RE:RE:RE:Fact-checking sites run by neutral observersYes ,Obama did express that thought. The original comment by IIerad5 was para phrased, i.e.
Obama said 99 percent, but still over whelmingly accurate. Quint said ..."
I can't find an instance of him saying that exact phrase...". 99/97%, not much difference when the max number would be 100%, unless of course you wished to be disingenuos.. I won't bother addressing Gore as he is an even bigger sanctimonius fraud and liar than Obama.
Below is a quote from a 45 minute speech Obama gave at Georgetown University 25 June 2013. It took me about five minutes to find this.
"
So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science—of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements—has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. They've acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it." Quintessential1 wrote: Questioning authority or any information offered without some level of proof should always happen.
For instance:
"after all didn’t President Obama tell us years ago that with 99% of scientists agreeing, that man made climate change was a given- no more discussion!" Yes, he did say that" No he didn't. At least I can't find an instance of him saying that exact phrase and since it ends in a quotation mark the exact phrasing should be searchable unless the quotation mark is a typo which is possible as there is only one which is never done.
Another instance:
"Think back to Gore stating that New York would be under water by 2010." Gore never said that. What he said was that if 1/2 Greenland melted major flooding would occur.
And what happened?
Greenland did not melt but a storm surge caused Lower Manhatten to flood
For someone demanding factual evidence from others I see only conjecture and inuendo provided.
Even the avoidance of a minor operation that could have eliminated the future inconvenience of hospitalization and quite possibly death from an appendicitis rupture seems questionable to me. Who knows where you will be when and if it happens again possibly more severe? That being said I am not in possession of all the facts so perhaps being hospitalized then, the height of covid, was more inconvenient or seemed riskier or was riskier due to your own health issues. Your body your choice.
There does however seem to be a double standard when it comes to climate change deniers that those of us who do believe the science and the theory being proffered have not investigated its merits and are merely sheep being led to the slaughter and are not entitled to our beliefs. This is a very disingenuous assumption and just because some of us do not want to engage in the endless "what about" arguements offered up by every weatherman that knows that the earth was, "hot", before, it does not mean that we are closed-minded or ignorant of the facts. Especailly when it is on a stock board of an equity that we more than likely decided to invest in just like you did for reason that can remain our own business in the end.
GLTA
MagicPinstripes wrote: Funny enough, I found myself in hospital with abdominal pain back in April 2020. Appendicitis.
Standard of care in ALL cases is to have your appendix removed via surgery. ER Surgeon and my parents (both doctors) advised as such.
I asked about the test results (scan and bloodwork) which showed inflammation, but no rupture. I asked about treatment via IV antibiotics. Response was Possible, but not advised due to lower success rate. ~95%+ Surgery and ~70% Antibiotics.
I went with the IV Antibiotics as it was less invasive and I still have my appendix today.
I'm not saying that professional advice should be ignored, and it is certainly good to have a healthy respect for the advice given on the part of professionals - I'm just saying that you should always ask questions and try to keep things simple wherever possible.
In my case, had the antibiotics failed to clear up the infection, I would've then opted for surgery.
Nothing wrong with a certain level of scepticism when questioning authority. History is certainly replete with people in the majority being completely off base on topics they were experts in at the time when such decisions were made.
Just my two cents.
MP