Jack Reacher comments

I have to go guys. Even if we don’t agree I learned a lot. No hard feelings, love you.

Science is made to be able to disprove itself. It's the whole point of peer review.

So you agree with the entire point I’ve been trying to make this whole time, that there is a potential for the current climate science to be disproven. I’m glad you could finally come over.

Your argument is that because it's not already perfect, it must be doubted and believed as inaccurate.

I never said this or implied it

Which applies to accepting evidence that contradict the consensus, for climate change there is no such thing so the current consensus simply remains as the best answer and a valid conclusion to act accordingly

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the changing climate is completely natural.

Again, medicine could be completely wrong about everything according to this fallacy, do you think this is a valid argument to deny a patient being treated?

For certain things? Absolutely. The vaccine and ventilators being perfect examples. Both were “scientifically” proven to be great at fighting covid initially but were later found out to be either ineffective or harmful in many cases

For this amount and quality of scientific evidence? no, that is a false statement. Your argument completely depend on considering science the same as centuries ago, which is also a false assumption.

Again, people hundreds of years ago said the same thing. Science continually moves forward and what we believe today will be considered antiquated by those in the future. Are you saying that all scientific truths we hold today won’t be proven wrong in the future?

That evidence in the future could make our understanding better is NOT an argument to say we should discard the evidence we already have right now, specially when that is precisely what has been proved to result in a mistaken understanding.

As I’ve multiple times now, I never once made the argument that we should discard the evidence we have. I’ve said multiple times that we should be skeptical of experts and scientific truths. Based on your posts you’d be the type arguing the “scientific truth” of eugenics and race superiority had you been alive in 1930’s Germany

When it comes to Covid I follow the 3 “not” rules

2.Not gonna get the vaccine

3.Not my problem

STUPID. There was a tattoo 'trend' in America a few years ago where some people got three Chinese characters inked into their inner elbow bends.

What? No there wasn’t.

Well perhaps if most illegal guns didn't come from the USA as " legal" guns, perhaps if the "land of the free" the " democracy" wasn't the world's number one merchant of death by supplying 39% of the world's weapons people wouldn't car when a story involves mass shootings.

You also have zero proof that the gun used came from the US

Well perhaps if most illegal guns didn't come from the USA as " legal" guns

How is that America’s fault? Why is it the responsibility of the US to enforce Canada’s gun laws? If Canada wants strict gun enforcement then fine, that’s their right but it’s not the responsibility of the US to change their laws to adhere to Canada’s. Also the fact that you’re saying “illegal guns will always come into the country” pretty much destroys any argument for gun control in the first place as you’re admitting there will always be illegal guns regardless of what the government does.

39% of the world's weapons people wouldn't car when a story involves mass shootings.

What does this have to do with a crazy guy shooting up an apartment in Canada? Are you inferring the US government directly sold him the weapons? The majority of American arms deals are between governments, not individuals. It seems like you’re jumping to ridiculous logical conclusions to justify your dislike of the US.

Maybe she just fell asleep after lighting a cigarette? Terrible mistakes happen. That's not arson.

She was quoted as saying she wanted to die when questioned by the police. That infers that the fire was intentional, not an accident.