..."alternate facts."
8+8 is still not greater than 30 when comparing the 8 EJ from solar and the 8 EJ from wind to the 30 EJ from nuclear produced in 2023 worldwide nor are the laws of physics determined by taking a poll.
In order to judge whether another person is responsive to facts, one should appreciate what a fact is. If one cannot do that, one is incompetent to comment on how another person responds to information.
In general, if one is mindlessly parroting journalist tripe - I often joke that one cannot get a degree in journalism if one has passed a college level science course with a grade of C or better (and maybe it's not entirely a joke) - one generally is not, in my opinion, generally equipped to judge what a fact might be.
Since I am a scientist who was once a dumb shit antinuke, and who has changed his mind based on the data from the consequences of Chernobyl compared to the routine operations of dangerous fossil fuel plants, I feel quite secure in judging what is and is not a fact, particularly when hearing from credulous rubes still whining after 46 years and change about Three Mile Island.
There is nothing quite as appalling as the abuse of the word "peak" by antinukes in any case. If in "percent talk" China produces 75% as much carbon dioxide waste in 2030 as it produced in 2024, it is still going to impact the planet in a huge way. I note that China is one of the main users of coal to make hydrogen that all of the hydrogen idiots around here like to pretend is "green."
The laws of physics, in particular the laws of thermodynamics, are not changed by wishful thinking or by branding, anymore than they are changed by polling.
Have a nice Thankgiving holiday. Hopefully the Turkey will come out nice in the solar powered oven assuming there is no snow or rain.
= new reply since forum marked as read