Whackjob Liberal "Climate Refugees" Claim

[Toro]

I was listening to a Commonwealth Club of California podcast on immigration. The speaker, who is an academic and the son of immigrants, was making the case for restricting immigration.

One of the comments from the audience was that America would have to take in a billion "climate refugees," i.e. refugees who would be forced to leave their homes because of climate change. Yes, that's right, 1,000,000,000. Or roughly 1/7th of the world's population.

I have to admit, the speaker was very diplomatic when he said that we wouldn't take in all those refugees. I would have said "That's the most fucking retarded thing I've ever heard of in my life." What kind of whackjob believes this stuff?

 

[Correll]

Many of the arguments for allowing legal and/or illegal immigration do not seem to have any limiting factors.

 

[Mac1958]

One of the comments from the audience was that America would have to take in a billion "climate refugees," i.e. refugees who would be forced to leave their homes because of climate change. Yes, that's right, 1,000,000,000. Or roughly 1/7th of the world's population.

I don't remember the numbers per se, but I've heard a calculation that a pretty decent percentage of the world's population lives within X miles of an ocean.

So maybe that's some kind of extrapolation based on an assumption of higher sea levels.
.

 

[leftwinger]

Key West, Pebble Beach still open. 18th hole Pictures same as 50 years ago. Rise in oceans?

 

[Oddball]

I was listening to a Commonwealth Club of California podcast on immigration. The speaker, who is an academic and the son of immigrants, was making the case for restricting immigration.

One of the comments from the audience was that America would have to take in a billion "climate refugees," i.e. refugees who would be forced to leave their homes because of climate change. Yes, that's right, 1,000,000,000. Or roughly 1/7th of the world's population.

I have to admit, the speaker was very diplomatic when he said that we wouldn't take in all those refugees. I would have said "That's the most fucking retarded thing I've ever heard of in my life." What kind of whackjob believes this stuff?

Never talked with Old Rocksinthehead, mamooth or Crick, have you?

 

[Toro]

There were two issues here.

1. AGW is not only happening, but it is so bad that at least 1 out of every 7 people on earth will become refugees because of it.
2. America is morally obligated to take them all.

I happen to believe in AGW. I just don't believe that the problem is Humanity's Greatest Disaster. I believe that we will find solutions for it, human ingenuity being what it is, solutions that don't undermine and radically transform our economy.

I, being an immigrant, also believe in immigration. I just don't believe that we should take in every single human being who wants to come here. A nation not only has the right to defend it's borders and decide who gets to come here, it must do so. Otherwise, it can create tremendous strain and division within society, particularly when immigrants don't feel the need or obligation to integrate into our society, as many liberals purport.

The argument is just over-the-top, out-of-touch extremism.

 

[Oddball]

There were two issues here.

1. AGW is not only happening, but it is so bad that at least 1 out of every 7 people on earth will become refugees because of it.
2. America is morally obligated to take them all.

I happen to believe in AGW. I just don't believe that the problem is Humanity's Greatest Disaster. I believe that we will find solutions for it, human ingenuity being what it is, solutions that don't undermine and radically transform our economy.

I, being an immigrant, also believe in immigration. I just don't believe that we should take in every single human being who wants to come here. A nation not only has the right to defend it's borders and decide who gets to come here, it must do so. Otherwise, it can create tremendous strain and division within society, particularly when immigrants don't feel the need or obligation to integrate into our society, as many liberals purport.

The argument is just over-the-top, out-of-touch extremism.

Question: Why would you still believe the underlying premise, if people believe that they have to resort to such absurdities to attract attention?

 

[Toro]

Question: Why would you still believe the underlying premise, if people believe that they have to resort to such absurdities to attract attention?

Simply because someone makes an extremist argument does not mean the underlying premise isn't true. "Global warming is a problem and we should do something about it," is not obviated by the claim that "Global warming is going to destroy the Earth." It's like saying "Alabama is the best college football team in the country," and "Alabama can beat everyone by 200 points." That B is false does not necessarily hold that A is false.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There were two issues here.

1. AGW is not only happening, but it is so bad that at least 1 out of every 7 people on earth will become refugees because of it.
2. America is morally obligated to take them all.

I happen to believe in AGW. I just don't believe that the problem is Humanity's Greatest Disaster. I believe that we will find solutions for it, human ingenuity being what it is, solutions that don't undermine and radically transform our economy.

I, being an immigrant, also believe in immigration. I just don't believe that we should take in every single human being who wants to come here. A nation not only has the right to defend it's borders and decide who gets to come here, it must do so. Otherwise, it can create tremendous strain and division within society, particularly when immigrants don't feel the need or obligation to integrate into our society, as many liberals purport.

The argument is just over-the-top, out-of-touch extremism.

I happen to believe in AGW.

Illegal aliens emit much more CO2 when they live in the US than when they lived in their home country.
The best way to save the planet is to boot 40 million illegal aliens. Do it today, for Gaia!!

 

[aaronleland]

There were two issues here.

1. AGW is not only happening, but it is so bad that at least 1 out of every 7 people on earth will become refugees because of it.
2. America is morally obligated to take them all.

I happen to believe in AGW. I just don't believe that the problem is Humanity's Greatest Disaster. I believe that we will find solutions for it, human ingenuity being what it is, solutions that don't undermine and radically transform our economy.

