You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘green frog theory’ category.
There are those in whom we have great respect across most of their lives. Then suddenly they seem to abandon reason.
Why should anyone vote for Jill Stein? Great question and one I’d never investigated up to now. So I looked.
Shocked. In her views she is no different than Clinton? Don’t believe it? Here is her questionnaire compared with Hillary’s, filled out..
Check it out. When it comes to individual rights, both were identical except for their belief in God. Hillary would keep “God” on money, Jill would be against it. On domestic issues, they agree on everything. The small distinction is that Hillary does not agree that marijuana is a gateway drug, Jill “strongly” does not agree that it is. A very small degree of separation between them. On economic issues they are identical across the board. in both their choices and levels of degree in which they support them.
Only in international relations and defense is there is some gap of difference. One should expect such from someone who has represented our nation around the world versus someone postulating their positions from the couch in their living room. Even here the differences are often only in degree of being against or strongly against.. Hillary is definitely not a Republican as she is sometime called by leftists. The only major difference one can quantify between these two candidates across the whole spectrum, is that Hillary does not believe in isolationism or running away from every conflict, and Jill Stein does.
That means there has to be something else motivating Stein voters. What could it be?
It could be personal dislike. Many people do vote off of their emotions and therefore they may not like Hillary not for anything she has ever done, but just in how she fills out a pantsuit. Rumors are that Susan Sarandon doesn’t like Hillary because George Clooney does. Such dislike if true certainly is not misogyny, easily ruled out when comparing against the gender of Jill Stein, (but perhaps a factor when compared against Gary Johnson).
It could also be a religious fervor for third parties. “Woo hoo, I’m a Green Party/ All the bad stuff you Democrats and Republicans have done to the globe does not reflect on me/ Since my party has never held responsibility, we are clean of all your bad decisions/ Buy voting Jill I’m clean as snow”..
Or it could be a European specialist highly familiar with the third party system across the pond and wishing to implement that system here…
Or it could be someone who just doesn’t care about anything (historians called them anarchists 100 years ago) and is happy watching the world burn.
But we CAN rule out some other reasons.
Ones support for Jill Stein is not for the candidate herself. Most people know very little about her. Is she bi or straight? See? You don’t know. What personal experiences make her more qualified than either Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson, or Donald Trump or Evan McMillian? See? Speechless.
To pull the lever or push the button for Jill Stein means that you are voting for a superfluous cause, a sprite of your own imagination. As in for example: “I’m voting to make the world more liberal.”.
Ok, having been there, that is understandable and the first sane thing you may have said… Because if that is what you believe, voting for Jill Stein is at least one way of expressing it.
But what does that vote get you? Right now she is on track to come close to her last attempt at the presidency, 4 years ago… 469,501 voted for her… 0.36% of the vote. This year it may be less. That is less than 150 people per each county in the entire United States… That per county level is fewer than the numbers that vote in one ward or precinct.
So what statement are you trying to make by voting for someone who averages out to 150 voters out of every single county? The analogy might as well be “not voting”, such a correlation seems “right-on” here.
By now I’m sure you’ve heard over and over and over and over that if you are a current Trump supporter and vote for Jill Stein it is a vote for Hillary and vice versa. That keeps getting said because there is some truth to that. If you were in a three way and the two others got serious with each other, you get shut you down; you lose out. Same way in a general election… To matter as a person, as a voter, you really can’t be casting your vote to someone who when they ran before, against the same two machines, against the same two ideologies, with the same candidate on the same platform, only muster 3 out of every 1000 people.
Imagine if those 3 activists, instead of being on the outside in a club of their own, were arguing their cases inside a party that will take in 550 our of every 1000 people. Do you have a better chance to win friends and influence people over to your cause? Of course you do…
Being a partner of one of the most powerful influences on our national destiny, you have far more clout in achieving your aims and dreams, than you would many miles away, crawling to the surface of a dark Scottish loch….*(Police reference)
So what sense does that make to anonymously state your liberalness by voting on a third party?
Now there are times for a third party, don’t get me wrong… On local levels a third party, even Greens, can field a better candidate than the other two local party apparatus’s can muster … Because smart concerned local people sometimes don’t belong to parties. I’ve supported many such candidates because I want to make the world a better place. So don’t misinterpret this piece as anti-third party…
But the difference there is that those candidates offered a quality choice, something completely different from the other two available options. That is not the case here. Jill Stein is the same as Hillary and yet Stein couldn’t handle the presidency. In her defense, very few people can. Jill has never held elected office. In fact the argument can be made, that since Trump (who also has never held elective office) would have the backing of a majority of people, he could get enough cooperation and though he knows nothing, the system would respond by putting in his party’s people who could handle things “under” him…
But the Greens in that spot would face animosity. Instead of voting for Jill Stein this time, Greens need to get serious. They need to remove themselves from only offering simply an ineffective vanity campaign, and look to begin offering a real one. Which means they need to lobby a top named Democrat or two to jump and pull their high talent and followers across the divide, so their party immediately has clout on the national stage. Fronting Bernie is what I’m talking about.
