Stalin praised Lysenkoism, that was an attempt to fit ideology to science. For the scientists in the field immigration is small compared to the whole population and out of scope of the big problems.
Dealing with immigration would not make a dent. Your attempts at making your ideology change the science are indeed foolish. It is slightly less foolish at the environmentalists level but unfortunately many of the serious ones that are experts on the issue are also scientists.
Any cite from them agreeing with your position?
I was the one who brought perspective into your roast, so let’s not try to be disingenuous too.
Said the pot to the kette, if I was doing that only, as mentioned before you just chickened out in dealing with the articles from the environmentalists explaining why immigration is not in their scope. So you are the only one that remains the black one.
That is manifestly false. If you look at any projections, it is unescapable that a significant driver of population growth comes from immigration. This is far easier to control than trying to stop people having children (unless you want to follow China down that path).
It has less to do with the numbers of people than how the people live. So long as American’s continue to consume at a rate that exceeds the rest of the world, whatever the resource, addressing the numbers of people isn’t going to matter.
You are truly dense beyond all measure.
You want to preserve water? Stop building cities in the desert, with thousands of lovely green lawns. Stop using treated water to wash your damn cars, turn off all the fountains in Vegas. Stop emptying reservoirs because someone pissed in it. Any one of these things would have greater impact than cutting immigration.
Of course they won’t actually help with your racist agenda, but you’re all about the water, right?
Those are all good suggestions, but as noted in the cite about the Colorado Basin and in the Clinton report, population growth also has to be considered.
And, unless you want to pursue a 1 child policy like China it might be easier to achieve reduced population growth via reduced immigration levels.
It would be a good system to just automatically post Duh’s for the Colorado cite that focuses on global warming, and a for the immigration item.
elbows, it looks like he is also proud of just being a chicken and never bother to even check if any scientist outside the incestuous nativist groups is supporting his scheme.
What scheme? The point about population growth is so obvious even you appear to have conceded it. Your main opposition seems to be to suggest that the focus should be globally, which is fine. It doesn’t mean you can’t also address population growth in the US via reduced immigration levels. That follows quite logically from the population growth issue.
Again, unless you believe it would be better to have a China style 1 child policy to deal with population issues in the future?
No what you have conceded is that you are a certifiable disingenuous poster.
If you really believed I conceded that immigration can be on the scope for climate science and environmentalists when population already includes it you are really hopeless deluded twit.
Of course everyone can notice that in reality he **did **chicken out, he never did bother to even check if any scientist outside the incestuous nativist groups is supporting him.
Because these are the only two issues to address environmental damage? Reduce immigration or Chinese 1 child policy? We should choose either of these idiotic suggestions over actually changing our lifestyles a tad? What are you smoking?
Immigration isn’t about providing homes and futures for deserving foreigners. It’s about entry level newcomers who will thrive in an environment with opportunity, driving the economy in the process. America and Canada were both built into thriving huge economies this very way.
That’s what makes it so easy to identify boneheaded racists who want to cut immigration during economic stagnation. Seriously dude, that’s the reason you’re the only one who thinks this is a good idea.
You really can not read carefully huh? While he does refer to immigration there is nothing there to suggest dealing with the immigrant population separately, he is referring to all.
And I would go for it as he is not insisting on dealing with the immigrants separately.
No that is just you showing the indefatigable spirit and dedication to demonstrate all the disingenuous levels you are willing to go for. Good show!
We are still looking though for a non nativist scientist and expert that supports the idea that we should address the population growth in the US via reduced immigration
Hey, you ask him that, I agreed with him as he is not concentrating on immigrants to do so, all of America is included by him.
So, any science expert that is not from SUSPS or related organization that that supports your idea that we should address the population growth in the US via reduced immigration?
You’re the one who keeps cherry-picking data from that sustainability report that happens to mention immigration. Why don’t you tell us about the other options that they recommend for reducing growth? Are greenwashers not interested in family planning education?
Hey GIGOBuster (and anyone else who’s curious where chenboy gets these insane ideas from), while it’s possible I’ve missed the link in the various threads where you’ve been battling this particular racist, if you haven’t seen this yet, you’ll probably enjoy it far more than listening to a racist keep trying to justify his racism through various means.
Please read my comments above at # 9. I have said from the outset on this thread that I agree with the other measures suggested by GIGO Buster.
What is harder to explain is the reluctance to address US population growth when it is clearly a major issue. The reasons for this appear to be due to political expediency.
I have that link ready already in my resources, I already know where he is coming from, I’m just humoring him, he is so funny by acting like if he is making any headway. To me it was more important to know in this roast what kind of support he actually does have.
Not very impressive, but then again I was almost 90% certain of that.
What it is clear now is that he is also a chicken, and disingenuous to boot, a roast could not be a roast if we could not get direct evidence of other follies that he has, so I do know that he will not disappoint us!
for the immigration item.