| Pages:
1
..
42
43
44
45
46
..
122 |
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1669
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
Rechargeable power tools Lithium batteries the same. Ryobi blow out quickly, while Milwaukee Red Lithiums have been fine for several years of much
heavier use. The problem is not the batteries themselves but cheap as possible circuitry thrown into them sourced from China. It is not always cheaper
or even effectively pollution saving to try to go green.
And before you start blaming China for this, it's the American suppliers that set standards of quality in manufacturing. If they get greedy and demand
cheapest possible, thats what we get thrown at us.
[Edited on 4-17-2023 by JDCanuck]
|
|
|
JZ
Select Nomad
Posts: 10546
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck  | | Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666 | States and towns consider banning gas-powered leaf blowers and lawn mowers and of course people people are moaning and whining…
I have electric leaf blower and mower. I really like them, no smelly gas cans or oil to mess with! With electric motors, very simple maintenance!
Back in the 1970s we swept up dirt and picked up leaves with brooms and rakes. I still use a broom and take in my yard for most clean up because
blowers create so much dust in our dry climate, and I prefer to not breathe all that dust. |
I've had an electric mower and snowblower for a few years now from Greenworks. Cost to replace two batteries $600 per year as they fail very quickly,
far more than the cost of gas. I hate to think what replacing those two 80v lithium non-recyclable batteries costs in pollution as well. Turned out
not to be such a great idea after all. Maybe someone will come out with reliable batteries and this might change. |
Can you imagine gardeners trying to charge batteries for 20 man crews?
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1002
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck |
I've had an electric mower and snowblower for a few years now from Greenworks. Cost to replace two batteries $600 per year as they fail very quickly,
far more than the cost of gas. I hate to think what replacing those two 80v lithium non-recyclable batteries costs in pollution as well. Turned out
not to be such a great idea after all. Maybe someone will come out with reliable batteries and this might change. |
Eco brand stuff sold at Costco is Greenworks. - they have 8 year warrantees on batteries, lots of good reviews on you tube from long time owners.
why are you not taking advantage of the warrantee program?
|
|
|
JZ
Select Nomad
Posts: 10546
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Climate change is the biggest grift of the last 60 years.
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1669
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by caj13 | | Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck |
I've had an electric mower and snowblower for a few years now from Greenworks. Cost to replace two batteries $600 per year as they fail very quickly,
far more than the cost of gas. I hate to think what replacing those two 80v lithium non-recyclable batteries costs in pollution as well. Turned out
not to be such a great idea after all. Maybe someone will come out with reliable batteries and this might change. |
Eco brand stuff sold at Costco is Greenworks. - they have 8 year warrantees on batteries, lots of good reviews on you tube from long time owners.
why are you not taking advantage of the warrantee program? |
Perhaps if I'd bought in the US, I would have received an 8 year warranty. Mine came with one year warranty, in each case i noted the failures just
past the 1 year warranty I was provided with in the next mowing season. Equipment itself outside the batteries did provide much longer "limited"
warranties, I think it may have been 8 years.
I did go through several youtube videos that discussed why they failed and how to (hopefully) repair them. Not applicable to me, so I have 1 battery
left operable at 300 CAD per shot, the rest have gone to garbage, so its back to the store to buy another or just run my cheap reliable gas mower.
Bought two chargers, both produce the same results, and each battery displays different issues when attempting recharging. Most commonly, the charger
runs up for about 5 sec and then shows battery failure(charging circuit), but two showed full charge but as soon as they are installed in mower, they
trip out and won't run the equipment(discharging circuit).
[Edited on 4-18-2023 by JDCanuck]
|
|
|
JZ
Select Nomad
Posts: 10546
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by caj13 | | Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck |
I've had an electric mower and snowblower for a few years now from Greenworks. Cost to replace two batteries $600 per year as they fail very quickly,
far more than the cost of gas. I hate to think what replacing those two 80v lithium non-recyclable batteries costs in pollution as well. Turned out
not to be such a great idea after all. Maybe someone will come out with reliable batteries and this might change. |
Eco brand stuff sold at Costco is Greenworks. - they have 8 year warrantees on batteries, lots of good reviews on you tube from long time owners.
why are you not taking advantage of the warrantee program? |
I see 4 years for their Pro line and 3 for non-Pro.
