...but then again, I'm literate and can tell the difference between a Watt and a Joule and know that the latter refers to time as in, for energy systems, available time.
If one does not know how to interpret DATA, then one is not competent to remark on how other people who do think interpret it.
The data that every fucking antinuke I've ever met can't get through their heads is that the STATUS QUO, throwing trillions of dollars at so called "renewable energy" isn't doing a fucking thing to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Of course, antinukes are not interested in fossil fuels, the destruction of the planetary atmosphere or any such thing. It's why they attack infinitely expandable, energy dense, climate gas minimized energy, nuclear energy and then claim "success" because they've led a crowd of lemmings off a cliff.
Guess what? A fucking burning planet isn't "success." It's a fucking disaster.
Why is that so hard to understand?
What part of this picture that I repeat over and over and over and over and over is difficult to comprehend?
What part of this graphic and these numbers is incomprehensible?
IEA overview, Energy Investments.
The graphic is interactive at the link; one can calculate overall expenditures on what the IEA dubiously calls "clean energy."
Does it take all that many brains to put these two graphics together to consider their relationship?
Got it?
No?
I didn't think so.
My country's falling into fascism; my planet's burning up; it rained like hell at today's protests, and personally, my cat's dying and still I hear this fucking nonsense. I don't really fucking need it.
For 22 years here, antinuke after antinuke after antinuke comes here oblivious to the burning world, calling it it a "grand success."
Again, I don't fucking need it. I'm sick of anti-intellectualism, anti-science and its results.
It's time to expand my ignore list.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read