Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Eko

(7,245 posts)

14. And if I posted an article

Reply to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 29, 2017, 09:30 PM

Jun 2017

that had a link about the neanderthals becoming extinct that means I am against neanderthals? Or switch that with with white rhinos? Does the data show nuclear is in a downfall? Then it is the truth and not an opinion or a viewpoint. And I'm not a lady. Okedokey?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Huge Milestone: Renewables Now Provide More Electricity Than Nuclear Power [View all] Eko Jun 2017 OP

Explicitly or haplessly, the article you linked to is more natural gas blather. hunter Jun 2017 #1

Wow, Eko Jun 2017 #2

What you posted is not good. I posted actual numbers. hunter Jun 2017 #3

I was referring to nuclear. Eko Jun 2017 #5

It's not good news, "A Huge Milestone," for the reason I explain. hunter Jun 2017 #6

For some reason Eko Jun 2017 #7

I ask you this: Is it a good milestone or a worrisome milestone? hunter Jun 2017 #8

You just cant do it. Eko Jun 2017 #9

To be fair, the headline appears to imply that more renewables than nuclear is a good thing OKIsItJustMe Jun 2017 #10

Key word is Eko Jun 2017 #11

The lady doth protest too much, methinks OKIsItJustMe Jun 2017 #12

And if I posted an article Eko Jun 2017 #14

Your repeated claim was "Nothing in my post was anti nuclear." OKIsItJustMe Jun 2017 #20

My neo-Luddite self asked a question... hunter Jun 2017 #13

My eko self requested Eko Jun 2017 #15

What is that? Am I indifferent to nuclear power? hunter Jun 2017 #18

It was simple Eko Jun 2017 #19

Fine. You are pro-nuclear or indifferent. hunter Jul 2017 #29

Wow, doubling down. Eko Jul 2017 #30

Yep, doubling down. hunter Jul 2017 #31

Ohhhh, tripling down,,,,, Eko Jul 2017 #32

Nuclear waste, the worst of it, is problematic for a few hundred years. hunter Jul 2017 #34

And you Strawman me Eko Jul 2017 #35

What's your utopia? hunter Jul 2017 #36

..... Eko Jul 2017 #37

I asked you questions. You did not answer. hunter Jul 2017 #38

Then dont Eko Jul 2017 #39

I asked you to Eko Jul 2017 #40

So nothing? Eko Jul 2017 #33

The technical term for your stance is "hogwash". kristopher Jun 2017 #16

Hmmm... I don't think this is the first time... OKIsItJustMe Jun 2017 #4

Coal 2007 2,016,456GWh /// Coal 2016 1,240,108 kristopher Jun 2017 #17

Right OKIsItJustMe Jun 2017 #21

Right. Your number lacks context, has zip value in determining causation or correlation kristopher Jun 2017 #22

It's as valuable as the numbers around which the article was written OKIsItJustMe Jun 2017 #23

No it isn't. kristopher Jun 2017 #24

That cause being? OKIsItJustMe Jun 2017 #25

You imply the relationship between renewable & nuclear is causing coal to rise. kristopher Jun 2017 #26

You assume, ignoring evidence to the contrary. OKIsItJustMe Jun 2017 #27

Riiiight.... kristopher Jun 2017 #28