And the points are already understood, but I’m not playing that game, what you clearly are pathetically trying to not understand is the concept of what the pit is, now **that **is really dumb.
There can not be a better example of projection from guys like this folks! So you think a semantic battle pretended to be won is good enough to avoid dealing with the fact that you guys have been had? 
Bring on the millions of future immigrants for not doing anything that counts!
What is a sure thing is that you will be as inactive as the nativists:
http://news.change.org/stories/open-letter-to-john-tanton-on-global-warming
HA!. I pointed out a mistake YOU made in a response YOU offered to another poster. Your comment was wrong—bad information—and I pointed it out.
Your response? “How dare you look at the comments I make in my own thread and point out mistakes! That’s distraction!!”
Yeah, distraction from you hand waving, lying and misdirecting enough to embarrassthis guy.
Hes so cute when he thinks that will win the day. 
So you want to tell all to remember about the Oil war? The Operation Iraqi Liberation? (Yeah, the L was later changed to F, as in freedom.)
Your side already lost, the ones that are winning will laugh all the way to the bank with their profits. In the end, keeping us dependent, specially on foreign oil, is what they really want.
Err, I wrote letters to the newspaper before that invasion occurred explaining that Bush’s justifications for it were bullsh1t. Don’t talk about my f8cking side.
I protested and marched, so, what are **you **going to do with the favored politicians of the nativists that are not doing a thing against carbon emissions now?
I guess it will be a stern letter to the editor after the oceans acidify and rise up, and after the refugees come.
I’ve said I agree with you that politicians should do more about carbon emissions.
So we are clear that you have a very good reason then to not to follow those fake environmentalist groups anymore?
…
Yeah right, you will not tell them that their approach to the overall issue is bananas, and one does not have to be a genius to realize that what you are saying here does not mean that you will do anything, as long as you want to remain in the good graces of the members of those groups.
You must have misunderstood me. I was directing you to Post #116, where I corrected a a claim you made. Do you agree you were in error? Or do you wish to defend the statement you made that I corrected?
I have spent almost all my life south of Florida, and I assure you, you can live without refrigerated homes. One of our A/C units was turned on two days ago for maintenance after about a year without use (we had guests from Denmark).
I woke up today to a 75% humidity and 30.6 C, and it was 7:00 AM. Somehow I will make it through the day without A/C.
OK, but tell me you can survive without A/C and without ice-cold Presidente! Definitively not possible.
Exactly, and Chen019 has still not sufficiently or at least coherently answered this question. I see only two ways in which immigration would have an impact on the global environment.
- Immigrants acquire American lifestyles which uses more resources
- Immigrants have significantly more children in the US than they did in Mexico
Cites in this thread have shown that the first is probably untrue. If that is the case, it is a +1 on global environment because immigrant workers would be using less energy than American workers (assuming a good deal of energy consumption involves transportation to/from work and school). Not to mention that many workers share a home.
That leaves the second one. Even if immigrants have slightly more children in the US would that offset the energy conservation of immigrant workers? It may not, at least in the first generation. Later generations may become more American in their lifestyles, but they probably would also have less children.
I find the rightwing trying to push this idea to be pretty disgusting (as usual). Time and again, they play on liberal guilt and it works. Meanwhile, they, including Chen019, could care less about the environment. Isn’t Chen019 a climate change denier? So why would he be making this argument? Oh yeah, because he’s a racist.
This goes back to something I’ve been meaning to say for a while: guys, guys, a little focus please. As amusing it is for me to watch **GIGO **and **magellan **have the same damn argument in two separate threads, it gets confusing. So please, if you want to take part in the debate that spawned this little ditty in the first place, I feel the GD thread is a better place for that.
This thread should be reserved for and dedicated to calling **Chen019 **a scatmunching, disingenuous little pustule. Over and over again.
You’ll have to point that out, then. While it is probably true that recent immigrants do not use as many environmental resources as the typical American, they do tend to use more when they get here. I can’t fathom an argument that supports that they use no more than they did before they emigrated.
Again, the point, from a global perspective, is that they use more than they did before they emigrated.
