It seems obvious what the Future holds. 'MORE people' just means 'MORE unemployed'. That's going to create a multitude of Problems, least of which will be the Welfare State that will be necessary.
Deal With Climate Change Now, Or America Will Face Unprecedented Southern Immigration
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
It seems obvious what the Future holds. 'MORE people' just means 'MORE unemployed'. That's going to create a multitude of Problems, least of which will be the Welfare State that will be necessary.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
So why were so dead set against stopping economic migrants from Latin America?
Sure. MORE People has nothing to do with Climate Change ... except that it does. Humans are the ones causing Climate Change ... hence MORE Humans means MORE Climate Change.And your "or to fixing the world's economic inequalities", which makes me feel you are detached from Reality.
Say that again?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You were against building a wall, if I recall!
Kamala Trump
Verified User
no it's not, you idiotic plebian.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello T. A. Gardner,
That's not science.
That's hate propaganda.
Nobody has suggested that, by allowing immigration, we are hoping to solve world poverty.
That is a blatant red herring argument.
The speaker of the unknown source hate propaganda video says 'elites tell us.' What the heck is HE??? Well, we don't know. We are never introduced to the speaker. We don't know who he is, where he is from, why he is speaking, who the audience is, or what the point of that demonstration is. It's propaganda. Pure and simple.
And it totally misses the point of this discussion.
We are not trying to solve world poverty by letting all poor people into the USA. It's ludicrous to even suggest that we take all the impoverished people from China, India, South America, etc, into the USA to try to alleviate their poverty. That's not the point of this thread at all.
That video argues against something which has never been suggested.
It's a scare video.
It's meant to make people oppose immigration.
And then there was that give-away about posing the question of whether Muslim countries would admit Christians. There's the tell. This guy is an elite slick-talking evangelist who wants to get rich by preaching Christianity. Some Christian. He wouldn't help others who need it, would not give of himself to those in need. What a phony!
No.
The point of this thread is the inescapable either/or situation we currently find ourselves in, and it is a predicament of our own making.
The USA produces far more global warming emissions per capita than any other country.
The Earth is warming; the climate is changing. We did that.
And if we don't fix it, it will cause the regions where millions of people live off the land to become unlivable.
They will face a terrible decision of life and death.
Either they leave the place they know as their home and go find a place they can live, or they will die.
They are going to be looking at OUR place.
Now, we can change that.
All we have to do is get organized and unified on our approach to reducing emissions.
Then the climate stops changing.
And the places that all these poor people are able to live and survive in will continue to be able to support them and they won't be forced to try to come here.
Tackling climate change IS AN ANTI IMMIGRATION ISSUE.
That's not science.
That's hate propaganda.
Nobody has suggested that, by allowing immigration, we are hoping to solve world poverty.
That is a blatant red herring argument.
The speaker of the unknown source hate propaganda video says 'elites tell us.' What the heck is HE??? Well, we don't know. We are never introduced to the speaker. We don't know who he is, where he is from, why he is speaking, who the audience is, or what the point of that demonstration is. It's propaganda. Pure and simple.
And it totally misses the point of this discussion.
We are not trying to solve world poverty by letting all poor people into the USA. It's ludicrous to even suggest that we take all the impoverished people from China, India, South America, etc, into the USA to try to alleviate their poverty. That's not the point of this thread at all.
That video argues against something which has never been suggested.
It's a scare video.
It's meant to make people oppose immigration.
And then there was that give-away about posing the question of whether Muslim countries would admit Christians. There's the tell. This guy is an elite slick-talking evangelist who wants to get rich by preaching Christianity. Some Christian. He wouldn't help others who need it, would not give of himself to those in need. What a phony!
No.
The point of this thread is the inescapable either/or situation we currently find ourselves in, and it is a predicament of our own making.
The USA produces far more global warming emissions per capita than any other country.
The Earth is warming; the climate is changing. We did that.
And if we don't fix it, it will cause the regions where millions of people live off the land to become unlivable.
They will face a terrible decision of life and death.
Either they leave the place they know as their home and go find a place they can live, or they will die.
They are going to be looking at OUR place.
Now, we can change that.
All we have to do is get organized and unified on our approach to reducing emissions.
Then the climate stops changing.
And the places that all these poor people are able to live and survive in will continue to be able to support them and they won't be forced to try to come here.
Tackling climate change IS AN ANTI IMMIGRATION ISSUE.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello T. A. Gardner,
We are not trying to solve climate change through immigration.
