"Climate Doc" is not an HVAC company. Giving you the counterpoint on Justice Marquez that CPR's Whitfield won't.
If you think climate doc is the name of an HVAC company, you're wrong.
Well, you're partly wrong. There are a few HVAC companies I saw on the web, but here I'm referring to is a graduate of the (quoting the CPR article below) "...University Colorado School of Medicine’s Diploma in Climate Medicine Program."
Why would one undertake such an endeavor you ask?
I think the answer is right there in the quote (and heading) shown in screenshot 1 attached.
"Follow me and I will make you fishers of men."
I don't have a problem with sharing evidence for global warming, nor doing so with doctors to help our medical system be better prepared to adapt. I do wonder, however, what exactly the instructors are teaching the students here.
Solid, reasoned (and reasonable) conclusions from available data? Hysteria? Somewhere in between?
In looking at the article and reading between the lines some, I have the feeling that it's pretty close to what you see in the news: something a bit north of hysteria but well below what I'd called thoughtful.
Great. Now you can get a ration of climate change in between the doctor asking you how many guns you have in your home and whether they're safely stored.
Missionaries everywhere you look.
https://www.cpr.org/2024/08/29/training-colorado-health-professionals-climate-crisis/
Giving you the counterpoint on Justice Marquez that CPR's Whitfield won't.
The first link below is an absolutely glowing profile article of our state's new Supreme Court Chief Justice Marquez.
Before digging in on this light-hitting piece, one which is nominally about the person occupying one of the most important and consequential jobs in Colorado, one about someone who is up for retention in November, I want to make a quick distinction.
The CPR article linked below is a summary of a 45 minute interview. To access the interview, click on the "Listen Now" button in the upper right.
Having read the article and listened to the interview in full, the article does a decent job at summarizing the interview, both in its scope and what was chosen for the written piece.
There are a few differences which I'll note below in the highlights that stuck out to me.
--Apparently Justice Marquez refused to discuss any of her opinions. Despite this, CPR and Whitfield (the interviewer) seemed okay with the interview. I wonder if CPR or Whitfield accepts terms like this from other state officials, that of the interviewee limiting the scope of what they'll discuss. Remember this is one of the justices who voted to prevent Trump from appearing on a ballot, something the US Supreme Court unanimously struck down.
--In the article, you'll find 265 words on or relating to the Marquez's identit(ies) or that of her family, you'll find 106 words on (or related to) the recent scandals in the judiciary. It's harder to do a word count in an audio interview, but I think if you listen you'll find the ratio is not that different.
--With regard to what was discussed about the recent judicial problems (yes, plural), Whitfield lets Marquez breeze on past and pivot to discussing the wonderful things she (Marquez) has been doing. Juxtapose this with the fact that Whitfield took time to ask Marquez about recent allegations of corruption against the (let's face up to the fact that it would be none other than the conservative members) of the US Supreme Court
As I say above, Judge Marquez is up for retention this November. Since we do not hear much from the justices in our judiciary, especially when it comes to retention votes, I ask you whether or not the above is helpful to you in deciding on whether or not to retain her.
I myself do not give a tin s**t about Justice Marquez's race or sexuality. I do give more than one tin s**t about her philosophy on being a judge, her record, and what part she played in the recent judicial scandal.
CPR and Whitfield here drop the ball. No, wait, let me amend that. They didn't drop the ball, they tossed the ball. The softball to be precise.
What could have been a piece that helped those undecided on retaining Marquez was instead a weak-livered profile angle, chock full of demographic information.
To help remedy this situation, to give you the counterpoint that Whitfield and CPR refuse to, I offer you an op ed linked second below. It's by Dennis Maes, a former chief judge for the 10th Judicial District in Pueblo.
It gives you Maes' thoughts on judicial retention and information about the judicial scandals in this state that Marquez has had a definite hand in.
https://www.cpr.org/2024/09/25/colorados-first-latina-supreme-court-justice-monica-marquez/
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2024/09/16/maes-dont-reward-judicial-misconduct-in-november/