If you use it for commercial use, you only get 90 days (lol).
https://www.greenworkstools.com/pages/warranty
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1669
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JZ | | Quote: Originally posted by caj13 | | Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck |
I've had an electric mower and snowblower for a few years now from Greenworks. Cost to replace two batteries $600 per year as they fail very quickly,
far more than the cost of gas. I hate to think what replacing those two 80v lithium non-recyclable batteries costs in pollution as well. Turned out
not to be such a great idea after all. Maybe someone will come out with reliable batteries and this might change. |
Eco brand stuff sold at Costco is Greenworks. - they have 8 year warrantees on batteries, lots of good reviews on you tube from long time owners.
why are you not taking advantage of the warrantee program? |
I see 4 years for their Pro line and 3 for non-Pro.
If you use it for commercial use, you only get 90 days (lol).
https://www.greenworkstools.com/pages/warranty
|
Apparently early battery failures are not uncommon with Greenworks, but if you pay 40% more they will soon offer a doubling of the warranty to 8 years
on the more expensive "Pro" models. Check out the negative battery reviews and the responses from Greenworks and how the owner was responsible for not
storing or recharging them every couple months, but never overdoing the length of time they are left in the chargers. Reminds me of the old Firestone
tire warranties when they had exploding tires
https://www.greenworkstools.com/collections/batteries-charge...
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18377
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
What Earth was like last time CO2 levels were so crazily high
The last time CO2 levels were as high as today, ocean waters drowned the lands where metropolises like Houston, Miami, and New York City now exist.
It’s a time called the Pliocene or mid-Pliocene, some 3 million years ago, when sea levels were around 30 feet higher (but possibly much more) and
giant camels dwelled in a forested high Arctic. The Pliocene was a significantly warmer world, likely at some 5 degrees Fahrenheit (around 3 degrees
Celsius) warmer than pre-Industrial temperatures of the late 1800s. Much of the Arctic, which today is largely clad in ice, had melted. Heat-trapping
carbon dioxide levels, a major temperature lever, hovered around 400 parts per million, or ppm. Today, these levels are similar but relentlessly
rising, at over 420 ppm.
Humanity is currently on track to warm Earth to Pliocene-like temperatures by century’s end — unless nations ambitiously slash carbon emissions in
the coming decades. Sea levels, of course, won’t instantly rise by tens of feet: Miles-thick ice sheets take many centuries to thousands of years to
melt. But, critically, humanity is already setting the stage for a relatively quick return to Pliocene climes, or climes at least significantly warmer
than now. It’s happening fast. When CO2 naturally increases in the atmosphere, pockets of ancient air preserved in ice show this CO2 rise happens
gradually, over thousands of years. But today, carbon dioxide levels are skyrocketing as humans burn long-buried fossil fuels.
"CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up 100 ppm in my lifetime," said Kathleen Benison, a geologist at West Virginia University who researches past
climates. “That’s incredibly fast geologically."
"You don’t have to be a scientist to realize something totally weird is going on, and that weird thing is humans," noted Dan Lunt, a climate
scientist at the University of Bristol who has researched the Pliocene.
The problematic Pliocene
Sure, it takes a long time for sea levels to catch up with Earth’s warming. But in a plethora of other ways, the planet is already reacting to about
2 F (1.1 C) of warming since the late 1800s: Wildfires are surging in the U.S., major Antarctic ice sheets have destabilized, heat waves are smashing
records, storms are intensifying, and beyond.
More warming will further exacerbate these consequences of increased heat. It will get worse. But will it get Pliocene bad? That’s up to the most
fickle, unpredictable factor of the climate equation: humans.
"CO2 levels are going to increase," said Lunt. "We could hit the Pliocene in terms of temperature. But it depends on how rapidly we emit [greenhouse
gases]."
"CO2 levels are going to increase."
Some of the human-driven changes happening on Earth today won’t be reversed for centuries or thousands of years. In large part, that’s because
civilization continues to deposit prodigious loads of carbon into the atmosphere each year, and all these heat-trapping gases won’t magically vanish
from the air, even if we instantly stop adding carbon to the atmosphere. Rather, they’ll have impacts upon the planet — like gradually rising seas
and acidifying oceans — for at least centuries. Already, sea levels have risen by some eight to nine inches since the late 1800s, and a conservative
estimate, from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is sea levels will rise by another one to two feet by the century's end. But, this
could very well be more like two or three feet, or even more depending on what Antarctica’s colossal, melting Thwaites Glacier (it’s the size of
Britain) purges into the sea this century.
The Pliocene certainly can’t give us all the answers for where we’re headed. We don’t know, for example, how quickly the seas rose during this
far-off period. But the Pliocene does show us how sensitive parts of Earth are to just a few degrees of warming. For instance, much of the vast
Greenland ice sheet, which is two and a half times the size of Texas, melted during the warmer Pliocene. And ancient evidence of long-ago beaches,
dated to the Pliocene, show where past shorelines lay: A ballpark height of 30 feet or so higher than today is ominous.
