As to John Daysh being an AI bot, I think the theory fails at the outset. Indeed, while his insights might be a tad A (as in Artificial) there is precious little of the 'I' part of that equation.

So I'm putting it down as just another shrill for the left as opposed to an AI bot.

Jo Nova is a scientist, and well enough educated. She is known; a public figure. You are just a keyword warrior, with no qualifications you can prove.

You will probably rabbit on as long as other people take notice of you.

However, the fact that this site's two brainwashed Marxists leapt to your defence really finishes you off as far as I am concerned, and I will not be one of the 'other people' taking notice of your nonsense in future.

Never any mention of the Carbon footprint from any such events or is it that any pollution created by having fun is not polluting ?
Like that idiot who once told that industrial noise is very bad but heavy metal 'music' is ok because it is a good noise.

mhaze,

Thanks for your words of support, and I look forward to the day you make good of your assessment by showing me to be “just another shrill for the left”.

--

ttbn,

Jo Nova has no qualifications in the relevant fields of science, so they mean as little as mine. I note that you are unable to defend her garbage and have instead resorted to an ad hominem fallacy as your response. Face it. She’s nothing more than a crank if even I can discredit her claims.

John,

"If you go back and re-read what I said regarding nuclear power plants causing harm to locals, you will see that I addressed your rebuttal directly. It was you who dropped the matter and moved on."

No, you presented a claptrap insulting argument, namely radiation is known to be harmful, normally operating nuclear power plants release radiation, therefore nuclear power plants harm people living in the vicinity. I did relate arguments about the minuscule amount of radiation emitted and a study showing that higher background radiation correlated with lower rates of some cancers and longer lifespans: Not an argument for higher radiation exposure, but certainly evidence against your contention.

So what did you do, you changed your argument to the murky risk to people and the environment from waste and accidents, effectively moving the goalposts, and then later claim to have addressed the criticisms.

From what I've seen of you, that seems to be your mo: Keep repeating the same claims in great volumes of fluff and announcing that you have addressed criticisms when you have done no such thing.

All very tedious and pointless.

Fester,

I’m afraid your memory has failed you. I suggested you re-read that discussion.

It begins here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23028#395906

Unless you’re thinking of another discussion of ours? Please link me to it if you are.