tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post6274518115973820548..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Global Warming and ImmigrationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-3018452865856730302010-08-02T13:27:00.575-07:002010-08-02T13:27:00.575-07:00EngineerPoet, Fellow Traveller in Berkeley, and Ki...EngineerPoet, Fellow Traveller in Berkeley, and Kiss the Goat:<br /><br />So nice to know you're out there.<br /><br />It's unfortunate that the Sierra Club is beholden to such a narrow interest. I appreciate the references and comments. (This further illuminates what I had guessed at.)<br /><br />I managed to catch the new executive director of the Sierra club when he was interviewed on NPR radio's Forum, about six months ago. I asked him point blank about the Sierra Club's position on population growth and immigration. He seemed to be quite flustered and responded with a vague statement about the "carrying capacity" of developing countries. He carefully steered the issue away from California or the US. So I don't expect things at the Sierra Club to change soon.<br /><br />Recently, I've run across Sierra Club statements that say that the world could support a population of about 40 billion. Really? Terrifying that such a formerly stalwart orgainization could be so easily co opted.<br /><br />In addition to Californians for Population Stabilization, I'm impressed with the pragmatic efforts that Pathfinders International has made to assist women in gaining access to healthcare.<br /><br />Best to you all.<br /><br />pd in sfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70302044381397976472010-08-02T08:22:56.657-07:002010-08-02T08:22:56.657-07:00Not if most of them are a nearly a full standard d...<i>Not if most of them are a <b>nearly</b> a full standard deviation lower in intelligence. Not if over <b>a third</b> of them can't even finish high school.</i> <br /><br />It's much worse than a full standard deviation - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#National_IQ_and_QHC_values" rel="nofollow">Lynn & Vanhanen guesstimate</a> an average IQ for Guatemala of 79, which I think is probably fairly typical of the Mexican/Guatemalan/El Salvadoran aboriginals which we have been getting as illegal aliens these last several decades.<br /><br />Also, it's much worse than a "third" as regards high school graduation:<br /> <br /> <br /><b>LOSING OUR FUTURE: How Minority Youth Are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis</b> <br />National Graduation Rates By Race and Gender<br />[PDF, page 6; text, page 2]<br /><a href="http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410936_LosingOurFuture.pdf" rel="nofollow">urban.org</a> <br /><br />American Indian/AK Nat, FEMALE: 51.4%<br />American Indian/AK Nat, MALE: 47.0%<br />Hispanic, FEMALE: 58.5%<br />Hispanic, MALE: 48%<br />Black, FEMALE: 56.2%<br />Black, MALE: 42.8%Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-2373069700251339052010-08-01T18:13:59.984-07:002010-08-01T18:13:59.984-07:00My best guess is that the median illegal immigrant...<i>My best guess is that the median illegal immigrant will do well enough to buy a big vehicle with spinning rims on credit, <b>without ever making enough to pay enough taxes to make himself a net benefit</b>.</i> <br /><br />Back during the McCain/Kennedy nightmare, in the spring of 2007, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, named Robert Rector, actually ran the numbers, and they are pretty horrifying - the burden imposed by the Central American aboriginals actually INCREASES [from $19,588 to $22,449 per family per year] as they move out of the underground economy and are mainstreamed into the welfare state:<br /> <br /> <br /><b>The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer</b> <br />by Robert Rector and Christine Kim<br />May 21, 2007<br /><a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/sr14.cfm" rel="nofollow">heritage.org</a> <br /><a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/sr14es.cfm" rel="nofollow">EXECUTIVE SUMMARY</a> <br /><br />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: <i>...A household's net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. When the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes)....</i> <br /><br /><b>The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer</b> <br />April 4, 2007<br />by Robert Rector, Christine Kim and Shanea Watkins, Ph.D.<br /><a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/sr12.cfm" rel="nofollow">heritage.org</a> <br /><a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/sr12es.cfm" rel="nofollow">EXECUTIVE SUMMARY</a> <br /><br />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: <i>...A household’s net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. If the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services alone are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $22,449 (expenditures of $32,138 minus $9,689 in taxes)...