"That means the ice sheets are really sensitive to a modest amount of warming," said Rob DeConto, a professor of climatology at the University of
Massachusetts Amherst who studies the response of ice sheets to a warming climate.
This doesn’t bode well for human civilization, which heavily populates the coastlines. "That’s where civilization has built much of its
infrastructure," said DeConto. "We’re a species that gravitated toward the coast."
Pliocene warmth
Earth’s CO2 levels have always naturally wavered. Humans didn’t exist (and wouldn’t exist for millions of years) during the Pliocene — though
our hirsute primate ancestors were already walking around Africa at the time.
So what explains the high Pliocene CO2 levels (400 ppm) without a world of fuel-guzzling cars and coal-fired power plants? The answer lies in deep
time.
Long before the Pliocene, CO2 levels were extremely elevated during the age of the dinosaurs (which ended 65 million years ago), perhaps at some 2,000
to 4,000 ppm. Tremendous CO2 emissions, from incessant and extreme volcanism, heated Earth and allowed dinosaurs to roam a sultry Antarctic. But over
millions of years, Earth’s natural processes (specifically the slow, grinding, but potent process of rocks absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, dubbed
"the rock thermostat") gradually reduced CO2 levels to some 400 ppm during the Pliocene. (We know this because there are indirect, though reliable,
ways to gauge Earth’s CO2 levels from millions of years ago, including the chemical make-up of long-dead plankton and the evidence stored in the
breathing cells, or stomata, of ancient plants.)
"We’re on our way to the Pliocene."
After the Pliocene, Earth continued to pull CO2 from the air, finally settling CO2 levels between some 200 to 280 ppm during the more recent ice ages,
when mammoths, mastodons, and giant sloths dominated a cooler Earth, and humans eventually appeared. But humanity, by rapidly digging up and burning
fossil fuels, has now promptly returned CO2 to Pliocene levels.
"We, in 150 years, have completely reversed everything the ‘rock thermostat’ has done in the last 3 million years," explained
Brigham-Grette. "The transition from a warm Arctic to a cold one that has ice sheets took a million years. We’re jumping out of that in less
than 150 years."
Indeed, the Arctic has changed dramatically in just the last 40 years. Arctic sea ice is in rapid decline. Greenland’s melting is off the charts.
Humanity, fortunately, still has the ability to stabilize Earth’s temperatures this century at levels that would avoid catastrophic impacts like
more extreme storms, coral devastation, punishing heat, and beyond. But, as of now, we’re on a trajectory to the climes of 3 million years ago. (And
in some respects — notably atmospheric CO2 — we’re already there.)
"We’re on our way to the Pliocene," said Brigham-Grette.
[Edited on 4-19-2023 by mtgoat666]
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1669
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
One simple question needs to be answered before we throw our tax money at this issue. Who has REALLY done the most to reduce our CO2 contributions:
The politicians who lease private jets and fly massive numbers of miles to talk, who burn more energy personally than a small village, or the industry
leaders like Elon Musk and the owners of the utilities that have drastically dropped theirs and those they sell to in past 2 decades. Lets make sure
we throw money at those who have proven they will actually invest it effectively not those who continually demand more with no visible effect to date.
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4289
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
why are you guys still arguing over something you have no influence over?
It's like sports - you are just a spectator.
Run for office it you think you can make the world a better place.
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18377
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc | why are you guys still arguing over something you have no influence over?
It's like sports - you are just a spectator.
Run for office it you think you can make the world a better place. |
Not true. Everyone can help. Think global, act local.
And here is some food for thought…
It Seems Odd That We Would Just Let the World Burn
“I spent the weekend reading a book I wasn’t entirely comfortable being seen with in public. Andreas Malm’s “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is
only slightly inaptly named. You won’t find, anywhere inside, instructions on sabotaging energy infrastructure. A truer title would be “Why to
Blow Up a Pipeline.” On this, Malm’s case is straightforward: Because nothing else has worked.
Decades of climate activism have gotten millions of people into the streets but they haven’t turned the tide on emissions, or even investments.
Citing a 2019 study in the journal Nature, Malm observes that, measuring by capacity, 49 percent of the fossil-fuel-burning energy infrastructure now
in operation was installed after 2004. Add in the expected emissions from projects in some stage of the planning process and we are most of the way
toward warming the world by 2 degrees Celsius — a prospect scientists consider terrifying and most world governments have repeatedly pledged to
avoid. Some hoped that the pandemic would alter the world’s course, but it hasn’t. Oil consumption is hurtling back to precrisis levels, and
demand for coal, the dirtiest of the fuels, is rising.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/opinion/climate-change-en...
