Spencer Wright,

>"As previously mentioned, I will not engage with you.

Considering you have drawn the conclusion that a provision in legislation is merely my belief demonstrates that you are a cockroach that trolls the internet. "

That is a strawman. I did not say that. If you are going to make such allegations you should have quoted the statement and the full context.

It shows how badly our society is slipping when a law student engages is such blatant dishonesty.

Furthermore, I am not trolling. I've been posting relevant facts and arguments that you have not been able to refute, so you dodge and avoid them. More examples of intellectual dishonesty The people who are trolling are those you like getting comments from (boosts your ego, I guess).

You are practicing what is called "denial" by your ilk. You deny the relevant facts and distract and divert the discussion to irrelevancies. More examples of intellectual dishonesty. http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

Instead of dodging and weaving, making up strawman arguments as an excuse to not engage, why don't you respond to this: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17320#306836 or demonstrate some intellectual integrity by accepting it is correct and admitting you hadn't really considered the big picture, long term policy implications of your pet idea?

Peter,

"
1. The government tried to abolish the CEFC and failed twice;
2. There is little prospect of abolishing the CEFC before the next election (and a low prospect thereafter);
3. The CEFC has its funding built into the CEFC Act;
4. The CEFC has a mandate to invest that money in Australia;
5. Consequently it is not a question of if we should invest but how we should invest; and
5. I propose a compromise that provides a wider merits review for how the financing is allocated to projects."

"Your 6 points are based on your beliefs, not rational analysis."

1 - Not my belief (See CEFC Abolish Bill, Hansard)
2 - Sure, my belief.
3 - Not my belief (See Act, EM)
4 - Not my belief (See Act, Hansard, EM)
5 - Sure, if you assume you can abolish it (but see point 1)
6 - Sure my belief, but really a statement.

There you go. I have demonstrated your inability to accept fact and dismiss it by stating it is merely my belief.

I have provided a response to each of your questions and you do not accept those arguments. That is fine, but we will have to agree to disagree.

You continuously drawing me back to argue with you brings no value to this thread.

You continue to refer me to JC's website, but that was originally posted in a blog and is not JC's work.

You continue to suggest that nuclear fuel is unlimited when the World Nuclear Association states it isn't.

You used ERoEI as if it was a god until I pointed out its flaws and you conceded.

I want to engage with rational and intelligent individuals. I do not consider you in that group.

>’There you go. I have demonstrated your inability to accept fact and dismiss it by stating it is merely my belief. “

The argument in your six points is irrelevant and key parts of the arguments are based on your belief,as you acknowledge. Your argument is irrelevant because your proposal will not deliver benefits, so it is not justificable.

>”You continuously drawing me back to argue with you brings no value to this thread.”

Your dodging, weaving, avoiding and denying the relevant facts brings not value to this thread. In fact your advocacy for irrational policies contributes to damaging Australia and the world. I am bringing value, you the opposite.

>”You continue to refer me to JC's website, but that was originally posted in a blog and is not JC's work. “

So what. An irrelevant distraction

“You continue to suggest that nuclear fuel is unlimited when the World Nuclear Association states it isn't. “
No it doesn’t. And you misrepresented what I said. And you are dodging the main point, as usual. Intellectual dishonesty (by a law student!).

You used ERoEI as if it was a god until I pointed out its flaws and you conceded.
That is really dishonest. More diversions. Unbelievable that law students could be so inherently dishonest.

>”I want to engage with rational and intelligent individuals. I do not consider you in that group.”

You have demonstrated throughout this thread you do not understand what rational policy analysis means.

All this is a diversion from dealing with the critical issue that your pet scheme would not deliver net benefits: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17320#30683

Peter,
If you have such low standards as to where you get your information from, then no one will take you seriously. Quoting blogs is not compelling and demonstrates that you’ll use anything to advance your purpose, regardless of its validity.

Regarding the World Nuclear Association, I’ve stated something, and you have flatly denied it as if you know everything that the WNA has published. You didn’t bother asking for a reference to challenge my proposition.

Unless other contributors come back to this post, I will not comment further.

Spencer