is logical to reduce immigration as a means to address population pressure.

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

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Population growth in the US is largely driven by immigration. Therefore it is logical to reduce immigration as a means to address population pressure.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections

2008 cite.

2010:

http://www.splcenter.org/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-the-hypocrisy-of-hate/the-greening-of-hate-an-essay

First, some facts to put population growth and immigration into perspective. The U.S. population is currently 308 million and could reach between 399 million and 458 million by 2050. While immigration accounts for approximately one-third of U.S. population growth, natural increase accounts for the other two-thirds. Because the U.S. has a relatively youthful population, births continue to outnumber deaths, though that could change as the population ages. Future levels of immigration are hard to predict and will depend to a large extent on the state of the U.S. economy. For example, immigration levels have decreased since the beginning of the current recession.

Once again too, there is no reference there on the locations, and once again, the report is not critical of the immigrants.

[I guess he is really that deluded folks, he is not able to find good cites]

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Once again too, there is no reference there on the locations, and once again, the report is not critical of the immigrants.

Again, immigration restriction is a logical policy implication. Far more palatable than limiting people in a country from having children (unless you want the US to follow China?).

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Again, immigration restriction is a logical policy implication. Far more palatable than limiting people in a country from having children (unless you want the US to follow China?).

Far more logical is to realize that you are still deluded into thinking we do not know the game that you are playing.

Lets look at the what the nativist sources were up to with the misuse of the cites:

On the Inside

The group’s latest campaign relies on outdated numbers, since the ads’ projection of 600 million Americans by 2100 is based on the 1990 Census. (The Census has published more up-to-date projections based on the 2000 Census, but they only go up to 2050.) The ads also cite statistics without fully explaining them: the Pew Hispanic Research Center does predict that 82% of the increase in U.S. population from 2005 to 2050 will result from immigration, but that figure includes the U.S.-born descendants of immigrants. And it doesn’t represent a departure from recent decades, during which immigrants have accounted for most of the country’s population growth.

Of course, the real message of the ads is that immigrants are bad for the environment, and therefore bad for America. According to the ad that appeared in Wednesday’s Times, “For every four new U.S. residents whether from births or immigration, approximately three more cars are added to our roads, increasing gridlock, energy use and greenhouse emissions.”

But this premise is flawed because the transportation habits of immigrants are different from those of native-born Americans, according to professors at the University of California, Los Angeles.

David Hayes-Bautista, a professor of medicine and health services, co-authored a 2005 study that found recent Latino immigrants in California—and to a lesser extent long-term Latino immigrants and U.S.-born Latinos—are much more likely to carpool or use public transportation than non-Hispanic whites. “If everyone (in California) went to work the way recently arrived immigrants did—by carpooling or using public transportation—that would reduce the number of cars on the road by nearly half,” he told the Intelligence Report.

“Recent immigrants are in fact substantially less responsible for sprawl (they live in the highest density communities) and traffic (they disproportionately take transit and walk), as they are poor,” UCLA urban planning professor Randall Crane E-mailed the Report. “Eventually, they better assimilate into the population and will be more like everyone else, which is to say they are no worse than anyone else.”

[elbows]

Your argument amounts to; ‘I know it’s not the real issue, but if we keep out more immigrants, I can keep driving my Hummer.’

You’re a dumbass. No wait, you may be the dumbass all other dumbasses bow down before.

[Chen019]

@elbows

Your argument amounts to; ‘I know it’s not the real issue, but if we keep out more immigrants, I can keep driving my Hummer.’

You’re a dumbass. No wait, you may be the dumbass all other dumbasses bow down before.

Ok, population growth up to the level of India or China is not an environmental issue? Interesting

Perhaps have a read of some of the cites regarding water sustainability - for a starter.

I suppose the Clinton Sustainability Taskforce were all idiots for mentioning population stabilization in the US.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Ok, population growth up to the level of India or China is not an environmental issue? Interesting

Perhaps have a read of some of the cites regarding water sustainability - for a starter.

I suppose the Clinton Sustainability Taskforce were all idiots for mentioning population stabilization in the US.

They were not idiots for reporting they did not know how the levels of immigration would affect the issue, as it turns out you are still using the same cite expecting that it helps you, as mentioned before the task force referred in the report went to do the amnesties of the 90’s for many immigrants.

You still think it helps you more?

Hey, why I’m complaining, feel free to show once again your incompetence to all.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

They were not idiots for reporting they did not know how the levels of immigration would affect the issue,

As I’ve said, you don’t expect capitalism to be praised under Stalin.

There are strong political reasons for tiptoeing around immigration. I’m focussing on the environmental perspective.

I appreciate that you have non-environmental reasons for never revising immigration levels. That is fine.