Simply put. Politics is about power and who gets to make the decisions. Bad as the process can sometimes be for liberals it still beats the historical precedent of war. We are so much better off to decide our differences without war. But it is idealistic to think that politics is anything less than a war that decides who wields power…
This year the decisions between the two powerful candidates could not be more stark. The competence level between the two power candidates could not be more stark. If you think Global Warming should be stopped; if you think national parks should be off limits to oil and gas drilling; if you think we should save the Monarch Butterfly with government intervention; if you think we should lable GMO’s; if you think we should pursue the kind treatment of farm animals; if you think we should accelerate the making of electric cars; if you think we should honor native American’s requests not to uproot their ancestral land simply to benefit some investors; …..
Your vote for Jill Stein, face it or not, is a vote against all of the above… You actually take away the clout you could have influenced from the left wing of the Democratic party, and removed it completely out of the equation… So when Democrats have to vote inside their caucus to determine their stance and future actions, because you or your candidates were not there to push the liberal agenda, when those votes get taken, results tend to be weighted towards the more conservative of the Democratic party, simply because there were more of them to vote because you and your contingent removed yourselves from the action. …
That is how, a vote for Jill Stein, makes it harder to achieve your objectives than had you either voted for Hillary or Trump…
You say the Democrats are not left enough? Well if anything Bernie shows us, that was because the left had up to then, abandoned acting politically to influence the party…
No one is going to tell you how to vote. You may be so mad at the first paragraph these words down here never see the light of day… But if it does, add it to you plate as you decide over the next few days how badly you really desire to influence your own future and save the planet…
In one of the last places one would expect to hear about climate change and about large oil companies’ denial that is it caused by their carbon extraction, at the stockholders’ meeting for Exxon-Mobile and for Chevron, repeated attempts were made to have their own companies face up to the problem they created, denied, and lobbied to have swept under the carpet….
More than 38% of Exxon’s investors rebelled against the company by voting for a proposal that would have required the company to publish an annual study of how its profits may be affected by public climate change policies, following the Paris climate agreement, to limit the global temperature rise to less than 2C (3.6F)….
(A similar vote at Chevron’s annual shareholder meeting, also held on Wednesday, showed 41% support from Chevron investors that cast ballots.)
This opens the door to a new avenue to attack “denial of global warming”, by buying stock in Exxon Mobile and Chevron, then attending the stockholder’s meetings… (Only 13% of additional stock is now required to change Exxon, and only 10% required to flip Chevron)… A far tinier margin than anyone had previously imagined…
Exxo tried to block the resolution from being heard at its meeting, but the US Securities and Exchange Commission regulator ruled that it must include the resolution among Wednesday’s votes. Obviously this revolt could not have happened during a Republican’s executive administration.
“Given the significant resources Exxon spent fighting this proposal, such a strong vote is a real rebuke to company management,” said Andrew Logan, director of oil and gas for Ceres, a coalition of sustainable investment groups. “Investors have sent a clear message that meaningful 2 degree stress testing is the new normal, and companies like Exxon and Chevron can no longer act as if nothing has changed.”
Rex Tillerson, the boss of oil giant ExxonMobil, said cutting oil production was “not acceptable for humanity”…Tillerson said Exxon had invested $7bn in green technology, but the science and technology had not yet achieved the breakthroughs needed to compete with fossil fuels.
The resolution discussed at Exxon’s annual meeting in Dallas was proposed by the New York state comptroller, a trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, the third largest US pension fund, and the Church of England.
More than 30 of Exxon’s largest shareholders, including the pension funds of the governments of Norway, Canada and California, Legal & General Investment Management and Schroder’s, previously publicly stated they would vote in favor of the motion. Other supporters of the motion include the pension funds of local authority workers in Greater Manchester and Tyne & Wear.
Exxon is currently under investigation by New York’s attorney general over claims that it lied to the public and shareholders about the risks of climate change….
Exxon believes oil and gas will still provide about 60% of the world’s energy demands by 2040. In fighting off the proposals, Rex Tillerson, the boss of oil giant ExxonMobil, played his hand as to the real reason Exxon-Mobile and other oil producers are “pretending” Global warming is still a hoax. He stated their tapped and untapped underground oil reserves already firmly in their possession would be worthless, if the world shifts over to renewable energy.
