@YJ - I'm just saying that the assumptions you make must be made equally based on equivalent evidence and results. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, just that the way you go about choosing which to believe and which not to believe is not consistent. It doesn't have to be consistent as it is a belief and they have an emotional component to them. But from a purely logical standpoint, both are equally false.

Now, the idea that climate change could be occurring and that we might be able to help things (and won't hurt anything) by reducing our carbon footprint, etc. is sound reasoning and a good reason to go about taking steps "just in case". Contrarily, the fact that these homeopathic remedies could do more harm than good means that one should *not* just jump into them. So, while the beliefs are incongruous in the apparent similarities, the results of those beliefs, if adopted, are not and are where you should argue in following one course of action but not the other.