GM is pulling back on EVs

[Burkey]

So we are supposed to believe these "face coverings" will protect us from a virus but not wild fire smoke? SMH, We cannot see viruses, we can see smoke.

Back in the Covid thread I think I equated the cloth and paper masks to trying to filter cigarette smoke with a window screen.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/canada-wildfire-smoke-masks-safety-experts-154818927.html
"Cloth masks or scarves and things are not effective at all," the doctor claimed.

Follow the science, trust the global warming models, sorry, not sorry the jig is up.

Inhalation vs exhalation. The Covid mask was never meant to protect the person wearing it, unlike the mask that might protect you from smoke…

3 years on and you still haven’t grasped the basic principle of operation.
This is a troll post, surely.

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

Inhalation vs exhalation. The Covid mask was never meant to protect the person wearing it, unlike the mask that might protect you from smoke…

3 years on and you still haven’t grasped the basic principle of operation.
This is a troll post, surely.

Hello; Not only a revision of history but a spin as well. Yes, after a long time the spiel was changed from wear a mask to protect yourself to wear one to protect others. Much like the spiel changed about the vaccines went from get a jab and be protected to get a jab and you will be infected but not as ill.

Thing is the protect others from the virus when wearing a mask was too limited. Some of the spittle drops might get trapped, but during ordinary breathing the virus would pass right thru the masks.

Welcome back to the thread by the way, you were gone so long this time.

 

[K4fxd]

Inhalation vs exhalation.

OK, so now I'm supposed to believe the "mask" will not filter out the virus when I inhale but it will prevent it from escaping when I exhale?
Does the virus magically get larger after it enters our lungs?

Come on, you can do better than this.

 

[Mitch03]

Inhalation vs exhalation. The Covid mask was never meant to protect the person wearing it, unlike the mask that might protect you from smoke…

3 years on and you still haven’t grasped the basic principle of operation.
This is a troll post, surely.

Backtracking as usual……when proven wrong again.

 

[Burkey]

OK, so now I'm supposed to believe the "mask" will not filter out the virus when I inhale but it will prevent it from escaping when I exhale?
Does the virus magically get larger after it enters our lungs?

Come on, you can do better than this.

You not understanding the principle of operation doesn't mean something doesn’t work, I don’t understand nuclear reactors, yet they somehow work, despite all those crazy lefty’s in scientific fields.

The mask doesn’t trap 100% of the particulate matter. It was never meant to. It was meant to REDUCE the distance and volume of viral particles. That is all. It was never intended to prevent all of it from escaping. But of course, people went and did their own research and discovered that the masks weren’t able to do something they were never intended to do and therefore “they don’t work”.

But that’s the point though isn’t it. You never understood how it worked, or that it was meant to protect other people from you rather than you from them and then you insisted that you shouldn't have to wear one, because you felt that if YOU wanted to take the risk (that wasn’t yours to take in the first place) that you should be allowed to do so. All you had to do was ignore the reasoning for wearing one In the first place.

The analogy would be being trapped on a plane with a chain smoker who refuses to accept that his smoking might be harming you, and therefore in his ignorance, he feels that his right (to harm you) shouldn’t be infringed, because “freedom” (his, not yours. His ignorance allows him to not care about YOUR freedoms).

I have no idea why you people allowed smoking to be banned on flights. Personal freedoms right? The science isn’t even conclusive on smoking. I mean, follow the money. All the scientists are raving lefty’s aren’t they?

Have you even done your own testing to prove that smoking is harmful? Or do we trust the science when it agrees with us and only get the shits when it contradicts our preferred beliefs?

 

[Burkey]

Backtracking as usual……when proven wrong again.

Lol.
3 years and you STILL think that you’re right. Couldn‘t make this shit up.

 

[K4fxd]

It was meant to REDUCE the distance and volume of viral particles. That is all. It was never intended to prevent all of it from escaping.

Absolutely worthless for smoke but filters some virus.

Only in the twilight zone

 

[Mitch03]

You not understanding the principle of operation doesn't mean something doesn’t work, I don’t understand nuclear reactors, yet they somehow work, despite all those crazy lefty’s in scientific fields.

The mask doesn’t trap 100% of the particulate matter. It was never meant to. It was meant to REDUCE the distance and volume of viral particles. That is all. It was never intended to prevent all of it from escaping. But of course, people went and did their own research and discovered that the masks weren’t able to do something they were never intended to do and therefore “they don’t work”.

But that’s the point though isn’t it. You never understood how it worked, or that it was meant to protect other people from you rather than you from them and then you insisted that you shouldn't have to wear one, because you felt that if YOU wanted to take the risk (that wasn’t yours to take in the first place) that you should be allowed to do so. All you had to do was ignore the reasoning for wearing one In the first place.

