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

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

31. It was abundantly clear you haven't got a clue...

Reply to GliderGuider (Reply #30)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 03:55 AM

Oct 2013

...what those "RMI fantasies" actually say. If you had known the content, you wouldn't have made post #28. You've been predicting doom in one form or another for many years now, and every prognostication you've made has betrayed you and forced you to find another avenue specifically designed to lead the unwary to a despair, gloom and pessimism intended to make nuclear power seem worth pursuing.

You've never wavered from that mission, and it is nothing more than fearmongering of the very worst sort.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Viability of Germany’s Energiewende: Mark Jacobson Answers 3 Questions [View all] kristopher Oct 2013 OP

Looks to me like madokie Oct 2013 #1

It doesn't have to be a problem for future generations... PamW Oct 2013 #2

Wonder why Japan didn't follow that path? kristopher Oct 2013 #10

Why didn't Japan build their own airliners instead of buying from Boeing / Airbus? PamW Oct 2013 #12

The question was why hasn't ANYONE pursued the IFR if it is so superior? kristopher Oct 2013 #13

The name is Pam!! PamW Oct 2013 #17

Nope kristopher Oct 2013 #18

WRONG! PamW Oct 2013 #19

I value the most effective means of reducing carbon emissions. kristopher Oct 2013 #20

WRONG, as per usual PamW Oct 2013 #21

No, Greg, you are wrong - again. kristopher Oct 2013 #22

WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! 100% WRONG!!! both the name and substance PamW Oct 2013 #33

This message was self-deleted by its author PamW Oct 2013 #3

In a world with static or declining energy demand this might be true GliderGuider Oct 2013 #4

Lets not get too carried away here madokie Oct 2013 #5

Agreed. I just wanted to get the idea out there, and this was as good a place as any. GliderGuider Oct 2013 #6

happy to be able to oblige madokie Oct 2013 #7

More of your hypothetical bullpucky kristopher Oct 2013 #8

I used 30 year averages to ensure that I wasn't mistaking noise for trend. GliderGuider Oct 2013 #9

No, you used 30 years to fudge the numbers kristopher Oct 2013 #11

Actually, I didn't. Here's the graphic proof of what I'm saying GliderGuider Oct 2013 #14

The picture has already changed. kristopher Oct 2013 #15

Not according to the data I have GliderGuider Oct 2013 #16

You're pointing your camera in the wrong direction kristopher Oct 2013 #23

At least you've stopped trying to beat us to death with Mark Z. Jacobsen... GliderGuider Oct 2013 #24

You stopped making the specific claims that Jacobson refuted. kristopher Oct 2013 #25

You can attribute whatever you wish. It's your belief system. GliderGuider Oct 2013 #26

Memo to sceptics of a low-carbon world – 'it's happening' kristopher Oct 2013 #27

What do Portugal's cars run on? What heats their homes? GliderGuider Oct 2013 #28

Tougher nuts to crack? kristopher Oct 2013 #29

I know that's the renewable dream, and that RMI are the head dreamers. GliderGuider Oct 2013 #30

It was abundantly clear you haven't got a clue... kristopher Oct 2013 #31

I call it "refining my understanding of the situation" GliderGuider Oct 2013 #32