Just because John Daysh is "right", and I don't believe he is in general, doesn't mean people with different opinions are wrong, in a sense. Often it's only in comparing different ideas that fallacies become apparent.

Previously, from memory, John Daysh essentially said-

The government should create a legislative framework to support/ enforce renewables.

But no one knows what technology will succeed or fail- remember Betamax, remember Edison's direct current power networks. Therefore predicting the future technology is a risk.

One of governments roles is to reduce risk for society.

Therefore governments shouldn't enforce technologies that aren't well tested in the environment in which they are to operate.

Therefore governments shouldn't enforce renewables.
_____

Often salespeople will try to create urgency for products, but salespeople don't have to deal with the failure of the products.

I think that people should be saying to themselves "that sounds great- you go first". When the sales people destroy themselves the people will know what not to do. Some ideologies are like salespeople. Let them go first...

John Daysh can go first, and if he's still alive after ten years maybe we can, in our own time, follow his example

Canum Malam,

I have never said anything even remotely close to suggesting that the government enforce renewables.

Your comparison with respect to Betamax and Edison's DC networks is invalid. In a fast-moving market, Betamax was an end-product proffered as an option, while Edison's DC networks were finally overtaken because it was technically limited. Renewable energy technologies are tried, tested, and proven under different environmental conditions worldwide.

Furthermore, Betamax and Edison’s DC didn’t have the volume of data and evidence backing their necessity and/or likelihood of succeeding. Nor is the choice between renewables and nuclear a matter of personal preference, as was the case with Betamax and Edison’s DC, or BlueRay and HD-DVD.

That sounds great- you go first!

"No, I don’t believe that someone living next to a nuclear power plant will necessarily poison someone. You’re latching onto this and riding it for all it’s worth because it’s all you’ve got, but it’s a skewing of what I said."

My goodness, John. You cannot help yourself, can you? I'm pleased for you that you have changed your opinion (no need to thank me), but to claim misrepresentation on my part is perplexing. I thought that someone of your intelligence holding such a view made no sense, which is why I specifically asked you about the matter, and you did reiterate and justify your opinion. Remember? This is the first acknowledgement of you changing your opinion that I was aware of.

As for it being all I've got, you might want to look at a comparison of mortality per terawatt of power generation by source, as it may make you realise that your belief of nuclear power as dangerous is also erroneous (again, no need to thank me for pointing this out to you).

In general, I think the major failing in your reasoning to be a lack of considering quantity. For example, you defend the NBN, yet its numbers have been falling by such an embarrassing amount that they have stopped publishing data for the first time in ten years.

Fester,

In what way can I not help myself? I don't think you yourself know what you're referring to there.

I haven't changed my opinion either. I had simply never said what you claimed I had said. Third time's a charm:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23028#395925

I'd ask you to link me to the discussions where you corrected me on those things that I also didn't say, but we both know they don't exist (which is why you haven't linked to them.)

The NBN's numbers declining don't negate my point about the advantages or necessity of a physical network. So, your claim that wireless technology has superseded it is still wrong and your analogy is still invalid.

"I haven't changed my opinion either."

So you are a liar, John? Just pathetic. Grow up. Would you like me to link your dishonesty? It's there alright. That's the trouble with the internet: You can't change what you've said in the past.

Now, are you going to own up to claiming that radiation emissions from a normally operating nuclear power plant slowly poisoned people living in the vicinity, or are you going to persist with your pathetic, childish behaviour and confirm my gut feeling of you as a pathological liar?