The analogy would be being trapped on a plane with a chain smoker who refuses to accept that his smoking might be harming you, and therefore in his ignorance, he feels that his right (to harm you) shouldn’t be infringed, because “freedom” (his, not yours. His ignorance allows him to not care about YOUR freedoms).

I have no idea why you people allowed smoking to be banned on flights. Personal freedoms right? The science isn’t even conclusive on smoking. I mean, follow the money. All the scientists are raving lefty’s aren’t they?

Have you even done your own testing to prove that smoking is harmful? Or do we trust the science when it agrees with us and only get the shits when it contradicts our preferred beliefs?

you are such a JOKE! It’s like you can’t use common sense at all Or don’t know how to. Just trust the science and your government. You are so brainwashed from living where you do.

 

[Mitch03]

Lol.
3 years and you STILL think that you’re right. Couldn‘t make this shit up.

I know I’m right…..you‘re just to naive to know!

 

[sk47]

You not understanding the principle of operation doesn't mean something doesn’t work, I don’t understand nuclear reactors, yet they somehow work, despite all those crazy lefty’s in scientific fields.

The mask doesn’t trap 100% of the particulate matter. It was never meant to. It was meant to REDUCE the distance and volume of viral particles. That is all. It was never intended to prevent all of it from escaping. But of course, people went and did their own research and discovered that the masks weren’t able to do something they were never intended to do and therefore “they don’t work”.

But that’s the point though isn’t it. You never understood how it worked, or that it was meant to protect other people from you rather than you from them and then you insisted that you shouldn't have to wear one, because you felt that if YOU wanted to take the risk (that wasn’t yours to take in the first place) that you should be allowed to do so. All you had to do was ignore the reasoning for wearing one In the first place.

The analogy would be being trapped on a plane with a chain smoker who refuses to accept that his smoking might be harming you, and therefore in his ignorance, he feels that his right (to harm you) shouldn’t be infringed, because “freedom” (his, not yours. His ignorance allows him to not care about YOUR freedoms).

I have no idea why you people allowed smoking to be banned on flights. Personal freedoms right? The science isn’t even conclusive on smoking. I mean, follow the money. All the scientists are raving lefty’s aren’t they?

Have you even done your own testing to prove that smoking is harmful? Or do we trust the science when it agrees with us and only get the shits when it contradicts our preferred beliefs?

Hello; This is one of your better spin jobs. There is a bottom line in this mask story. That being either the masks actually protected from the virus or they did not. A full hazmat suit likely being the best protection but even hospital staff could not get enough of them.

The person wearing a mask such as most of us could find would only stop the bigger droplets from a sneeze, cough or while yelling. As others have pointed out breathing in is no different than breathing out.

But you are being successful in a manner. These mask posts are a short term distraction from the discussion about "green energy" and BEV disasters. There is an additional downside for both you and Gregs by being so stubborn in fighting the lost aspects of the covid times. That you will not admit how wrong some of the things you championed turned out to be casts huge doubts on the "green" and BEV stuff you champion today. But carry on.

 

[K4fxd]

I still find it hard to believe anyone can think Co2 which is .04% of our atmosphere is going to cause the Earth to melt if it hits .05%

When someone can and does make a physical model that proves Co2 is a problem then I will become a believer.

I'll give in and say BEV's are the best form of transportation when the Military uses them for tanks and armored personnel carriers.

 

[Burkey]

I still find it hard to believe anyone can think Co2 which is .04% of our atmosphere is going to cause the Earth to melt if it hits .05%

When someone can and does make a physical model that proves Co2 is a problem then I will become a believer.

I'll give in and say BEV's are the best form of transportation when the Military uses them for tanks and armored personnel carriers.

Do you accept that methane is a GHG?

 

[K4fxd]

Do you accept that methane is a GHG?

Do you accept h2o is a GHG?

Ireland wants to kill 200K cows, can't make this shit up.

 

[Burkey]

Do you accept h2o is a GHG?

Ireland wants to kill 200K cows, can't make this shit up.

Thats not an answer.
Given that H20 can be liquid solid or gas, I’m going to assume you’re referring to the gas. The answer is yes.

See, it’s not hard to answer a question. But let’s be real, we both know why you avoided it.

 

[K4fxd]

See, it’s not hard to answer a question. But let’s be real, we both know why you avoided it.

Not avoiding it, it is the same answer as if you asked about Co2.

Methane emissions are probably the same as in the 1800's due to the number of Buffalo roaming the plains.

Now about killing 200K cows. What is that going to do to the price of beef and dairy?

EDIT

And more important what will it do to the climate?

I'll answer, Nothing.

Sponsored