No mention of the fraud involved in pushing Germany to phase out Nuclear? https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/27/new-document-release-rev...
The minster asked the nuclear operators whether they could operate the plants longer, and the operators said (paraphrasing) "we'd need more fuel, and even if we were to order fuel today it wouldn't be delivered in time" and that was the end of the story. Two years later, "fraud!" Amazing.
And in the department of the environment a report was completely altered from "can run for years" to "is impossible to use them at all" by a single person that shares the ideology... [2][3]
Interesting how official documents that have been made available clearly show how experts have been ignored and their reports have been altered to fit a political and ideological scheme.
[1] - https://assets.cicero.de/2024-04/2022-03-03_BMWKFachreferat.... [2] - https://assets.cicero.de/2024-04/2022-03-01_Atomaufsicht_Ver... [3] - https://assets.cicero.de/2024-04/2022-03-03_Atomaufsicht_Ver...
And how is telling the truth a bad faith attack?
And the real bad-faith attack here is to make it look like there weren't any new circumstances that made it necessary to reconsider the runtime of the plants.
Seeing how three public servants modified a document to change its meaning from 'possible' to 'not possible' so that it looks to Habeck like there is no other option available is highly alarming.
When you alter a document to reflect your ideological views instead of going with its content and by this going against the public/greater good of the German people with intent to present false information to Habeck then this could be considered nothing short of treason.
There were reasons to not extend the lifetime by a few weeks/months (e.g. contracts had been terminated, and calling vendors back for one month would be unreasonable). There were also reasons to not extend the lifetime by much more (e.g. fuel rod availability). The two sets of reasons were largely disjoint.
But by deemphasising how long the extended operation would last, extension is made to look much more reasonable. The reasons against a long-term extension clearly don't apply (to a short-term extension) etc. Rhetorically quite clever.