I, being an immigrant, also believe in immigration. I just don't believe that we should take in every single human being who wants to come here. A nation not only has the right to defend it's borders and decide who gets to come here, it must do so. Otherwise, it can create tremendous strain and division within society, particularly when immigrants don't feel the need or obligation to integrate into our society, as many liberals purport.

The argument is just over-the-top, out-of-touch extremism.

Question: Why would you still believe the underlying premise, if people believe that they have to resort to such absurdities to attract attention?

One absurd argument doesn't negate an entire premise.

 

[Oddball]

Simply because someone makes an extremist argument does not mean the underlying premise isn't true. "Global warming is a problem and we should do something about it," is not obviated by the claim that "Global warming is going to destroy the Earth." It's like saying "Alabama is the best college football team in the country," and "Alabama can beat everyone by 200 points." That B is false does not necessarily hold that A is false.

Though that is in fact true, don't you think that the now near constant hyperbole and cries of "WOLF!" have gone way over the top?....Don't you think that the absurd excuse making for why their models have never ever been predictive (i.e. the oceans ate global warming), tend to cast at least a little doubt as to whether the whole mess isn't GIGO?

If you really had something that was so absolutely positively true, shouldn't you be able to couch it in terms that the general public can digest and understand ("dumb it down" if you will), rather than resorting to all this scaremongering and doomsaying?

 

[Oddball]

There were two issues here.

1. AGW is not only happening, but it is so bad that at least 1 out of every 7 people on earth will become refugees because of it.
2. America is morally obligated to take them all.

I happen to believe in AGW. I just don't believe that the problem is Humanity's Greatest Disaster. I believe that we will find solutions for it, human ingenuity being what it is, solutions that don't undermine and radically transform our economy.

I, being an immigrant, also believe in immigration. I just don't believe that we should take in every single human being who wants to come here. A nation not only has the right to defend it's borders and decide who gets to come here, it must do so. Otherwise, it can create tremendous strain and division within society, particularly when immigrants don't feel the need or obligation to integrate into our society, as many liberals purport.

The argument is just over-the-top, out-of-touch extremism.

Question: Why would you still believe the underlying premise, if people believe that they have to resort to such absurdities to attract attention?

One absurd argument doesn't negate an entire premise.

Though it may not be evident in this particular case, I'm not talking about only one absurdity.....The entire AGW narrative has become one absurdity after another.

 

[Marion Morrison]

There were two issues here.

1. AGW is not only happening, but it is so bad that at least 1 out of every 7 people on earth will become refugees because of it.
2. America is morally obligated to take them all.

I happen to believe in AGW. I just don't believe that the problem is Humanity's Greatest Disaster. I believe that we will find solutions for it, human ingenuity being what it is, solutions that don't undermine and radically transform our economy.

I, being an immigrant, also believe in immigration. I just don't believe that we should take in every single human being who wants to come here. A nation not only has the right to defend it's borders and decide who gets to come here, it must do so. Otherwise, it can create tremendous strain and division within society, particularly when immigrants don't feel the need or obligation to integrate into our society, as many liberals purport.

The argument is just over-the-top, out-of-touch extremism.

Question: Why would you still believe the underlying premise, if people believe that they have to resort to such absurdities to attract attention?

One absurd argument doesn't negate an entire premise.

Though it may not be evident in this particular case, I'm not talking about only one absurdity.....The entire AGW narrative has become one absurdity after another.

Some multi-agency AGW report was released Friday.

My Q: Why does it take more than 12 agencies to study that shit on the taxpayer's dime?

Apparently this hasn't circulated among the leftist talking points yet, but look for it tomorrow.

There was a segment on MTP today, so look for a wave of "Climate Change Crisis" bullshit.

 

[Toro]

If you really had something that was so absolutely positively true, shouldn't you be able to couch it in terms that the general public can digest and understand ("dumb it down" if you will), rather than resorting to all this scaremongering and doomsaying?

I think some people are emotional and believe extreme outcomes.

It happens on this board all the time.

 

[Oddball]

I think some people are emotional and believe extreme outcomes.

It happens on this board all the time.

Again, true....Yet it is the people who have inserted themselves at the forefront of the narrative, who are those most engaging in the aforementioned doomsaying behavior.

Personally, I really didn't know who to believe in all of this until, during my study into language and semantics, that I noticed the overall meta-structure of the argument.....It's religious, not scientific....In my mind, this tends to explain the over the top claims and tactics of the true believers.

A couple years after noticing this, Michael Crichton (an MD, BTW) wrote and gave this presentation on the subject:

Crichton: Environmentalism is a religion > Hawaii Free Press

 

[boedicca]

If AGW were as serious as the Prog Loons claim, their elites would not be flying around in private jets and owning multiple huge residences.

We're actually in far greater danger of Global Cooling due to the upcoming Solar Minimum than we are for warming, so people would be better off heading closer to the equator.

 

[boedicca]

If you really had something that was so absolutely positively true, shouldn't you be able to couch it in terms that the general public can digest and understand ("dumb it down" if you will), rather than resorting to all this scaremongering and doomsaying?

I think some people are emotional and believe extreme outcomes.

It happens on this board all the time.

I call shenanigans.

Hardly anybody is overly emotional and dramatizes the future here.