The word "increase" has a clear meaning, and it means that there is more of something than there was before. The word opposite of increase is called "decrease", and Germany's CO2 emissions have decreased since they started switching off nuclear power plants.
Calling a decrease an increase is something I would call playing semantics.
Language is full of ambiguities that are only resolved by context. Both a relative increase and an absolute increase are increases, so saying that it has a "clear meaning" is fairly pointless here.
And you're still ignoring my original question, which I asked from genuine curiosity. I'm getting a strong feeling you prefer to focus on a straw man, because if you look at relative changes your position falls apart. Do prove me wrong.
I hope you're enjoying the increase in air temperature from 30 degrees in the summer, to 2 degrees today. The temperature for today was projected to be -3 two weeks ago, so we have a relative increase there. Is that how you think relative vs absolute works?
Again, *by context* this is precisely how you would *not* interpret "increase" here.
You've basically taken my point and turned it to mean the exact opposite, so that you can give a smart-ass reply while avoiding the actual question I'm asking. Well done.
I have tried having a normal discussion, which is not something I can say for you. To see this, it's enough to check what was initially posted:
"...Germany's current plan where you're decommissioning nuclear to become more "green" yet producing much more carbon dioxide."
It says clearly "decommissioning nuclear, YET producing MORE carbon dioxide". It's not true, and there's no other way around it. I posted an explicit response to this wrong post because I have seen it many times (and unfortunately I am repeating myself here). A lot of pro nuclear people are shaking their heads in dismay because the CO2 numbers in Germany are going up. They are not! I have literally had this very same discussion three weeks ago somewhere else with another person that does not check data.
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. But it's enough for me for today.
> 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.
Calling a decrease an increase is something I would call playing semantics.