4 ms·

Read what I wrote and respond to that or not at all. You can't goad me into "admitting" something I'm not arguing against, because I'm not in some religious ant

Read what I wrote and respond to that or not at all. You can't goad me into "admitting" something I'm not arguing against, because I'm not in some religious anti renewable or pro nuclear or coal cult. You were wrong if you were reciting the popular prayer "coal is dead, killed by renewables" a few years ago. Hopefully you come to understand that and reflect on what that means for the credibility of the kind of sources you get your information from, and what that means for your ideas about nuclear and other things too.

cinntaile 4y ago
> Read what I wrote and respond to that or not at all. You can't goad me into "admitting" something I'm not arguing against, because I'm not in some religious anti renewable or pro nuclear or coal cult. Did you not claim: >"coal is dead, killed by renewables." was said by people around 10 years ago and that this referred to the entire world? I'm assuming people aren't just random Twitter users but actual reputable people. I have provided a reputable source from 2010 that said that total coal consumption would rise and that this increase is due to an increased usage in the developing world. This is true today, see [0] so the prediction was on point. All you have to do is show us that a reputable source has claimed that coal was dead and that this referred to the entire world. Somewhere around 2010. This would settle the debate. > You were wrong if you were reciting the popular prayer "coal is dead, killed by renewables" a few years ago. Hopefully you come to understand that and reflect on what that means for the credibility of the kind of sources you get your information from, and what that means for your ideas about nuclear and other things too. Don't you think it would be really weird if I was supposedly reciting something that I say wasn't claimed in the first place? The claim you mention refers to the west and no real energy expert worth his or her salt would have claimed that this would be the case for the entire world. It's simply not possible for the developing world to do that. It wasn't possible in 2010, when the costs for renewables were much higher than they are now, and it isn't possible now. I think the International Energy Agency is quite a reputable source? They do research and advice policy makers all around the world. Also I'm a bit confused... My ideas about nuclear and other things? I'm not following here, what do you mean? And what does it have to do with the topic at hand? [0] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  Look, gullible know-nothings actually believed and could not stop themselves from parroting endlessly that coal mines and infrastructure around the world were dead, killed by renewables. Renewables were cheaper, coal was dead -- that was the complete story in their minds. They were just led astray by misinformation from special interests, and they were wrong. The same people have also been claiming that nuclear is dead, killed by renewbales. Their credibility speaks for itself. No need to reply with apologetics, or arguments about something I didn't say.

cinntaile 4y ago

> Read what I wrote and respond to that or not at all. You can't goad me into "admitting" something I'm not arguing against, because I'm not in some religious anti renewable or pro nuclear or coal cult. Did you not claim: >"coal is dead, killed by renewables." was said by people around 10 years ago and that this referred to the entire world? I'm assuming people aren't just random Twitter users but actual reputable people. I have provided a reputable source from 2010 that said that total coal consumption would rise and that this increase is due to an increased usage in the developing world. This is true today, see [0] so the prediction was on point. All you have to do is show us that a reputable source has claimed that coal was dead and that this referred to the entire world. Somewhere around 2010. This would settle the debate. > You were wrong if you were reciting the popular prayer "coal is dead, killed by renewables" a few years ago. Hopefully you come to understand that and reflect on what that means for the credibility of the kind of sources you get your information from, and what that means for your ideas about nuclear and other things too. Don't you think it would be really weird if I was supposedly reciting something that I say wasn't claimed in the first place? The claim you mention refers to the west and no real energy expert worth his or her salt would have claimed that this would be the case for the entire world. It's simply not possible for the developing world to do that. It wasn't possible in 2010, when the costs for renewables were much higher than they are now, and it isn't possible now. I think the International Energy Agency is quite a reputable source? They do research and advice policy makers all around the world. Also I'm a bit confused... My ideas about nuclear and other things? I'm not following here, what do you mean? And what does it have to do with the topic at hand? [0] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

throwawaylinux 4y ago
Look, gullible know-nothings actually believed and could not stop themselves from parroting endlessly that coal mines and infrastructure around the world were dead, killed by renewables. Renewables were cheaper, coal was dead -- that was the complete story in their minds. They were just led astray by misinformation from special interests, and they were wrong. The same people have also been claiming that nuclear is dead, killed by renewbales. Their credibility speaks for itself. No need to reply with apologetics, or arguments about something I didn't say.