Highest Rated Comments


GOPJay75 karma

How many calories were you eating and of what, before your injury? Did your diet change after it?

GOPJay33 karma

Thanks for doing God's work. I imagine it may be heartbreaking work at times. Will you talk about any lessons you may have learned from so many patients approaching end of life circumstances?

GOPJay13 karma

Thanks for posting today. I have not decided how I feel about anthropogenic climate change, though I'm generally not a fan of the various premises. It isn't that I'm opposed to the green movement, on the contrary I embrace it, but global warming has become so politicized I believe much of both movements have lost their credibility. Particularly troublesome to me in the propaganda campaign is the use of that "97% of scientists" term. Since when did science become a popularity contest? Or a matter for majority rule? Most knuckleheads I know still believe blood is blue until it touches air. It doesn't make the argument any more valid. Further, how many other settled scientific premises have been turned on their heads? The real question is whether there is real and clear empirical evidence with demonstrated statistical relevance that climate change is a human caused phenomenon. That is my first problem, the argument hasn't convinced me, instead the movement has chosen to run some kind of political campaign to convince me.

The second problem that arises after I attempt to "drink the kool-aid" is related to modeling and predictions. For settled science, the industry sucks at telling me what is going to happen with the climate and temperatures. If we have definitive empirical evidence of human effects on the temperature, why is the modelling so often wrong? I've been hearing for most of my life that in short order Miami would be under the sea, super weather would destroy the Eastern Seaboard, and temperature would increase exponentially, etc. And it hasn't happened. If our modelling is accurate, which I dispute, why the fallacious predictions? Or, were only the previous predictions from 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago wrong, and we've got it all worked out now? It's peculiar to me that in spite of the many failed predictions, the advocacy position has not changed at all.

Next, I hope you will take a moment to address the suggestion that temperature data has been modified from earlier years. I have no idea how to gauge whether this is true. Has there actually been a revision of old temperature records, "to make them more accurate" or for any reason otherwise? If that were the case, I wonder what modeling would look like if temperature data had not been amended. Thanks for any thoughts you have on this. I assure you, I want to believe!

GOPJay7 karma

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I have some homework to do, I appreciate your input!

GOPJay7 karma

No offense, I'm often annoyed when groups such as yours push for legislation in the US. What are you doing here? China is the bigger contributor to carbon emissions than the next 7 countries combined. What are you doing about China? If you really, truly care about carbon emissions, and anthropogenic warming is real, don't waste your time with liberal redistribution of wealth models that will harm the American economy. Go lobby China, convince them it's not the 1800s, and to be more responsible to the world.