</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-45173880732062755862010-08-01T15:22:22.942-07:002010-08-01T15:22:22.942-07:00What passes for environmentalism is no more than h...What passes for environmentalism is no more than hatred of the peoples who had the know-how and discipline to industrialize their societies. Anyone pointing out needless pollution in nonindustrial societies, such as the ridiculously poor diet cattle and buffalo are fed in the Third World (leading to significantly greater carbon emitted per gallon of milk produced), is called a hater.<br /><br />Hate is only "hate" when directed at non-whites. When directed at whites, it is "progress".B322https://www.blogger.com/profile/18257802768718375656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-68351444065845027952010-08-01T15:17:44.926-07:002010-08-01T15:17:44.926-07:00My best guess is that the median illegal immigrant...<b>My best guess is that the median illegal immigrant will do well enough to buy a big vehicle with spinning rims on credit, without ever making enough to pay enough taxes to make himself a net benefit.</b><br /><br />You're engaging in static analysis here - making the same sort of assumptions which caused the Great Recession, such as the idea that 10 million <i>new</i> Americans will produce as much as what 10 million <i>current</i> Americans produce. Not if most of them are a nearly a full standard deviation lower in intelligence. Not if over a third of them can't even finish high school.<br /><br />The US's per capita use of fossil fuels, and therefore carbon emissions, is about to fall considerably. If something can't continue forever, it won't.<br /><br />Burning through $1.5 trillion annually in foreign money, the US still has a long way to fall.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36954387434092576242010-08-01T11:44:06.004-07:002010-08-01T11:44:06.004-07:00Liberals have a hierarchy of values. Their global ...Liberals have a hierarchy of values. Their global project of turning brown skinned people into Oreos trumps their concerns about the environment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52147896774126318672010-08-01T10:23:37.013-07:002010-08-01T10:23:37.013-07:00Yes I've seen the 2 other mentions of the Sier...Yes I've seen the 2 other mentions of the Sierra Club but, I wanted to add that it was a big controversy, dunno when. I don't know whether being anti-immigration was ever the official line but, there was mainstream news about it (perhaps being debated, only) at least (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club - place to start, at least). The Sierra Club got it, and got politically-corrected out of it.rainy_dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14988377881664865258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66890389408873085322010-08-01T09:31:51.789-07:002010-08-01T09:31:51.789-07:00@pd in sf - just joined CAPS. Thanks - I didn'...@pd in sf - just joined CAPS. Thanks - I didn't know about this organization before.fellow traveler in berkeleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-69758749491202157482010-08-01T04:12:07.579-07:002010-08-01T04:12:07.579-07:00Seeing that people are connecting some dots, the S...Seeing that people are connecting some dots, the SPLC had to issue another report: “Greenwash: Nativists, Environmentalism and the Hypocrisy of Hate.” <br /><br />http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/07/27/new-splc-report-nativists-and-the-environmental-movement/lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65865146873719862132010-08-01T02:05:01.882-07:002010-08-01T02:05:01.882-07:00"Whether you ultimately decide that this is s...<i>"Whether you ultimately decide that this is still right anyway...you have to consider the basic fact of the matter"</i><br /><br />Or stated another way - basically, you can pick any two of these: growing or at least nondeclining prosperity for Americans measured through consumption/growing prosperity for would be immigrants measured through growing consumption/lower CO2 emissions from reduced consumption. You cannot pick all three. If you're telling Americans that you think all three can happen, then you're probably bullshitting or possibly even lying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-68565380195331918122010-07-31T21:28:06.500-07:002010-07-31T21:28:06.500-07:00Do you have much on this year's Russian crop f...Do you have much on this year's Russian crop failures? <br /><br />HoosiernormAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75286505009342237162010-07-31T21:08:10.866-07:002010-07-31T21:08:10.866-07:00Blog challenge to other bloggers/commenters: inste...<i>Blog challenge to other bloggers/commenters: instead of just complaining, how about coming up with specific workable strategies for beating open borders+ socialism?</i><br /><br />Frame genocidal levels of immigration as criminal.<br /><br />Apprehend and prosecute perpetrators.Tanstaaflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10809764986911255031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-68216654328081950092010-07-31T20:55:40.634-07:002010-07-31T20:55:40.634-07:00"The bottom line is, environmentalism has sol..."The bottom line is, environmentalism has sold out to consumerism."