Yes, if you believe that immigration will turn America into a "3rd world shithole" then you are a xenophobe. People said the same thing when the immigrants were Germans, Irish, Italian, Jews and Chinese that they are now saying about Mexicans. They were wrong every time, and are almost certainly wrong now too. Arriving immigrants quickly rise to American levels of productivity, and within a generation, they usually exceed it.

1. Economic ignorance
2. Xenophobia

People can be astonishingly ignorant about what economic policies work, and which don't. Look at the NAFTA agreement between America, Mexico and Canada. Economists pretty much universally agree that all three countries have benefited, yet the people in ALL THREE countries believe they got screwed and all the benefits went to the other two.

If Congress doesn't like what he did, they can pass a law and overturn it. Chance of that happening: 0%, at least in the next two years. In the absence of a law saying otherwise, Obama is free to run immigration policy as he sees fit.

Only if you believe the Lump of Labor Fallacy. Real economies are not zero sum, and there is not a fixed number of jobs to be had. History has shown that countries with permissive immigration policies tend to have lower unemployment than more restrictive neighboring countries.

What Obama did is not only more humane for the families directly affected, it is also good for the American economy, and good for American workers.

No. The physics of nuclear weapons is already well understood. The hard part is the logistics of getting the materials and components. These data would not help there.

However, the data are useful for anyone attempting to power a starship with a warp drive, since that requires exposing the dilithium crystals to copious quantities of Higgs bosons.

The brain dead obvious (and self-funding) solution would be a fine for wellheads releasing excessive gas.

No, the effect is 30 times that of CO2, per mole.

There is no law requiring prices to be proportional to costs. Why should there be?

They also found huge variations between different wells, and different companies. So this is a problem that can be fixed by widely applying best practices.

Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but it has a much shorter atmospheric half-life, of about 7 years, compared to over a century for CO2.

It is a logical fallacy to justify spending money on something stupid just by pointing out that we already spent more on something even stupider. That sort of circular argument just leads to a lot of stupidity. Each expenditure should be justified, or not, on its own merits.

Many jurisdictions have implemented term limits. There is no evidence that it has led to better government. The primary effect seems to be an increase in the power of lobbyists, since the legislators have less expertise.

Yes it is. Combustion of a kg of methane will generate 55 MJ of heat. Combustion of a kg of coal will produce about half as much energy, while generating 1/3 more CO2. That is a big win. Source: Heat of Combustion Tables.

Also, the summary is dumb. A summary should summarize (give a brief, condensed, synopsis of TFA), not describe the logistics and rationale for splitting the video. There is no way I am going to sit through a 15 minute video, but I would be willing to spend 30 seconds reading a paragraph that summarized the main points.

Yes, that is a very foolish assumption. Even if they spent a quadrillion euros, they still could not do everything to ensure success. Real life involves tradeoffs. Most people learn this by the time they are adults.

It would be superior, but not logical. Using a nuke would have doubled the cost of the mission, due to handling costs and higher payload mass. Since the ESA has a fixed budget, doubling the cost means half as many missions. Rather than a few expensive "superior" probes, it is better to launch more missions, and live with the fact that some of them will fail.

When future president James Garfield was a congressman, he published a new and innovative proof of the Pythagorean theorem. So not all congressmen were dumb. If computers existed in the 1870s, he probably would have been a coder.