They miscalculated the future; those investments are nothing but a bad business decision.
Ken Grant, formerly with the Caesar Rodney Institute, a Koch Brothers’ mouthpiece, is now spokesperson for the TDC (The “Data” Center)… Granted, one would think also a former employee of AnalTech, would be technically more anal about throwing around facts. At least one would expect a lot less bluster…
Here is his take in the News Journal….
If you should choose to read it, you will find it to be mostly a lambasting of Newarks’ citizens and very little defense of the Data Center… Very little. Reminds one of when Caesar Rodney declared global warming was a hoax. It would attack all the scientific knowledge in the world, because it found one glacier out of 400,000 that was growing…. Of course in the readers head would pop this question… But what about the other 399,999? But the Caesar Rodney Institute was simply too unconcerned with 399,999 other pieces of evidence to even care…
Anyway… back to what he said….
He said: there are 4000 CHP’s scattered across the US… Here is the data sheet he pulled up to write his piece….. (pdf)
Here are his 4000 units. Here is what he doesn’t show…
Any little business that has a generator that also produces heat is included in his file. Even the original presentation made to the Newark zoning commission, that the data center would need an auxiliary power source like one might find on an IKEA, is included on the map…. I think it would be safe to assume that were such a small power plant going in at the Data Center, there would be no controversy as we speak…
The problem is the size… Ken Grant in his op-ed makes no mention of his size… The difference in size is like you took the penises of 5 horses, sewed them together and then attached that to a person… Saying he has a penis, so does every male… is disingenuous and dishonest… You are technically correct he has a penis… But …. who would want him in an arranged marriage with their daughter?
It may be true there are 8 people in Manhattan with penises. Bet none of them spew 10 horse testicle’s full of discharge, do they?
The one he touts in Austin is 52-75 MW. The award winning Texas A and M, is a paltry 60MW. Delaware will host a 248 MW generator.
Size does matter….
Let us talk water….. At minimum, the Christina River flows 6 cubic feet per second. The data center will use ~34.7 gallons per second (~3 million gal/day). There are 7.48 gallons per cubic foot. Rounding out the conversion, the data center will use 4.64 cubic feet per second of water flow out of the 6 cubic feet per second one usually finds every August. Obviously 1.36 cubic feet are left to fulfill all the needs downstream… The flow levels back in 2003 would leave dry river bed.
That is just not right. And Ken Grant (of course) makes no mention of that….
Let us talk air quality. Currently there is no radon in the air over Newark and Northern Delaware. There will be a lot. Radon as you know, kills. Currently there are no particles raining down on Newark Proper. These particles cause cancer… There will be a lot.. So these people that Ken Grant dismisses will be wheezing, coughing, hacking, and spitting up blood.
It is estimated that now after facts have matriculated into the community of Newark proper, that 98% of its residents are against the power plant. One is certain, that as these health facts get matriculated as well, that would be a guaranteed total…. For who wants to die a needless painful death?
So when Ken Grant calls 98% of Newark’s citizens who are sincerely worried about dying prematurely, ” a small group of very sincere but very wrong people”, perhaps he is correct in his assumption but just needs to turn that designation… the other way around…..
It is very tiny minority of the the Koch Brothers’ minions who deserve the ridicule and derision, not normal hard working Americans, who loved Newark so much, they bought a home here…..
Old data transcribed in new format. Now everyone can see…
Just think of doubling that last total is the Keystone Pipeline gets built.
If current trends continue, estimates are the Bald Eagle will be extinct by 2020.
It appears that the American Bald Eagle is picking up some type of neurotic toxin in the Athabasca Tar Fields of Canada. Athabasca Tar Oil is obtained by pumping toxic chemicals into the bedrock to flush out thick oil. Those toxins can then contaminate wildlife when they leak. Mercury content in water samples has increased by 40% from 1979 to 2009. These oil fields and methods are developed by the Koch Brothers, the same organization which funds the our local Caesar Rodney Institute. This is the same entity that is currently pushing for the Keystone Pipeline to cross the aquifers of the Midwest thereby enabling the Koch Brothers to sell oil to America’s future enemies, most notably called out by Allan Loudell on his blog today, as China…..
The bird’s symptoms just showed up. Utah is the wintering location of Bald Eagles. Earlier this month, hunters and farmers across five counties in northern and central Utah began finding the normally skittish raptors lying, listless, on the ground. Many suffered from seizures, head tremors and paralysis in the legs, feet and wings…
The Ogden rehab center said all the sick eagles seen suffered from encephalitis, or swelling of the brain, and many had heart damage.
