Re: The sky is falling

I didn't "list" anything. I was quoting an article. So here's your logic:

(1) Two "legitimate scientific institutions" - your words - say something based on their research.

(2) But an article reporting what the legitimate scientific institutions said also says another organization (that you do not respect as a "legitimate scientific institution") came to a similar conclusion.

(3) THEREFORE, the otherwise valid conclusion and research that the otherwise "legitimate scientific institutions" produced is invalid.

Could your logic be any more faulty? Could you be any more dishonest?

And BTW - thanks for illustrating the exact tactics and substituting-politics-for-science idiocy that I'm talking about. That should have opened some eyes on the dishonesty of those who are trying to convince the rest of us of global warming.

Please - spout some more.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney
Loading thread data ...

Bill Putney wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:

Bill you always come up with this contradictions defense to dispute any possibility of Global Warming. You put too much emphasis on the more bullshit you shovel the better your argument. You quote any argument which supports your claim and and dispute opposing views while claiming you have proven the facts. LOL I seem to have heard this before, yes I remember now, it was fuzzy math and those Democrat's spending is out of control. We all know how that argument worked out don't we Bill? I have heard the same old arguments about chemical pollution in rivers and waterways, smog, and many other things, and all of these arguments had one thing in common and that common factor was huge corporations and special interests who would not modify their behavior even if knew they were wrong. This applies to both pro and anti environmental arguments. Many things we believe are later proven to be somewhat different than originally thought. You remind me of a guy who answers a yes and no question with a 10 page response.

Reply to
tango

Yes - I have generally found in life when people fake data about something, what they were claiming as their conclusion was a lie. But then there are those that will tell a lie when telling the truth will serve just as well - IOW - they can't help lieing even if the truth would make their point. But I suspect that they're just plain FOS - in general and on the particular subject at hand..

Your making this up. It's you who are shoveling.

LOL my ass. You are FOS. Where did I say I proved anything - go ahead

- quote it where I said that.

And therefore what...?

Not that I do that, but I'm just like someone who does that? I engage with honest discussion, and you want to criticize me because I respond. Sorry - I know the tactics. I'm pretty much immune to them. Yours is to try to come across as someone who is reasonable, and then, after a response, denigrate the person - so it's a "reasonable" person doing the attack. You're as FOS as the next guy.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

You're splitting hairs. You listed the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research, the Ottowa-Carleton Geoscience Center, both scientific institutions, and the Hoover Institute, a political body.

You're completely illogical because rarely is there 100% agreement, even among communities of legitimate experts in regards to the least controversial scientific matters. If I was unfair, I'd reject your two scientific organizations for their minority viewpoints on global warming

You're arguing like somebody who doesn't have the facts on his side and so tries to win arguments through emotional and political means, Rush Limbaugh style. That's to be expected of people who believe in pseudoscience, like chiropractic.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

Nice diversion tactic. Get the reader's mind off of the subject at hand, which was whether the sun's output affects our running average temperatures. But of course you won't discuss it on its own merits.

How much intelligence does someone have to have to argue that solar activity does not have an overwhelming effect and call that a "minority viewpoint on global warming".

Again, you won't discuss the original issue. You're just going to denigrate the messenger (because you know you would look foolish to argue against the sun actually having an overwhelmming effect on the earth's temperature). One man's Rush Limbaugh is another man's George Soros/Jesse Jackson/Hillary Clinton/Al Gore/Barbara Streisand. Again - rather than discuss, you'll divert and make ad hominem attacks rather than admit that the claim is true and obvious because it interferes with your politics. Fits the mold.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

I tell you what. Make a deal with you: Since you have decreed that anyone who believes that chiropractic has some validity is incapable of good scientific judgement, let's find out if more than a few of the people who participated in the IPCC report get chiropractic treatment. If we find that to be the case, then we would have to declare the report's conclusions as scientifically invalid. Sound fair?

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Chiropractic does evidence to support that chiropractic care is useful in helping people with upper and lower back pain, similar to what physical therapy does.

