> They do give concrete examples

The example you copy is not really anything concrete. Yes, the Heinrich Böll Foundation exists, has physical presence is several country, as an association with a political party and has an opinion on some policies.

That is not at all unusual, and you have similar foundation, sometimes anti-, sometimes pro-nuclear, everywhere. Just put yourself in their shoes: if you were in France and convinced that the nuclear pathway was good for mankind and that some people in Germany were interested to publish results that is consistent with what you think, why would you not collaborate with them?

But what this report does not do is to provide anything concrete. There is absolutely not proof that any of this had any impact whatsoever. There is no proof that it is a inference attempt and not just some people wanting to share their ideas in a given subject. There is no proof is was with the explicit goal of misinforming people (you realize that if these article published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation are scientifically correct, then it is a GOOD THING they have been published in France, right?). There is also no discussion about pro-nuclear publications supported by other foundations and how they could have impacted the French policy.

At the same time as these publications, France government was very pro-nuclear, which is rather a proof that inference from Germany had few to no impact.

> it isn't because you dislike the information that it is cherrypicking

Of course not, and I don't "dislike" these information. I'm just saying that those are pretty low ranking when normal people discuss what's happening in France and that if you were neutral, it's very strange to randomly point to 3 different reasons that are all pretty uninfluencal on the situation while conveniently "forgetting" the other reasons. And I say it again: these other reasons are not particularly anti-nuclear, but they are just not framing the situation as "in fact everything is perfect" or "in fact it's all the fault of the anti-nuclear". They are showing that it is more complex and maybe less about "renewable vs nuclear" like you try to frame the discussion.

> You again mentioned information without sourced it

Uh? YOU were saying that the projection of 2024 is missing. So, I've assumed you had source for it, so I did not need to provide a source. That's really crazy: you seem to use "source" as a random free-of-jail card to reject things that are not convenient for you.

Normal intellectually honest interlocutors don't need to scream "source" each time the other interlocutor does not bring a source, only if it's not easy for them to find the source and therefore suspect the interlocutor got confused in their conclusions.

As for source, a very easily source to find is the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media...

As you can see, the French curve is the same in the article than in the svg (you have to subtract the blue area). And as you can see, projection for 2024 are again dropping w.r.t to 2023. So, yes, the conclusion from the article is still correct.

So now, your turn: what are your sources to say that the sentence will not be true if the projection for 2024 are included?

> You are again making up an exemple that is far from our current discussion to depict what I say as insane.

You know what an analogy is, right?

> Are you saying that the loss of technical expertise isn't tied at all to the anti-nuclear movement ?

What? No its not. It's due to budget and short-term vision. At the same time, France was maintaining its expertise in plenty of other sectors that may or may not be popular, in military engineering, in spyware, in chemistry, ... The politicians in France have majoritarly supported the idea of a french nuclear sector until the 2000's, which is well after the expertise started to erode.

(some nice summary of the reasons: https://www.ft.com/content/d23b14ae-2c4e-458c-af8a-22692119f... I'm sure you can cherry-pick stuff, but they explain that the drop of expertise was because of a global drop on industrial jobs for an increase of service jobs and was not at all limited to nuclear. It also affected the automotive industry, for example)

> Are you accusing me of not depicting the full picture of the french energy industry when calling out that the author article is very biased ?

I am saying that you are more biased than the author article. The author article is not perfect, but I see more effort on their side to depict a fair and realistic situation (starting the article with "Nuclear energy has been great", with several sentence pro-nuclear in their article) than from you.