3 ms·

It's not a personal attack to say it's weird to call removing something, I quote: "not to remove actively harmful "balls"". If calling this weird is against HN

It's not a personal attack to say it's weird to call removing something, I quote: "not to remove actively harmful "balls"". If calling this weird is against HN rules, I don't want to be here in that case. This is really only about you googling for stories that coal use in Germany went up, reading half the headline and not realizing it's not saying what you want it to say, and that coal is in fact drastically down. To call yourself understanding in that case is, uh... So now I am faced with a living breathing example of backfire effect, which is potentially annoying, but not really as the bottom line is this: last year renewables almost 300GW of new capacity, nuclear roughly 0GW (I did not actually check the numbers, but am pretty confident it's almost 0 since it almost always is). To quote Amory Lovins: "it's game over".

fsflover 5y ago
> that coal is in fact drastically down Did I say otherwise? I didn't. I said it's not down enough, even if you think it's down "drastically". I didn't understand one thing. Do you actually accept or deny that due to not enough decrease of coal the world got a lot unnecessary harmful CO2 and radiatioin, or not? > To quote Amory Lovins: "it's game over". Maybe in Germany, but not necessarily elsewhere.
- locallost 5y ago
  > Did I say otherwise? I didn't. Um, no, you did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 "actually it's not even going down" Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. It's called reinforcing my wrongly held beliefs. So after saying "removing something" means "not removing something", now saying "it's not even going" down means "I never said it's not even going down". Am I again breaking HN rules by repeating the contradicting things you keep saying? New capacity in nuclear worldwide last year was roughly zero. There is around 50GW of in construction nuclear currently that will be finished god knows when and, which is about 1/6 of renewables that got deployed last year without a lot of fuss, being over budget and late. It's very much game over, and poor mental gymnastics you're showing here cannot change that.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > Um, no, you did. >Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. I didn't Google for the proof. I am well aware of the confirmation bias. I simply took this reference from the same discussion, different thread. Moreover, my original argument wasn't based on this reference and I'm ready to stand corrected if it's wrong. It doesn't matter whether it goes down on not in the end. What matters is the choice which harms the health of people and the environment. It's very sad if you are right about the end of nuclear. I see no reason for that except unscientific fears, and many scientific reports suggest that nuclear is the solution to the climate change.
    - locallost 5y ago
      Right, it doesn't matter, therefore you post the misunderstood link that it went up. Yet another contradiction. Of course it matters, you wouldn't have posted it otherwise. You see no reason because you generally don't look at facts and numbers, and this is quite clear. Nuclear is stupid expensive and slow, and investing in it is guaranteed to prolong the death of coal. We have neither the time nor the money to deal with it. Germany is living proof that you don't need it to get rid off coal. Even if you're the smartest person in the world, you are not smarter than the majority of mankind that is currently looking the other way. If you don't understand the reasons, try to understand first. The mountain is not coming to Muhammad, so Muhammad will have to go to the mountain. Happy trails.
      - fsflover 5y ago
        > Germany is living proof that you don't need it to get rid off coal. This is just bullshit. Germany is a living proof that removing coal before removing nuclear results in unnecessary damage to the environment and money to coal plant owners: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/01/14/germany-dramatically-behind-its-emissions-target-after-abandoning-dangerous-nuclear-energy/ https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/01/14/germany-dramatic.... I showed you proofs that nuclear energy is a green energy. You didn't provide any links against this point at all. > Even if you're the smartest person in the world, you are not smarter than the majority of mankind that is currently looking the other way. This is false: https://listoffallacies.com/appeal-to-majority https://listoffallacies.com/appeal-to-majority aka the Bandwagon Fallacy. I see that you are also full of bias against nuclear. You also don't have any scientific arguments and just playing with words and trying to find problems in my logic (which do exist, but they don't negate my main point). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy It's just not interesting to argue with you anymore.

fsflover 5y ago

> that coal is in fact drastically down Did I say otherwise? I didn't. I said it's not down enough, even if you think it's down "drastically". I didn't understand one thing. Do you actually accept or deny that due to not enough decrease of coal the world got a lot unnecessary harmful CO2 and radiatioin, or not? > To quote Amory Lovins: "it's game over". Maybe in Germany, but not necessarily elsewhere.

locallost 5y ago
> Did I say otherwise? I didn't. Um, no, you did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 "actually it's not even going down" Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. It's called reinforcing my wrongly held beliefs. So after saying "removing something" means "not removing something", now saying "it's not even going" down means "I never said it's not even going down". Am I again breaking HN rules by repeating the contradicting things you keep saying? New capacity in nuclear worldwide last year was roughly zero. There is around 50GW of in construction nuclear currently that will be finished god knows when and, which is about 1/6 of renewables that got deployed last year without a lot of fuss, being over budget and late. It's very much game over, and poor mental gymnastics you're showing here cannot change that.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > Um, no, you did. >Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. I didn't Google for the proof. I am well aware of the confirmation bias. I simply took this reference from the same discussion, different thread. Moreover, my original argument wasn't based on this reference and I'm ready to stand corrected if it's wrong. It doesn't matter whether it goes down on not in the end. What matters is the choice which harms the health of people and the environment. It's very sad if you are right about the end of nuclear. I see no reason for that except unscientific fears, and many scientific reports suggest that nuclear is the solution to the climate change.
  - locallost 5y ago
    Right, it doesn't matter, therefore you post the misunderstood link that it went up. Yet another contradiction. Of course it matters, you wouldn't have posted it otherwise. You see no reason because you generally don't look at facts and numbers, and this is quite clear. Nuclear is stupid expensive and slow, and investing in it is guaranteed to prolong the death of coal. We have neither the time nor the money to deal with it. Germany is living proof that you don't need it to get rid off coal. Even if you're the smartest person in the world, you are not smarter than the majority of mankind that is currently looking the other way. If you don't understand the reasons, try to understand first. The mountain is not coming to Muhammad, so Muhammad will have to go to the mountain. Happy trails.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > Germany is living proof that you don't need it to get rid off coal. This is just bullshit. Germany is a living proof that removing coal before removing nuclear results in unnecessary damage to the environment and money to coal plant owners: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/01/14/germany-dramatically-behind-its-emissions-target-after-abandoning-dangerous-nuclear-energy/ https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/01/14/germany-dramatic.... I showed you proofs that nuclear energy is a green energy. You didn't provide any links against this point at all. > Even if you're the smartest person in the world, you are not smarter than the majority of mankind that is currently looking the other way. This is false: https://listoffallacies.com/appeal-to-majority https://listoffallacies.com/appeal-to-majority aka the Bandwagon Fallacy. I see that you are also full of bias against nuclear. You also don't have any scientific arguments and just playing with words and trying to find problems in my logic (which do exist, but they don't negate my main point). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy It's just not interesting to argue with you anymore.