<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />As an early contributor to Greenpeace, I'd agree.<br /><br />Someone who is a key player in the Sierra Club recently told me that they dare not mention the population/immigration issue as they believe it will affect their donor base.<br /><br />I make a point now of telling environmental groups that approach me for donations to tell them they will not get a penny out of me until they speak out openly about the impact of unfettered and uncontrolled immigration. I'm not holding my breath.<br /><br />The turning point, where environmental groups backed aware from the immigration issue, was in about 2000. Sometime close to when David Brower died.<br /><br />Complete sellout.<br /><br />-pd in sfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23935887223050021592010-07-31T20:00:24.924-07:002010-07-31T20:00:24.924-07:00"I saw that headline too and thought for a mo..."<i>I saw that headline too and thought for a moment that the enviro left had gotten a clue and was sadly, sadly let down once I read.</i>"<br /><br />Don't worry, lots of people get it. The membership of the Sierra Club gets it. However, the leadership has been blackmailed into silence by a very large donor (David Gelbaum) who has said he'll pull his support if the SC ever comes out against immigration (implying that going back to its historic ZPG position is a no-no). Schmuel Goldberg above seems to be in the Gelbaum camp.<br /><br />If you want more than you ever wanted to read on the subject, read Al Bartlett.<br /><br />And let's not forget "Albertosaurus" above:<br /><br />"<i>The globe used to have more CO2 in the atmosphere - much, much more. At the time of the Carboniferous Era there was about ten times as much CO2 around in the air.</i>"<br /><br />The Sun also brightens at about 1% per 100 million years, so the decrease in CO2 with time is necessary to keep a steady temperature. In another 500 million years there will be no margin left, and Earth will go into a wet greenhouse state and then follow along the route travelled by Venus.<br /><br />"<i>There's a lot of Canada that is frozen. Almost all Canadians live within a few miles of the US border.</i>"<br /><br />Most of the rest of Canada has thin, poor soils which won't yield much even if they thaw.Engineer-Poethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06420685176098522332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66296810839723659192010-07-31T17:49:28.740-07:002010-07-31T17:49:28.740-07:00The green reaction to these immigration issues sim...The green reaction to these immigration issues simply lays bare the fact that 'greenness' is not a science for these people - it is a religion: A New Age sort of religion in which the main goal is to make you feel good about yourself and to bask in the approval of your peers. SWPL Open-borders folks also get to feel warm and fuzzy because they are helping the down-trodden brown person (but hell, screw those poor 'prole' whites and blacks who are taking the brunt of the Mexican invasion). The (mostly) urban whites may also get all self-congratulatory over being among the 'cognitive elite' who believe in Global Warming.<br /><br />The point that all three articles of faith are the 'Holy Trinity' for these folk and no appealing to reason or data will shake their faith.<br /><br />They are the new 'Creationists'.William1066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-10440894082960326602010-07-31T17:01:27.030-07:002010-07-31T17:01:27.030-07:00Sometime in the early 90's, I went to an Earth...Sometime in the early 90's, I went to an Earth Day gathering (event? party? I don't know) in Santa Barbara, the city who's oil spill started the whole thing. Much of the city is what is commonly described as "limousine liberals." That group clearly dominates political environmentalism today. But they appear not to have latched onto it yet, in the early 90's. On that Earth Day, I saw about 80 booths, almost entirely staffed with traditional hippies. MOST displayed signs opposing immigration, based on Steve's reasoning. For many, reducing immigration was the entirety of their message.<br /><br />I was at that same Earth Day event this year, again in Santa Barbara. It's grown to closer to 1000 booths, mostly selling quasi-environmentalist consumer goods. (hemp clothing, electric bikes, etc.) The only mentions of immigration were repeated complaints about the soon to be signed (at the time) immigration bill in Arizona. Several booths sold t-shirts and bumper stickers deriding Arizona as "racist." <br /><br />The bottom line is, environmentalism has sold out to consumerism. The public face of the movement, at least, has become little more than an ad campaign for companies with the "correct" political positions. And of course, anti-immigration isn't one of those "correct" positions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-17537763881400094102010-07-31T16:21:26.545-07:002010-07-31T16:21:26.545-07:00This concept (creating infighting amongst the left...This concept (creating infighting amongst the left on two issues they care about) is along the right lines, but the problem with just going the global warming vs. open