Most of chiropractic is garbage, however.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Well - what I use is obviously not garbage. Actually certain herbs have helped also. larry moe 'n curly is painting it all with the same broad brush. He has picked an appropriate name for himself.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

formatting link
(Chirowatch is from the same good people who brougt you
formatting link

Reply to
Jeff

That site seems to be primarily in the context of Canadian health care system in which, as in all socialized medicine, services have to be rationed. People are having to decide where to put the scarce tax dollars, so it gets highly political and territorial (i.e., traditional medicine vs. alternaitves). IOW - choice is being eliminated. The ultimate conclusion of the Canadian system. I'm not in that context. One has to know who to trust. I've gotten the results, but again, I actually credit the herbs as much or more than chiro.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

However, there is very little evidence that alternative medicine works. A better name for alternative medicine is conjecture-based medicine or conmed. Chiropractic works only for back pain. The theory behind chiropractic has no basis in science. Ditto the manipulative part of osteopathic medicine, naturopathy and homeopathy. Hahnemann Medical College was named after Samual Hahnemann, the found of homeopathy. However, the medical school switched to convential medicine a long time ago.

Alternative doesn't mean equal or even that there is evidence that supports the alternative medicine. Alternative is a marketing term, not one that shows that something works.

Conventional medicine, (aka evidence-based medicine) on the other hand, is based in science. Cancer therapy has increased the survival from cancer from close to 0% to over 50%. For pediatric cancers, about 3/4 of all kids are cured, compared to close to 0% when I was born. People survive heart attacks more often and with less disability. Trauma care greatly increased survival from major injuries. There is a treatment for macular degeneration that spares the sight of many, many seniors. Antibiotics have saved millions of lives. And vaccines prevent thousands of deaths a day. In the US, vaccines have eliminated polio and smallpox, and greatly decreased birth defects from rubella, deaths and illness from measles, mumps, rubella, HIB pneumonia and meningitis, pertussis, diphtheria, and others.

Medicine has some major issues. Medicine has some major issues, like insurance and too much influence of drug makers.

Conventional medicine saves and improves lives. Alternative medicine is little more than feel good medicine.

Why should we being paying for treatments that don't work?

Neither are likely to have helped.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Don't know any Eastern practitioners?

Sorry!

Reply to
Bonehenge (B A R R Y)

I don't practice diversionary tactics, and if I was playing your dishonest game, I wouldn't have called 2 of your 3 sources "legitimate scientific organizations", wouldn't I?

There's no controversy about that. The controversy on global warming is over natural versus human contributions to it.

In this case the messenger believes in chiropractic and other pseudoscience, meaning his logic about anything can't be trusted. Anybody can arbitrarily pick legitimate sources to support his or her side and come up with any conclusion wished, but that's not honest.

I wouldn't trust any of them on any scientific matters, either.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

You started out being fair, but then you said the whole report should be dismissed if even one IPCC member believed in chiropractic.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

Acupressure and acupuncture are becoming much more widely accepted here in Canada.

Reply to
sharx35

Actually a burden on the taxpayers is being eliminated. Here in AZ, the idiot legislators who believe in chiropractic (or bribes from chiropractors) regularly try to mandate chiropractic coverage for health care plans, and all that does is raise my Blue Cross premiums.

Over at FatWallet.com, a person who handles almost all the insurance claims for chiropractors in Idaho said that all chiropractors there are crooks, except for three.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

Tell me about it. Modern traditional practitioners are even "discovering" holistic treatment methods.

The funny part about some Eastern "alternative" medical techniques, is that the techniques are often older, far older, than "modern" medicine.

Modern hi-tech treatments are wonderful and effective, but somewhere along the line the baby got tossed with the bath water. Both have a place.

Reply to
Bonehenge (B A R R Y)

If what you see is mostly garbage, then you need to go to a different chiropractor.

Reply to
Worn out Retread

Brought to you by your local pharmaceutical company.

The determination having been made you your medical association that stands to lose out if other practices prove effective.

Herbs and chiropractic have nothing to do with each other.

You determined this how???

Reply to
Worn out Retread

Never said that at all - I said more than a few. Either you can't read or you're a liar.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.