The Climate Case for Property Destruction
Andreas Malm’s “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” urges activists to turn to tougher tactics.
https://newrepublic.com/article/162247/andreas-malm-blow-up-...
And in theaters right now:
I love passionate idealism of youth!
I bet a lot of you elderly nomads originally had an ounce of idealism and once read the Monkey Wrench Gang and responded “flock yeah!”
[Edited on 4-20-2023 by mtgoat666]
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
I think a case can be made that the US and EU have done more to curb emissions than the rest of the world combined.
What we/they can accomplish by going further at a tremendous cost to their countries is minuscule compared to what China, India and the other
developing countries could do if they so cared.
If we (US) contribute 11% percent of the stuff and cut it to zero (not practical or possible, can't be done in 100 years) would we cut the total
emissions by 11%?
If we did and just China keeps on its present course of tripling their coal fired power plants in the next couple decades that means they emit 300%
more "stuff".
If they emit 26% of the total now they will emit 78% by the time they are done
What will that 11% from us look like then? After their 66 % increase?
Just their increase is 6 times what we do now!
Where will our economy be then after spending all that money for nothing?
A better gain for the buck for the world would be to get China to drop their coal plants- don't ya think? More bang for the buck? For world climate?
All that money we spend try to cut our last 11% will be totally lost in the total earth emissions being put out by China in 20 years AND the climate
will be no better for it.
Its a waste of time because the rest of the world hasn't bought into it yet and can't! They need dino juice to survive. Its obvious that most of the
world doesn't buy into the hysteria about the earth coming to an end. As it has done for 5 billion years- the climate will change and the
inhabitants will adapt to it.
One of my questions still remains- why the change from "the next Ice Age to Climate Warming to Climate Change"? Could it be that the facts didn't
support the former names?
The Chicken Littles just run around all in a dither over nothing.
The seas won't rise and the earth ain't gonna die in the next 500 years. We haven't seen any ocean rise significantly anywhere in the world.
To flagrantly spout that the earth is in dire straights and going to die in 10 years is absolutely false and a lie Just ask the spouter of record
himself- Al Gore! What predictions of his have come true?
BTW he deflects his emissions from his jet by buying 'carbon credits" from a company HE owns and wants everyone else to buy them too.
Maybe a conflict of interest here? Do what I say and not what I do?
Special benefits for special people?
When he goes total carbon free I will too! Somehow I think we will both be long gone before that happens.
If you are really interested in "saving the world" go where you can do the most good for the dollar spent- China and India! A lot better return for
the dollar spent. Or is the hill too steep to climb and all you're interested in is the low hanging fruit?
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1669
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
Where we are going: to try and put a more positive spin on this topic, this is what is being done at present on the utility power production side.
This was (according to records from 2019) Canada's second largest CO2 emitter, being a coal fired thermal power producer of some note.
https://www.capitalpower.com/about-genesee/
1) conversion from coal fired boilers to high efficiency natural gas combined cycle generating units
2) capture and conversion of significant amounts of CO2 to produce carbon based nanotubes.
3)carbon capture and storage using existing converted or new purposed pipelines
4)Installation of 210 MW of battery storage
In 2023:
"Following gas conversion and repowering, physical carbon dioxide emissions at the Genesee facility will be approximately 3.4 million tonnes per year
lower than 2019 emission levels."
While the power producers are charged with the CO2 emissions, this plant supplies demand to a grid that runs down the west coast supplying power to
customers in California and New Mexico (4 corners New Mexico)and was greatly expanded due to the increasingly large export demand that forced
brownouts in the southwestern US in the late 20th century.
Essentially, the producer gets charged while the power user gets to claim a free ride
[Edited on 4-20-2023 by JDCanuck]
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1002
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy |
If we did and just China keeps on its present course of tripling their coal fired power plants in the next couple decades that means they emit 300%
more "stuff". |
You got a citation for this fact Cliffy?
turns out cliffy - clean energy is a moneymaker - for the companies producing that power, for the companies providing the manufacture and
technology for it, and for the consumers who are paying less - in a previous post you made an old long agao disproven claim that renewables cost
more when you take into account subsidies., turns out thats completely false - and if you spent as much time "researching" on google as you claim -
you would already know how much cheaper wind, solar is that oil / coal. But maybe you OAN and minus $787Mill Fox websites don't count as Research eh!
As for your ranting about china - look it up - do more of your spectacular internet research - turns out china is reducing their CO2 outputs and
moving to renewables as well -
damn thats inconvenient when you can't blame the other guy for farting - isn't it!