Another red herring.
There appears to be a strong case of denial going on here.
No.
It's the other way around.
We solve climate change, and we don't have to face climate migration on top of existing immigration.
We are not trying to solve climate change through immigration.
Another red herring.
There appears to be a strong case of denial going on here.
No.
It's the other way around.
We solve climate change, and we don't have to face climate migration on top of existing immigration.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
Americans came from all over the place, and have relatives there. It's sad to see the trumpers wanting their families to die.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Yea, sure... Like it has changed them in past decades when we kept hearing from the same "experts" that are saying that today that today all sorts of islands would be underwater, there'd be massive flooding of coastal cities worldwide, and "millions of climate refugees."
How many times can they cry "Wolf!" before you stop listening to them?
It isn't wise to listen to so-called "experts" who have a track record of being wrong that's worse than going to a psychic for advice...
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Then what does mass immigration solve? Show where right now, today, there's mass migration due to Gorebal Warming. It hasn't materialized. Those claims have been made for decades now and it hasn't happened.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
It is math. Math done accurately is immutable and irrefutable. That doesn't make it "hate" just because you don't like the answer. Oh, it also isn't a red herring argument either. It is the guy's argument and position. Refute it or accept it. But it isn't a red herring.
The video doesn't argue against immigration per se. It argues that immigration won't solve the problems of over population and poverty. Those have to be solved in situ where they are occurring, not by trying to move people somewhere else.
As for the climate... What happens if we do reduce CO2 and nothing changes? Then what? My suggestion is we hold very public executions of those who pushed loudest and hardest for that solution as a warning to future generations that you better be damn sure you are right before upending society on a whim.
I also suggest we do simple alternative things that might be contributing like reduce or eliminate jet aircraft contrails. Cheap, easy, and quick to do. If it helps or it eliminates the problem, then we're good. If not, we're not out much doing it.
Another is wholesale adoption of nuclear power. This is far more doable than solar and wind are and would solve our energy problems making it much cheaper, not more expensive as wind and solar have.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Iolo/Penderyn,
Yeah, it's quite bizarre.
I am amazed these people get such weird ideas. Our country wouldn't exist without immigrants. We are better off for having a wide variety of cultures and various backgrounds. Diversity is power.
If everybody were all the same, all clones of the same character, we would lack imagination. We would miss things. We would be less.
And it is clear the reason for Republican hatred of immigration.
Immigrants enter at the low end of the social strata. The under advantaged class. That is the class that Republicans like to oppress, but fear if they become too great and gather too many votes, they will overcome the Republican power structure which keeps rich Republicans privileged.
But now, Republicans face a dilemma.
They don't want to do anything about climate change, but if they don't, it comes back to bite them specifically as it impacts everyone else.
It creates a nightmare situation where immigration increases to previously unknown levels, totally eclipsing any immigration issues we've faced to date.
Yeah, it's quite bizarre.
I am amazed these people get such weird ideas. Our country wouldn't exist without immigrants. We are better off for having a wide variety of cultures and various backgrounds. Diversity is power.
If everybody were all the same, all clones of the same character, we would lack imagination. We would miss things. We would be less.
And it is clear the reason for Republican hatred of immigration.
Immigrants enter at the low end of the social strata. The under advantaged class. That is the class that Republicans like to oppress, but fear if they become too great and gather too many votes, they will overcome the Republican power structure which keeps rich Republicans privileged.
But now, Republicans face a dilemma.
They don't want to do anything about climate change, but if they don't, it comes back to bite them specifically as it impacts everyone else.
It creates a nightmare situation where immigration increases to previously unknown levels, totally eclipsing any immigration issues we've faced to date.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello T. A. Gardner,
That vid addresses a different point than that which is raised in the OP. It is a total red herring.
The OP does not talk about trying to "solve the problems of over population and poverty."
It merely states that either we tackle climate change effectively or we will be on the receiving end of climate migration.
Dancing around the issue by talking about solving world poverty is exactly that. Dancing around the issue, not facing it.
Actually, current nuclear is more expensive because of the regulation hurdles. It has a nasty habit of melting down, causing massive unlivable zones, killing thousands. And there is a tough problem with storage of the spent fuel. And the mining and transpo of the fuel contributes to CO2. Just try to get insurance for a new nuclear project. Good luck.