You’re conflating a bunch of different things. Mainly the global issue and the national one. Globally, it matters little (your points 1 and 2) if someone emigrates to the U.S. There is a net rise in their footprint, but it is fairly small. As far as the U.S. itself, every immigrant raises the collective U.S. carbon footprint by X. Now X may be smaller than that of the American, but it is still an increase. The collective footprint grows for every new person that is added to the population, whether through birth or immigration. Now, it is true that if recent immigrants do use less resources, that they would reduce the average carbon footprint for Americans, but the total collective (from which that average would be derived) would increase. This is simple math.
Fewer children than what? Fewer children than they would have as recent immigrants? Or fewer children than the typical American. If it’s the former, it’s probably still a net increase. If it’s the latter, then you’d be right, that in the long term there’d be a net reduction. But I am not aware of any cite that argued that they would be having fewer children than the typical American.
The fact is that from a national standpoint, every native birth beyond 2 kids per family and every immigrant increases the carbon footprint of the U.S.
What idea? Simple math showing that adding people to a population adds to that population’s carbon footprint?
So, you object to simple facts like the one I just stated and seek to show they are foolish by ad hominems like calling someone a racist.
And just out of curiosity, if you found an actual racist and he told you you should wear your seatbelt when you drive, would you then stop wearing your seatbelt?
That is precisely my point now, **magellan **just want to continue asking the same question expecting to get a different answer, just JAQing off.
Hear, hear!
+1
No. You made a specific claim in response to Shodan. I pointed out an error in that response. You seem intent in neither acknowledging it nor defending it. Again, it was something YOU wrote in THIS thread.
But you go right ahead with your version of, “No there are no tanks near Baghdad. This is a fantasy…”.
Maybe, just maybe you are not aware of it, but the one trick pony of Chen01 is to inject race into discussions, and using sources that concentrate on white supremacy or citations that in reality do not show the scientific racism he peddles.
The simple fact is that that is in the scope of population experts, policy makers, politicians, etc. The focus for the environmentalist is the whole population, even right now Chen is still deluded that the Colorado water cite helps him more than me, in reality the focus of that paper was water, global warming, population. Immigration was only referred to in the historical part of the paper.
Based on the actual efforts the fake environmentalists groups show, in this case what we have here is a racist that is telling a diverse group of passengers to keep their seat belts on … while the van they are in is sinking in the water.
Turns out the racist driver was drunk.
So, you really think me “avoiding” that is worse than you avoiding that you are being seen as a chump by the climate change deniers, avoiding the reality that you are defending the efforts of racists, avoiding that in the FUTURE the actual efforts of the nativists in blocking carbon emission controls will bring more immigrants in?
I will let others be the judge of what is more in the real of fantasy, so far, I can see that only the usual suspect is having a beef with me and that single “avoidance”
Such persistent avoidance of defending a point that is so foundational to so much of what you’ve been arguing in two threads now will likely, and fairly, be seen as you not being able to defend that particular point. And because so much of what you’ve written hinges on that specific point, and you really can’t defend it, I can see why you’re trying as hard as you are to hand wave it away. Unfortunately for you, now that the error has been pointed out, your argument has been undermined whether you attempt to defend it or not.
Given that you cannot defend your point, you’re probably doing the wise thing in hoping it will just be ignored and go away.
Sorry. In case you discover some backbone and would like to either defend your statement or concede that you have been wrong, let me make it easy for you. Here is what we’re talking about:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
The disingenuous part comes by denying that population on the whole also includes the immigrants.
[/QUOTE]
This is not true. Not in the way “immigrants” is being used by Chen, Shodan, me, or any of the cites. And it may be part of the confusion. There are two different groups:
Group 1: “the population as a whole”, which does include those who have already emigrated to the U.S..
Group 2: there is the number of people who will—future tense—emigrate here. This latter group is what people are referring to in this discussion when referring to “immigrants” are those people who would be added through immigration.
[/QUOTE]
Does adding people to a population increase that population’s environmental impact?
Does adding people to a population increase that population’s environmental impact?
Does adding people to a population increase that population’s environmental impact?
Does adding people to a population increase that population’s environmental impact?
Does adding people to a population increase that population’s environmental impact?
Regards,
Shodan