Health Care BS

Comments 11

1. Marc Brown wrote:

   ‘Just a thought.’

   What about the millions of Africans threatened by famine and people in Bangaldesh inundated by rising sea levels?

   Just a thought.

   Posted 14 Oct 2007 at 2:24 pm ¶
2. C M Hughes, MD wrote:

   I want to know who’s Goldilocks in this scenario? When the world is “just right”, just enough of Florida and Manhattan are underwater, just warm enough to “reduce mortality,” who has the switch to turn it off?

   Posted 14 Oct 2007 at 7:07 pm ¶
3. Catron wrote:

   There are two basic points here, and you guys missed them both:

   1) Global warming and its health implications should be approached analytically rather than emotionally. That means sticking to the(verifiable) facts and avoiding moral posturing.

   2) The credibility of the Nobel Committee has been vitiated to the extent that the Peace Prize tends to be a contrary indicator where merit is concerned.

   Posted 14 Oct 2007 at 9:03 pm ¶
4. cmhmd wrote:

   What do you have against moral arguments, postured or otherwise?

   Posted 15 Oct 2007 at 12:17 pm ¶
5. Catron wrote:

   There is a distinct difference between moral arguments and moral posturing. The former makes a reasonable case based on some widely-accepted ethical standard. The latter is a a self-serving affectation.

   Posted 15 Oct 2007 at 12:43 pm ¶
6. Peggy McGilligan wrote:

   Nobel Peace Prize: NEW Global Warming Antiperspirant

   AP – Al Gore has for a long time been full of hot air. He has a vivid imagination about the world around him. His inherent mistrust of the seasons seems to stem from an episode of the Twilight Zone, in which the Earth gets too close to the Sun. Summers are hot & sticky, and Al is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures needed to create a more effective global deodorant.

   If college roommate, Tommy Lee Jones, could save the City of Los Angeles from errant magma (Volcano), and the world entire from a giant cockroach (Men In Black), then certainly big Al Gore deserves a prize for his global initiative to combat global wetness. The same active ingredient and trusted formula that kept our leaders dry during the Cold War – now in unscented. As the planet heats up, you don’t have to! Clinton tested: guaranteed to leave no trace.

   Now that Global Warming has been legitimized, a “private group” out of Monterey California of all places, wants to seed the North Atlantic with iron oxide particulate, to help plankton absorb more carbon dioxide (greenhouse gasses). Strategy: “cleanup the planet and make a buck on the side.”

   Posted 16 Oct 2007 at 2:20 pm ¶
7. Marc Brown wrote:

   ‘So, considering that the Nobel Committee is notorious for giving its awards to frauds, terrorists, and proponents of eugenics, ‘

   I’ve just seen this - I really think you’re out of your depth here. Are you a religious fundamentalist? To insinuate that Mario Capecchi and HJ Muller are/were evil eugenicists is so far wide of the mark as to be totally absurd. Are you now campaigning against sperm banks where you can choose donors with a college degree? Or gene therapy of any description? As for Arafat, I’m surprised you didn’t choose Kissinger instead. There is no doubt that Rigobertu Menchu had her family wiped out. Of course, in Catron country only a perfectly flawless person would ever be honoured.

   Posted 16 Oct 2007 at 3:21 pm ¶
8. Barry Eisenberg wrote:

   A man with an MBA should be educated enough to know that the issue iscomatechange not warming. Extreme weather events are a product of this change. You are attacking with ad hominem fallacy. There are a variety of ways the effects of this will work including mosquito borne disease, water born disease, famines, viruses. Sorry, Al Gore has been right on most of this stuff. Your comments kind of remind me of Barbara Bush at the astrodome, and no it hasn’t worked out all that well, nor will it.

   Posted 11 Dec 2007 at 5:45 pm ¶
9. Catron wrote:

   I’m educated enough to know that global “climate change” is an attempt to rebrand a theory that was too often at odds with the objective facts. The advantage to the new brand is that virtually any natural disaster can be ascribed to it. It’s still a scam, however.

   Posted 11 Dec 2007 at 6:33 pm ¶
10. idDru wrote:

    …an attempt to rebrand a theory that was too often at odds with the objective facts…still a scam, however.

    …sticking to the(verifiable) facts and avoiding moral posturing.

    Heed yourself. I’m finding it hard to verify the facts from either camp. I’d like a source that told me what measurements have been taken, where and when those measurements were taken, and who took them. Then I’d like to read about interpretations of the data.

    Posted 18 Feb 2008 at 2:09 pm ¶
11. Johnnie wrote:

    Global Warming is now Climate Change because they can’t say “warming” when there are reports like this…I didn’t hear much about this in the news did you?

    http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/snow0809.html

    Posted 27 May 2009 at 2:42 am ¶

Post a Comment