What you're claiming is essentially that there are two incompatible forms of life. Earth and Planet X. Then you place orangutangs in with planet X life because - rather than sharing all but a few dna sequences - they have a handful of similarities.
Even closer to the argument... it's really that they have little to nothing in common with life from planet x... but they have some nutritional value that planet X life must have in order to survive on their own. So because the new life can't survive here without orangutangs losing their already-existing purpose and becoming a nutritional supplement - you pretend that it's really the same thing as being part of the system of planet X life.
You can't make a legitimate case for nuclear power,
Of course you can. In fact it's easy. It's the only energy source that can replace fossil generation almost entirely and still meet the growing power demands of an ever-hungrier world.
Finding yet another published paper in an almost-unheard-of journal from some 2nd/3rd-tier school claiming that renewables can carry the load 99.9% by next Wednesday won't make that any closer to the truth. No matter how many times you spam it.
which is why you spend all of your time arguing logical fallacies and trying to drown out the message of renewables.
Another claim that doesn't get any closer to the truth for incessant repetition. I'm a big fan of renewables. I'm just not a fan of claims that aren't true. I'm in favor of spending money subsidizing solar/wind with large sums... I'm not in favor of pretending that those sums aren't needed... or that such generation is now cheaper than gas/coal. I'm in favor of continued research into wave power... but not in favor of pretending that large-scale commercial plants will be ubiquitous in a couple years because it's really "off the shelf" technology anyway.
See the difference?
I didn't think so.
= new reply since forum marked as read