borders route is that in the moral hierarchy of leftism, open borders generally wins. As a former leftist I can attest that being left wing is only partly about positive feelings (e.g. caring about the environment), and much more so about negative ones (e.g. getting one over on those “dumb flyover staters”). If you want leverage over people, you have to push the button on what they care about most: even more so than moral superiority, most people care about their money (benefits/entitlements etc, including many throughout the middle class). For the right to win, it must be perceived as a better money-provider than the left- and this doesn’t necessarily mean being more socialist than the left, just more clever in some ways. Will explain further in an upcoming blog post.Escapisthttp://escapistart.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-51389844491950171952010-07-31T16:17:27.116-07:002010-07-31T16:17:27.116-07:00Technical difficulty, so retrying (hope this isn&#...Technical difficulty, so retrying (hope this isn't a duplicate):<br /><br />One might ask: if 70% of the populace is opposed to open borders, why do they continue to support open borders politicians? (e.g. Tancredo got no traction in the primaries). <br /><br />The answer is that the imported populations brought in by open borders are on the same side as “the people” where it counts: they help push socialism “over the top” electorally. The people may be 70%+ for border security, but they're for other stuff first: Free Stuff. Sort of like how everyone wants to be lean (and the path to get there is known), but a large % of the population is overweight/obese (eating junk food matters more). The candidates offering the most Other People’s Money will inherently be pro open borders, as large-scale immigration of socialist-leaning populations supplies a voting demographic which effectively guarantees steady and lucrative lifetime employment for such politicians. Think you can defeat open borders without defeating socialism? Think again. <br /><br />Blog challenge to other bloggers/commenters: instead of just complaining, how about coming up with specific workable strategies for beating open borders+ socialism?Escapisthttp://escapistart.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90075424940793731662010-07-31T14:48:02.345-07:002010-07-31T14:48:02.345-07:00Great posting and so true.
I also second elvisD&...Great posting and so true. <br /><br />I also second elvisD's comment. Many of the rougher, farther-out enviros of decades past were pretty harsh and no-compromise about population growth and mass immigration. It was only in the '80s and '90s that the great part of the green movement became genteel, D.C.-ish, and Democratic-Party-subservient and gave up the cause. <br /><br />Edward Abbey had a lot of harsh (and provocative and amusing) things to say:<br /><br />http://www.abbeyweb.net/<br /><br />http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/abbey.html<br /><br />John Tanton, Mr. Anti-Immigration and Zero Population Growth himself, started off as a conservationist:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/2925ywnRay Sawhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02434181069400646328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-3830910616096746512010-07-31T14:30:12.963-07:002010-07-31T14:30:12.963-07:00i posted about this in 2008 when oil was $140 per ...i posted about this in 2008 when oil was $140 per barrel, except i framed it as a question for the energy department.<br /><br />every, EVERYBODY, had some armchair idea for how to make gasoline cost less. $4 per gallon, it's an outrage, we should (fill in the blank with some idea cooked up after thinking about the topic for 5 whole minutes).<br /><br />if the oil import bill is high now, how much higher does it get every year after another 1 million mexicans come into the US and begin using gasoline at the rate which americans use it?<br /><br />how many additional millions of barrels of oil PER DAY must the US import in, say, in 2020, after allowing mexicans to cross the border at will for over 30 years?jodynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-40761205224981624272010-07-31T14:16:03.680-07:002010-07-31T14:16:03.680-07:00"greening of hate"
Yet when hate is &qu...<i>"greening of hate"</i><br /><br />Yet when hate is "greened" by tying xenophobic anti-Western sentiment to Western "degradation of the environment" and "overconsumption", there is an eerie, yet utterly expected silence. The "greening" of Third World resentment (and xenophobia to Western culture - the mainstay of environmentalism) is rarely opposed.<br /><br />....