Currently there are only 9,789 Bald Eagles breeding in the US.
Coupled with the mysterious die off of the Monarch Butterfly, the American Moose, and now the Bald Eagle, this makes 2013 a very cataclysmic year for traditional North American icons.
The canary has stopped singing in the coal mine….
Following rapid ice loss in the first half of July, the pace of seasonal ice retreat slowed the rest of the month partly due to the return of a stormy weather pattern over the central Arctic Ocean. The timing of melt onset for 2013 was in general unremarkable. Ice extent remains below average on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, and near average in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, and along the Eurasian coast…..
I missed this on Sunday.
And what are today’s birds telling us? The Audubon Society estimates that nearly 60 percent of 305 bird species found in North America in winter are shifting northward and to higher elevations in response to climate change. For comparison, imagine the inhabitants of 30 states — using state residence as a proxy for species of American human — becoming disgruntled with forest fires and drought and severe weather events, and seeking out suitable new habitat.
Despite what Republicans say: man-made global warming is here. The birds are telling us. No wonder the Delaware head of the Republican Party, John Sigler is shooting pigeons in boxes….
In a discussion about global warming, one John Galt gave this piece of enlightenment…. this is dug up here for historical reasons and it is well worth remembering the arguments of the past as we now investigate such problems as raising taxes, protecting social security, and increasing labor participation against the same faulty reason….
It is a walk down memory lane, accompanied by knowing we were right on the issue of global warming, and Republicans were very, very, very, very, very, very…. wrong….
by John Galt July 17, 2009.
All of your claims are wrong and you know it or your an idiot.
Global temperatures peaked in 1998, a fact that contradicts the assertion that man’s continued pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is making the planet hotter. This was not predicted by the climate models that say we’re headed for a warm period.
Nor can anthropogenic global warming be explained when introduced into the argument is the fact that 1934, when far fewer carbon-spewing machines existed than we have today, is the hottest year on record.
Global warming alarmists invested heavily in convincing everyone that 1998 was the hottest year and 2006 the third warmest. After correcting for faulty data, NASA had to backtrack.
At the same time NASA made the correction, it also reported that six of the top 10 hottest years are from a period before 90% of the 20th century growth in carbon emissions occurred
Researchers at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center admitted that “sensor drift” in the satellite monitors used to measure sea ice caused them to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles. That’s a significant area roughly the size of California.
In a column titled “In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm,” New York Times columnist John Tierney exposes the Chicken Littles for what they are — opportunists and alarmists who in this new year “will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming.” Inconvenient truths and scientific fact will be ignored.
A case in point cited by Tierney was when Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites. It was hardly a blip in Earth’s geological history, but Tierney noted how “it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming.”
Less dramatic and newsworthy was the announcement that the same satellites also recorded that the Antarctic sea ice had reached the highest level ever. But then, polar bears allegedly drowning and icebergs breaking away are good theater.
We’re told the Larsen B ice shelf on the western side of Antarctica is collapsing. It is warming and has been for decades. But it comprises just 2% of a continent that otherwise is cooling.
In the same week Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize, the respected scientific journal Nature published a paper you probably didn’t hear much about. It concluded that global warming had a minimal effect on hurricanes.
In fact, after Katrina, hurricane watchers have had trouble getting as far as the letter “K”.
“The last couple of years have humbled the seasonal hurricane forecasters,” says Max Mayfield, a former director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami. The 2007 season was the third calmest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.
As for temperature, Tierney reports how British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would make 2007 the hottest year on record. After 2007 was actually lower than any year since 2001, the BBC still proclaimed: “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”
That must be why in January 2007 some $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a disastrous five-day freeze. A few months earlier Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designed to, uh, help cool the climate.
In 2007, Australia experienced its coolest June ever. The city of Townsville underwent its longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in a quarter-century.
But for greenies, it doesn’t matter what the weather actually is or what the data actually show. It’s all caused by global warming. As Canadian Greenpeace rep Steven Guilbeault explained in 2005: “Global warming can mean colder; it can mean drier; it can mean wetter; that’s what we’re dealing with.”
Let me make this as simple as possible. Greenhouse gases makes up 2% of our total atmosphere. Of that 2%, 3.62% is CO2 and of that 3.4% is caused by man, yes only 3.4% of all CO2 is man made, the rest is made by nature. Man made CO2 makes up .000024% of the atmosphere.
If they were this wrong on global warming, can they possibly be right on anything? Can someone tell me why we even listen to them anymore when they whine?
For the most awesome replies…. it is here…..