Was 4chan always this slow or did I get redirected to Gaia with out knowing?
>believing in global warming
I believed in that when Al Gore did all that crap, but then ventured even further into investigation. It just doesn't add up. It's babbies-tier of brainwashing, you'll learn sooner or later.
>Know somebody in the 6.8 zone
>Last online 2hr ago
Rent will go down the the aging population dying off.
I look forward to the next 50years and new japanese ghost towns popping up.
Businesses and job finding tax payers are going to have a nightmare.
>but then ventured even further into investigation
>It just doesn't add up
You obviously just googled random bullshit instead of actually learning the actual science behind climate changes then.
Living in Nagoya, i was playing Grisaia no Kajitsu, everything started creaking.
Happened 83 minutes ago.
Top kek. Al Gore has tried to make Climate Change a way to get elected, a couple months later he got literally blown the fuck out by the scientists, climate "change" is nothing but a cicle that adapts to the sun, learn about it.
Why the IOC gave 2020 to these spics is a mystery to me.
Are you retarded? It's a fucking cicle. the "holes" in the ozone are traveling from place to place, too bad your zone is the one that has the worst, but grow a pair and endure it until it leaves.
Japan using "Japan Meteorological Agency seismic intensity scale"
> climate "change" is nothing but a cicle that adapts to the sun, learn about it.
You are absolutely clueless and you probably have zero scientific background and just believe random bullshit. Please go ahead and look up UN's data on global temperature, because you know, these things can actually be measured, and things that can be measured are propaganda free. What you will see there is a clear rising trend over time, some years are cooler others are hotter, doesn't matter, it's a statistical process at it's core like many things in science, what matters is the trend that is being followed.
Climate changes due to solar cycles are real but they happens over the course of tens of thousands of years, if that were the only effect over the climate than there would be no way of detecting any negligible change in global temperature over the past decades, which was detected so solar cycles cannot possibly account for recent climate change.
And don't get me started on the fucking ice caps.
Goodnight sweet prince.
>Hey anon, i came over and thought you might need some help cleaning up after the earthquake
Well I guess there is not a single shred of empirical evidence that will ever convince you then because these kinds of measurements cost a lot of money which will have to come from somewhere at some point.
>unsecured furniture is more likely to topple over
May god have mercy on their souls
Did you even read what I wrote? That kind of shit is natural in statistical processes. I hope you are aware you are posting something that is the laughing stock of the entire scientific world right now.
Pretty sure you could find smaller and way cheaper apartments.
I literally live in Nagoya downtown, and my apartment is a single room + kitchen + toilet and small entrance.
Big enough for me to live in it confortably.
Probably, but japs hate this kind of apartments cause no tatami and no kitchen separated from the big room.
Heck i refused to rent an apartment with the tatami cause of the ideous reek new tatami have.
I've no idea, so here's a pic. Bed is queen size. Life is fun here.
Sage for blog
>/a/ literally can't in to basic chemistry and closed systems
>MERIKANS in charge of science
I bet you also think that there really are parallel universe "where" you have a 9" dick.
>believing in the classic concept of "parallel universe" as an alternative reality in which you have superpowers or you live with your waifu
And stars are gems in the sky
>implying ipse dixit
Damn that's cheap.
I live in middle of nowhere in Finland and the rents here are min300€.
And that 300€ means that either the aparment is in bad shape or people next door are intolerable.
>You can't prove it isn't true
Just like god and unicorns.
Holy mother of fucking tittylicking Christ I can't believe you don't even know what you just spouted is one of the most retarded historical ammissions of ignorance.
Kill yourself, science is not for burgers.
Oh yeah you just reminded me I forgot to check out /pol/'s reaction to that shit. This is gonna be a fun weekend.
It's not all fun and games though, you also have to deal with idiots with the mental capacity of a 5 year old who seem unable to comprehend how even the most basic of shit works.
>what is peer review
>he thinks science is made up of authority fallacies
Mericans trying to understand science never fail to amuse me, it's like watching little retarded special kids trying to figure out how to put a washing machine to work.
Nah he lives near me and the train station is like 15 minutes walking, we both live pretty much downtown as well. I pay 195€ a month for a room in a decent flat, it's cool. But then again we live in a small college town in Poortugal so shit has to be cheaper because noone can afford anything more expensive than that.
>Holy shit is that blood
>Open the picture
I'm from Canada, and here you're lucky to find an apartment for less than 600 CAD/month (~430 euro), and that's just shitty little one-rooms. Anything of a decent size can easily be 1000+
>merica thinks this is how it works
My sides transcended this dimension.
/a/ is usually quite rational and scientific, but I guess this alternative reality bullshit is just too much of a good bait for escapism. Well.