I would like to see us set up a new regulatory system to look at Traveling Wave Reactor technology. That system uses the spent fuel of old tech reactors, thus solving two problems simultaneously. And it is inherently safer because it can't melt down. I'm not sure if I see a downside there. The new reactors could be built at the sites of old reactors where the spent fuel is stored. Seems like a no-brainer.
It is math. Math done accurately is immutable and irrefutable. That doesn't make it "hate" just because you don't like the answer. Oh, it also isn't a red herring argument either. It is the guy's argument and position. Refute it or accept it. But it isn't a red herring.
The video doesn't argue against immigration per se. It argues that immigration won't solve the problems of over population and poverty.
That vid addresses a different point than that which is raised in the OP. It is a total red herring.
The OP does not talk about trying to "solve the problems of over population and poverty."
It merely states that either we tackle climate change effectively or we will be on the receiving end of climate migration.
Dancing around the issue by talking about solving world poverty is exactly that. Dancing around the issue, not facing it.
Actually, current nuclear is more expensive because of the regulation hurdles. It has a nasty habit of melting down, causing massive unlivable zones, killing thousands. And there is a tough problem with storage of the spent fuel. And the mining and transpo of the fuel contributes to CO2. Just try to get insurance for a new nuclear project. Good luck.
I would like to see us set up a new regulatory system to look at Traveling Wave Reactor technology. That system uses the spent fuel of old tech reactors, thus solving two problems simultaneously. And it is inherently safer because it can't melt down. I'm not sure if I see a downside there. The new reactors could be built at the sites of old reactors where the spent fuel is stored. Seems like a no-brainer.
Yakuda
Verified User
Sounds like a threat
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Actually, I am.
Yes, I am.
Consensus is not scientific, nor is consensus science.
No. You don't get to control my speech, China Man.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
It addresses the same issue, just from a different perspective. Be it Gorebal Warming, or poverty, or whatever, immigration and movement of population isn't an answer. The math shows that and the guy with the gumballs demonstrates it quite graphically. Countries don't have to be on "the receiving end of climate migration" either. To date, this hasn't been an issue for mass movement of population in any case even as the so-called "experts" have claimed repeatedly that by today it would be a major problem.
Again, how many times can the "experts" be wrong on something before you stop believing them?
No, it's not. In fact everything you state about nuclear power is wrong. For example, take Ivanpah solar v. Palo Verde nuclear. The later cost about five times what Ivanpah did in constant 2016 dollars to build. But Palo Verde produces 32 times more energy than Ivanpah, so the cost is far lower both in constructed generation and operation.
There have been three serious accidents with nuclear power: Three Mile Island. Nobody died in that accident. It has been cleaned up entirely now. Fukushima. Nobody died as a direct cause of the meltdowns there. The number of people that might get cancer in years to come as a result is small. It is being cleaned up.
Then there's Chernobyl. This is what happens when you have a Leftist, authoritarian, government that has no public accountability. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated, fast fission reactor design that is used nowhere in the Western world for commercial power generation. The reasons for this is the design is inherently far less safe than designs used elsewhere, it produces as a biproduct of operation weapons grade plutonium, and it is a nightmare to dismantle at end of service life. But it is much cheaper and easier to produce to begin with...
The problems that caused the accident there was the reactor was being operated in an unsafe and experimental manner by a high ranked government bureaucrat. The operators told the guy that it was unsafe but had no authority to overrule him. Because of the inherently bad design characteristics of that type of reactor it resulted in a horrific nuclear accident that cannot and will not happen using standard commercial reactor designs the West uses like BWR and PWR reactors.
Mining of uranium or thorium for fuel, along with the processing and manufacture of it, is far more environmentally friendly than recovery of rare earth metals used in solar panels. Spent fuel can be safely stored in facilities like Yucca mountain. The only thing holding nuclear power back is an irrational fear of it due to scientific and engineering illiteracy such as you show here. That's it.
There are many inherently safe reactor designs out now. The only thing holding us back is, as I said fear brought on by people with no knowledge of how things nuclear work.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Yes but isn’t that better for an eventual perpetual one party Democrat state ? Then all will be well. A true utopian socialist society. Open borders, free healthcare for all, UBI, oil production eliminated , resulting in a mild year round temperate climate and no more hurricanes? The list of positives is almost endless.
I have no problem with a 'Wall' where it's needed. A 'Wall' out in the middle of the Sonoran desert is a waste of money.
(I have a Story of crossing from Tijuana into San Diego I will share with you at some time)
