To be arguing pro solar, wind, water, and social and economic change, you would have had to have mentioned them. The only things you said were isolated anti nuclear rhetoric, lol. Ultimately, I agree with you, but read back through the comment thread, perhaps.
tl;dr - It was not a strawman, but opposition to your comments as existing in a vacuum.
Speaking of strawmen, no one said nuclear energy is good for the environment. Nice job using exactly what you accuse others of doing, though. Spot on projection.
Dude, its a strawman because im not arguing pro fossil but pro solar, Wind, Walter and economical and social change.
To be arguing pro solar, wind, water, and social and economic change, you would have had to have mentioned them. The only things you said were isolated anti nuclear rhetoric, lol. Ultimately, I agree with you, but read back through the comment thread, perhaps.
tl;dr - It was not a strawman, but opposition to your comments as existing in a vacuum.
Its like saying electric cars are good for the environment just because benzin cars are worse. Its not true. Both are bad for the environment.
The nuclear waste is a fucking problem, no matter if burning coal also is a fucking problem
Speaking of strawmen, no one said nuclear energy is good for the environment. Nice job using exactly what you accuse others of doing, though. Spot on projection.