> I have tried having a normal discussion, which is not something I can say for you.
You have not at any point tried to answer my original question. At every point you deflect to a straw man.
> It says clearly "decommissioning nuclear, YET producing MORE carbon dioxide". It's not true, and there's no other way around it.
As I have quite clearly explained to you, this can refer either to absolute or relative changes. It doesn't take a lot of goodwill to decide that they probably meant relative changes, and then from there on you can address issues (such as pros/cons of nuclear) that actually matter, instead of splitting hairs and argue about language.
> A lot of pro nuclear people are shaking their heads in dismay because the CO2 numbers in Germany are going up. They are not!
They presumably are, relative to what they could have been, no? That seems a perfectly good reason to be upset, even if you don't agree with nuclear as the best option. If you immediately lambast people for not using language the way you think it should be used, you are inevitably going to lose a lot of credibility. Goodwill is necessary for a constructive debate, and you're not really showing that here.
> How you then managed to spin it into a comparison to a fictional parallel universe where the plants are still on and concluded that a decrease is actually an increase I don't know.
If you're having trouble understanding the concept of a relative change, perhaps this is not the best discussion to be involved in. Far too often I see people comment loudly and denounce their opponents as idiots, when it is in fact themselves that don't fully understand the nuances and complexities.
You have not at any point tried to answer my original question. At every point you deflect to a straw man.
> It says clearly "decommissioning nuclear, YET producing MORE carbon dioxide". It's not true, and there's no other way around it.
As I have quite clearly explained to you, this can refer either to absolute or relative changes. It doesn't take a lot of goodwill to decide that they probably meant relative changes, and then from there on you can address issues (such as pros/cons of nuclear) that actually matter, instead of splitting hairs and argue about language.
> A lot of pro nuclear people are shaking their heads in dismay because the CO2 numbers in Germany are going up. They are not!
They presumably are, relative to what they could have been, no? That seems a perfectly good reason to be upset, even if you don't agree with nuclear as the best option. If you immediately lambast people for not using language the way you think it should be used, you are inevitably going to lose a lot of credibility. Goodwill is necessary for a constructive debate, and you're not really showing that here.
> How you then managed to spin it into a comparison to a fictional parallel universe where the plants are still on and concluded that a decrease is actually an increase I don't know.
If you're having trouble understanding the concept of a relative change, perhaps this is not the best discussion to be involved in. Far too often I see people comment loudly and denounce their opponents as idiots, when it is in fact themselves that don't fully understand the nuances and complexities.