And you cannot pick an interpretation of what you've said and "demonstrate" that my interpretation was not legitimate just because you don't like it. You canno

And you cannot pick an interpretation of what you've said and "demonstrate" that my interpretation was not legitimate just because you don't like it. You cannot say "how old are you" and then scream and cry that someone has interpreted that as a normal person will do. And I have provided all the elements that justify (even if there is a question mark, I know, amazing!) why I've interpreted the way I've interpreted. And these elements makes sense (and I know you will say "naa-ha they don't", the same way you have used logic similar to "if you don't agree with Jancovici, the only possibility is that you are an idiot"). You were lecturing me on what I should have written. But somehow, if indeed you did assume absolutely nothing, you expressed yourself incredibly badly, in a very unnatural way for someone who don't assume anything. But again, I guess you are allowed to lecture me and you are the good guy for doing so, but I should give you all the benefice of the doubt and forgive all of your bad writing, otherwise, I'm the bad guy. And I know, you are going to say "naa-ah, it was not badly written". But it cuts both way, if I cannot say what interpretations are valid and are not valid, why do you think you can? And all of this discussion does not change the fact that you are ignorant on the subject of energy generation, only come up with naive and cliché arguments, and that you focused the discussion on small elements rather than answer for all of the other aspects where indeed you cannot really answer.