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4920
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by caj13 | | Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy |
If we did and just China keeps on its present course of tripling their coal fired power plants in the next couple decades that means they emit 300%
more "stuff". |
You got a citation for this fact Cliffy?
turns out cliffy - clean energy is a moneymaker - for the companies producing that power, for the companies providing the manufacture and
technology for it, and for the consumers who are paying less - in a previous post you made an old long agao disproven claim that renewables cost
more when you take into account subsidies., turns out thats completely false - and if you spent as much time "researching" on google as you claim -
you would already know how much cheaper wind, solar is that oil / coal. But maybe you OAN and minus $787Mill Fox websites don't count as Research eh!
As for your ranting about china - look it up - do more of your spectacular internet research - turns out china is reducing their CO2 outputs and
moving to renewables as well -
damn thats inconvenient when you can't blame the other guy for farting - isn't it! |
What, you mean ignoring facts that don't jive with one's preconceived notions isn't okay? 
|
|
|
AKgringo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6027
Registered: 9-20-2014
Location: Anchorage, AK (no mas!)
Member Is Offline
Mood: Retireded
|
|
They haven't got the bugs out yet.....
Recent footage of brand new Ford F-150s; https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/previously-unrelea...
If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!
"Could do better if he tried!" Report card comments from most of my grade school teachers. Sadly, still true!
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1002
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
JZ says:
You do realize there are 5 min montages of every main stream media person and dozens of high level Lib politicians falsely claiming 2016 was a "stolen
election" or "illegitimate election"? No?
Nope - didn't happen. some b-tching and whining about timing of comey release - but thats it - compared to 3 years of daily whining - get some
evidence - for once have facts to back up your claims - then you may gain a bit of legitamcy - because right now your a bunch of 6 year olds
insistin g Santa Claus is real!
JZ says:
Or 3-4 min montages of dozens of people like Kamala and Clinton claiming Dominican voting machines could be hacked.
got any evidence for that claim? any footage of them saying that? or better yet any evidence trrhat they were hacked. B ecause Mikey PPillow biter
would like that info - it would save him 5 million bucks! I appreciate he put his money where his mouth is - even if hes now renigging on his
promise!
Your right, I don't watch enough of fox - I got tired of them claiming they were a news organization - turns out - $787 million says c- nope -
your just a bunch of spin doctors making up lies and propaganda -
JZ says: Climate Change is real. But it is being used as part of a grift to enrich politicians with money and power.
and once again - for at least the 4th time I'll ask you to provide sources for that information - what politicians - when and how - because I have
provided you tons of links to articles and research on the economic gains provided by green industries,
and JZ pontificates: and for some reason - you have never responded to those! Again, if you stopped listening to the media and lying politicians
you'd see the truth. Your choice if you want to be the pawn in their caper.
Uh JZ - you and I both know science and fact are what I listen to and believe in - I'm sorry if the science doesn't agree with your political agenda
- but you know what? Science don't care what you think - it says - here's the facts, here's the data, here's the an analysis - here's the
conclusions - you got a problem with that, show me your data, show me where the science is wrong. and so far - nothing - noltta but a bunch of
whiners spouting right wing conspiracies they dream up so they don't have to face reality!
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1002
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Car fires happen every day Gringo - most are not electric! so we shouldn't be using IC engined cars because occasionally they burst into flames.
so its back to the Conestoga wagons? oh wait - they burned too - usually by flaming arrows from Indians if my childhood westerns are based in fact
- so we are left at using only Bicycles - but we cant do that - they are completely green - oh no!
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1002
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by tomieharder | The last Ice Age peaked 22,000 years ago. The Earth has been continually warming for the last 22,000 years. 22,000 years ago, upstate New York was
under an ice sheet 1 mile thick.
So here is the question for the goat all the other geniuses here:
If the Earth has been warming for the past 22,000 years, what caused it to warm the first 21,780 years before the Industrial Revolution?
And what caused the reason for the warming to change only 220 years ago?
[Edited on 4-16-2023 by tomieharder] |
Its the rate - look at the graphs - look at the data, if you don't know the facts, how can you be a valid participant in the discussion?
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1002
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
JZ
Was this also science?
 [/rquote]
No JZ It wasn't science - turns out it is a fake magazine cover some MAGA climate deniers fabricated up because they had n o science or fact to back
their denier claims.
a 30 second google search would of told you that - instead you chose to post this complete and utter BS because you wanted to believe in it.
Facts and science JZ - not Political posturing and inventing BS
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
42
43
44
45
46
..
122 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
