Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Necrosis on October 27, 2015, 03:28:52 AM
-
Exxon knew about global warming 40 years ago and decided to spread disinformation, reminds me of the tobacco companies.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
pretty fucked up
-
Who would have thought.
-
Let's spread information that would harm our business and make us less profitable.
Good idea! :D
-
who gives a shit about global warming when you have lagging biceps to grow
-
"global warming" ::)
-
"global warming" ::)
I had to light a fire last night, house was freezing.
I'm with you.
-
Give it up, warmie. The whole world is on to your bullshit now.
-
Who would have thought.
thanks bro, it's a turn of phrase around here, and also adding to, to things.
Welcome to the thread, you can help with grammar throughout.
-
Let's spread information that would harm our business and make us less profitable.
Good idea! :D
you are conflating two completely disparaging ideas, they are actively spreading DISINFORMATION in light of actual information, the inverse.
-
Give it up, warmie. The whole world is on to your bullshit now.
Paper released the other day, the east coast will flood regardless of intervention at this point.
Why not drink seawater?
-
you are conflating two completely disparaging ideas, they are actively spreading DISINFORMATION in light of actual information, the inverse.
Is this also a turn of phrase where you live?
-
you are conflating two completely disparaging ideas, they are actively spreading DISINFORMATION in light of actual information, the inverse.
Watch out people, big words...
-
you are conflating two completely disparaging ideas, they are actively spreading DISINFORMATION in light of actual information, the inverse.
You are aware that every scientific research needs to be able to be replicated? If their findings are truly 'disinformation', than it's a failure of the scientific community to prove it as such from the get-go.
Who are these experts who are piecing together this 'puzzle'?
What is their affiliation? What are their credentials?
The article you posted only reeks of biased-accusations without any evidence, references or credible sources.
-
Watch out people, big words...
;D
-
Is this also a turn of phrase where you live?
listen, if you want to participate in this thread you have to stay in your lane, grammar,syntax, semantics, already taken.
Disparaging is a bad word, to belittle or bring discredit upon, conflating spreading disinformation with not providing actual information is to discredit and in essence tarnish actual facts etc. one idea is disparaging.
-
Exxon knew about global warming 40 years ago and decided to spread disinformation, reminds me of the tobacco companies.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
pretty fucked up
Most of the worlds population believe in God
This species deserves to fucking die
-
listen, if you want to participate in this thread you have to stay in your lane, grammar,syntax, semantics, already taken.
Disparaging is a bad word, to belittle or bring discredit upon, conflating spreading disinformation with not providing actual information is to discredit and in essence tarnish actual facts etc. one idea is disparaging.
Except in this context you should have used 'disparate', as you were haltingly trying to imply they were fundamentally oppositional. And if you were not, then please rephrase everything you say, because you fail at English.
-
You are aware that every scientific research needs to be able to be replicated? If their findings are truly 'disinformation', than it's a failure of the scientific community to prove it as such from the get-go.
Who are these experts who are piecing together this 'puzzle'?
What is their affiliation? What are their credentials?
The article you posted only reeks of biased-accusations without any evidence, references or credible sources.
Aww... what the fuck are you on about? this isn't a double blind study, nor an observation. It was not within the scientific community, perhaps you can read once and a while. They clearly misrepresented the information, skewed conclusions etc. this does not need to be replicated.
welcome to the thread.
-
Except in this context you should have used 'disparate', as you were haltingly trying to imply they were fundamentally oppositional. And if you were not, then please rephrase everything you say, because you fail at English.
I agree, it was bad usage.
Won't happen again :'(
-
Except in this context you should have used 'disparate', as you were haltingly trying to imply they were fundamentally oppositional. And if you were not, then please rephrase everything you say, because you fail at English.
Please log out and never darken the doors of getbig again.
All this knowledge and learning is going to crash the server.
;D
-
Please log out and never darken the doors of getbig again.
All this knowledge and learning is going to crash the server.
;D
thing is, global warming increases humidity, my keys are sticking together more than normal.
-
thing is, global warming increases humidity, my keys are sticking together more than normal.
That's from the dried semen from you wanking it to pictures of Hillary Clinton.
-
That's from the dried semen from you wanking it to pictures of Hillary Clinton.
;D
-
That's from the dried semen from you wanking it to pictures of Hillary Clinton.
Nonsense, your mother would never ever waste a drop of Vitamin S, you know she has osteopenoris
-
Aww... what the fuck are you on about? this isn't a double blind study, nor an observation. It was not within the scientific community, perhaps you can read once and a while. They clearly misrepresented the information, skewed conclusions etc. this does not need to be replicated.
welcome to the thread.
Dumbfuck, it's rather convenient to all of a sudden conclude findings are skewed or misrepresented years later isn't it? The ability to replicate studies is a validation factor, which they could have done at any point in time, given the archives were open to anyone.
Regardless whether it was within the scientific community or not, the same argument upholds. Had there been doubt, they had plenty of occassions to rectify the information and conclusions put forward. To do so 40-years later just screams political agenda, as is quite evident from the way the article is written. If you're unable to observe that, then I bet you're a Fox-News fan.
Besides, if it was outside of the scientific community, as you argue, then what's the problem? According to your logic they would not have had any backing evidence for their arguments or to their defense. Which simply means other actors are to blame for failing to take appropriate actions in terms of legislation and policies.
Exit'ing thread as we speak.
-
There is no global warming. There is climate change. Humans have little effect. This is the earth going through cycles.
-
There is no global warming. There is climate change. Humans have little effect. This is the earth going through cycles.
Umm yeah. Just look at the skies over Beijing or LA brown skies. Don't underestimate the detrimental effects that humans have on this earth.
-
There is no global warming. There is climate change. Humans have little effect. This is the earth going through cycles.
it's settled, humans have little effect.
Planet Niribu and the reptilians are to blame.
-
Who would have thought.
It's ok. He's a Doctor.