I've shown by offering several contradictory examples that peer review lets many things slip through the cracks. In math, offering one counterexample is enough to disprove an ansatz.
You're the one embarrassing yourself.
Something magically becomes false if it's posted on a site you don't like, even if there's citations? You don't understand the concept of anecdotal evidence and you're misusing literally. If anything, you're making Amerifats look good by comparison.
Why do Americans consistently keep denying climate change? I don't really know why they feel obligated to bring their political shitfest into a legitimate claim. At least based countries like Germany and Japan are making their moves while the rest of the world makes their efforts null.
Did the enemy from Sadogashima invade the mainland?
IS THE PRIMARY DEFENCE LINE UNTOUCHED?
>peer reviewed stuff is shit!
>posts 4 examples of peer review failure
>therefore never trust peer review!
>t-this is not anecdotal argument!
A bunch of fucking uncultured swines and savages.
Misusing cancer? You came straight from /b/, didn't you?
By admitting this is statistics, you're admitting you're wrong and he's right. You can't even keep track of your own argument. You're almost certainly underage as well, since you keep abusing the word literally.
Pretty sure it's just Americans. Who else would claim that 97% of climate scientists are wrong or bribed.
though it really should belong on /pol/
>Nips can't into construction, it doesn't compute.
> be Kaiji
> be innapahinkopahlor
> bog is bogged down and tilted
> tilt building
> win pachinko
> am now rich
>this is what Merica actually believes
"Everyone else" you mean every poor developing country that needs to pump their resources in order to gain economical relevance. Every other country far more technologically advanced than America has already made their moves to make fossil fuels irrelevant.
You mean America keeps destroying development of reusable fuels and trying to keep making money out of stuff.
You mericans are completely brainwashed and retarded, worst part is that you spout praises for free.
get with the times gramps, english is an evolving language
Except a handful of cases is not enough to prove or disprove something in science. Maybe in math.
If you think you can invalidate the peer review system by showing 4 cases of failure, you're only bound to be laughing stock. And man am I being entertained
>le every study has been bought argument
Oh boy here we go
People here do not understand a few things.
First, there are two different scales.
Magnitude which is when you guys are saying 6.8 "dropped".
And "shindo" or "seismic intensity".
Magnitude measures the size of the earthquake but it is meaningless in terms of understanding what it is like. Seismic Intensity measures the shaking at any given point due to the earthquake.
Seismic intensity is much more useful interms of understanding how bad an earthquake is, for example. A huge earthquake could happen in the ocean but no shaking happens anywhere.
>le damage control
Top tier arguments guys.
I'm glad you at least got in your heads that peer review system works and you don't disprove a huge corpus of literature with anecdotes.
>which board are you from
Well retarded argument or not, this kind of counter-argument doesn't exactly make you look smarter. and right
But you're illiterate, they're all still saying peer review is fallible, counterexamples do disprove claims, and you're using "le" like a retarded reddit refugee. There really isn't any possibility that you're posting seriously at this point.
>they're all still saying peer review is fallible
Yes it certainly, obviously is, and? The point is?
I'll tell you what's the point: the point is that a certain scientific claim is wrong because I don't like it, and I'll use the fact that sometimes peer review fails as a bonus argument to prove the claim is wrong beyond doubt.
I won't use said bonus argument with a scientific claim that I like though.
Ok, so what I'm getting here is that one side is arguing that peer-reviewing works and is dependable and the other side saying it sometimes fails. I don't see where the hostility is stemming here.
The hostility is stemming from people are morons who have made climate change a politicized issue so the arguments just consist of shitflinging regardless of the facts.
Also that's how /a/ argues about everything anyway.
>Yes it certainly, obviously is, and? The point is?
That's the point, you faggot. This argument is about whether peer review is fallible or not.
>a certain scientific claim is wrong because I don't like it
At least you're finally admitting your opinion on global warming is only about what you like and don't like.
No, the point was whether the obvious fact that peer reviews sometimes fails is enough to disprove a certain scientific claim or not. In this case, anthropogenic climate change.
In case you didn't get it,
>a certain scientific claim is wrong because I don't like it, and I'll use the fact that sometimes peer review fails as a bonus argument to prove the claim is wrong beyond doubt. I won't use said bonus argument with a scientific claim that I like though.
is what you, deniers, burgers and conspiracy theorists do.
I'm a different person and peer reviewing is effective regardless of how you look at it. And no, from reading this thread, I'm certainly confident that everyone is a >>>/pol/ peddler out against global warming at force because it is some kind of jew propaganda. Not one person gave a critical argument against global warming aside from "it happens guys!" and "haha believing in that shit!" That's not calling evidence into question, unless of course, you came from /pol/