<br /><br />Anyway, with regard to this, frankly, drop a rock, it'll hit the ground. It's not mysterious. Bring large masses of people to your country to sell them stuff for them to consume and consumption will increase. <br /><br />Whether you ultimately decide that this is still right anyway (presumably as by doing this while reducing taking measures to reduce consumerism we can have a "fairer" distribution of resources) or wrong (either because a) we have no obligations to set policy such that foreigners have more stuff, if especially it means we have less and the current distribution of stuff is basically fair as it is or b) it's not plausible that we can reduce consumption to offset immigration and population growth - both of which I basically agree with), you have to consider the basic fact of the matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6584017467954908172010-07-31T13:41:52.521-07:002010-07-31T13:41:52.521-07:00The problem with this analysis is that the current...The problem with this analysis is that the current abhorrence of carbon may very well reverse. Carbon in the atmosphere may soon be regarded as a good thing. The fear of carbon dioxide is a recent phenomenon based on the proposition that it is a greenhouse gas and we should fear global warming - very doubtful propositions.<br /><br />No one denies that CO2 is the "green" gas. That is to say there will be more greenery - crops, forests, and weeds - when there is more carbon in the atmosphere. In a world with ever more mouths to feed, more crops is a good thing.<br /><br />The globe used to have more CO2 in the atmosphere - much, much more. At the time of the Carboniferous Era there was about ten times as much CO2 around in the air. Over time most of that carbon was naturally sequestered into oil, coal, and gas. CO2 levels dropped in the Pleistocene. Had this process continued all photosynthesis would have stopped. Luckily man arose and began returning carbon to the atmosphere - something no other species or natural process could do.<br /><br />Man evolved in this the fourth great ice age. The "normal" temperature of Earth is quite warm. Ice ages are the exception. There have only been four in the last half billion years. So if CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more warmth that would be "natural".<br /><br />Alas our ice age is periodic. We alternate warm and cold periods of about one hundred thousand cold years with ten thousand warm years. We are near the end of our interglacial warm period. The last such interglacial - the Eemian - was warmer than this the Holocene interglacial. So there is some reason to expect it to get a bit warmer yet but then it gets much, much colder. That means a mile of ice on New York City and Chicago.<br /><br />No climatologist doubts that the ice will return although many doubt that we truly understand the process. There are problems with the prevailing Milankovitch Cycle theory.<br /><br />There was a recent science fiction novel by Niven and Pournelle called <i>Fallen Angels</i> in which as the ice advanced, people were encouraged to burn as much fossil fuel as possible so as to get some green house warming.<br /><br />It's nice to imagine that there could be an effective human response to the coming giant ice sheets, but a lot of climatologists and physicists now believe that green house warming from carbon is nonlinear and that the carbon spectrum is currently saturated so that more carbon won't produce any more warming. Maybe so, maybe not. It hardly matters.<br /><br />There was another set of articles in the press last week about some little island sinking beneath the rising waters. That's probably just not true, but even if it is, so what? If the world gets warmer, humans will have more habitable land not less. One third of the former Soviet Union was above the arctic circle. Look at a map. There's a lot of Canada that is frozen. Almost all Canadians live within a few miles of the US border. If the world did actually get warmer human habitable areas would more than double at least in the Northern Hemisphere.<br /><br />AlbertosaurusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-22944308694286068862010-07-31T13:14:58.740-07:002010-07-31T13:14:58.740-07:00Leftists don't seriously believe in global war...Leftists don't seriously believe in global warming just like they don't seriously believe in the blank slate egalitarianism they preach.<br /><br />Putting aside the issue of immigration, if the Left seriously believed in global warming, they would be pushing for sanctions against China which is now the world's biggest CO2 emitter.<br /><br />Leftists don't seriously believe in any of the principles they pretend to espouse. It's just a matter of moral preening.<br /><br />JMHOsabrilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-13211403719532945772010-07-31T12:24:43.442-07:002010-07-31T12:24:43.442-07:00Steve,
Please tell me this had something to do wi...Steve,<br /><br />Please tell me this had something to do with what I wrote <a rel="nofollow">here</a>. It would really make my day.<br /><br />Or perhaps the thought was just in the air and I caught it a day early?Notus Windhttp://majorityrights.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-63943208567400513672010-07-31T11:35:32.538-07:002010-07-31T11:35:32.538-07:00Another Inconvenient Truth for the Left: if Ameri...Another Inconvenient Truth for the Left: if America is such an awful racist place where the white man always got his boot on da brutha's neck, why do so many browns come here and thrive?The Anti-Gnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04386593803225823789noreply@blogger.com