I think the implied suggestion was that you could write a full and detailed article, then post it here on TOD or elsewhere, then every time the "wrong" ideas come up, you can just link them to your article.

I've done that with a few little issues, it saves me a lot of typing and hassle.

It'd also prevent the arguments from simply being, "I think X"
"X is wrong, and you're stupid if you think so."
"Why?"
"It's so stupid I don't even have to refute it."
"Well then, you poopyhead!"
"No, you poopyhead!"

Not terribly informative or useful.

... does this mean I have to do a complete rebuttal of the work every single time another indentikit green group uses it as a primary reference for another anti-nuclear screed? It's as bad as global warming denialists reusing the same arguments again and again and again.

It is as bad, and also it is as helpful to government in protecting its future fossil fuel income. It makes sense that the tactics would be the same. Decent people whack the moles, AGW deniers/antinukes pop up previously whacked ones ready for another go.

How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

fluffy,

Link to a long argument you or someone else has previously made on a subject.

As a blogger I find I do not to bore my regular readers by repeatedly saying the same thing at length. But that is why HTML has the "a href" tag. You can link to things.

Remember that some people who have never heard about some argument or study will first read you say something about it in a thread that does not necessarily have a link in it to the best arguments on the topic. Well, provide some links. Provide a useful public service to make the readers more informed.

Just saying that people are speaking nonsense is easy and lazy and I occasionally even do it. But resist the temptation. It is far more effective to link to useful information that rebuts what is being said.