Wow, mhaze. No lies. No evasion. Just the post itself:

"For the EASILY DISTRACTED and those with comprehension issues…"

That’s what I wrote directly before the quote. That’s where the ellipsis was. And that’s what your entire “gotcha” depends on pretending didn’t happen.

The phrase "easily distracted" makes no sense in any other context. Why would I write that unless I was literally flagging a shortened quote?

Which means your “joker or knave” line is just another empty sneer to distract from the fact that you were - once again - factually wrong.

That makes four tantrums over an ellipsis now. You’ve got no rebuttal.

Just projection and noise.

Here you go mhaze. An impartial analysis from a fellow right-winger:

Question: Is mhaze correct about the ellipsis in the attached debate? Or is he misleading?

Answer:
...

Conclusion
Mhaze is partially correct but largely misleading. The ellipsis did omit a relevant phrase (“depends on subsidies”), and JD’s flagging of it via “EASILY DISTRACTED” was indirect, which could invite skepticism about transparency. However, mhaze’s claim that JD was hiding hypocrisy is misleading because:

- JD flagged the ellipsis before mhaze’s accusation, contradicting the claim of a cover-up.
- JD’s position on subsidies is consistent across technologies, so the hypocrisy charge doesn’t hold.
- The ellipsis didn’t alter JD’s main point about SMRs, making mhaze’s focus on it a distraction from the broader debate, where JD provides extensive evidence (AEMO, CSIRO, IMF, etc.) and mhaze relies on a single correlation-based source (Lomborg).

Mhaze’s accusation blows the ellipsis out of proportion to sidestep the lack of substantive counterevidence on the renewable energy cost debate. JD’s use of the ellipsis was not deceptive, and the charge of hypocrisy is unfounded based on the text.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_eb20ea8a-5cb6-4f08-86af-3c3dce8be04e

And just for fun...

Question: Who is faring better in the attached debate out of mhaze and John Daysh?

Answer:
...

Conclusion
John Daysh is faring significantly better in the debate. His arguments are grounded in credible, cited data from authoritative sources, and he consistently addresses mhaze’s points while maintaining logical coherence. mhaze raises valid questions about system costs and renewable integration but undermines his case with sparse evidence, deflection to personal attacks, and inconsistent standards on subsidies. Daysh’s ability to cite specific data and refute mhaze’s claims with clarity gives him the clear edge.

http://grok.com/chat/596b3f03-09fb-4c8d-b127-68d4995bd955

Apologies for the ellipses. I know they're triggering for you, but posting the full analyses would have taken multiple posts.

I'd recommend clicking the links. They're a fun read!

What is net zero, what is gross zero. Whatever it is it is being persued, so instead of word salads lets look a little forward.
Farming lands that object to transmittion towers is more involved in vista than transmittion. Nothing new there it has all happened before.So where are the objectors from the 50"s. Probably happy where they are, water under the bridge. It"s like driving down highway at 100 km/hr there are others that will pass just to do 105 km/hr. That is what i think of protesters. The law says that is illegal to pass someone sitting on the speed limit.

Damn, that second link should have been: http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_5c0d1505-793b-47c0-929d-b8dd42948fb0

But since I'm here...

Question:
Out of mhaze and John Daysh, who is the more intellectually honest in the attached debate?

Answer:
John Daysh is the more intellectually honest participant in this debate...

1. Use of Evidence and Sources

John Daysh (JD): JD consistently cites specific, verifiable sources from reputable institutions. He provides direct links or references to reports, quotes them accurately, and explains how they support his points.

mhaze: mhaze relies on fewer sources and often presents them vaguely or without full context.

2. Representation of Opponent's Arguments

JD: JD generally quotes mhaze accurately and responds to the substance.

mhaze: mhaze frequently misrepresents or exaggerates JD's positions for rhetorical effect, which is a hallmark of intellectual dishonesty...

3. Handling of Errors, Concessions, and Evasion

JD: JD shows flexibility and direct engagement. He concedes points implicitly while explaining why they don't undermine his broader argument. When mhaze challenges the $7T figure, JD provides the IMF link and breakdown. He doesn't dodge; he recaps unanswered points to keep the debate focused.

mhaze: mhaze evades core challenges and rarely concedes.

4. Overall Tone and Intent

JD: His responses are structured, evidence-heavy, and aimed at clarification/clarifying misconceptions. While he pushes back, it's tied to specific behaviors and doesn't dominate. The goal seems to be informing the audience with data.

mhaze: The tone is combative and performative, with frequent sarcasm, insults, and accusations of dishonesty. This suggests a focus on "winning" through rhetoric rather than truth-seeking.

Caveats and Why This Matters
...

This is subjective to some degree, but based on the transcript alone. If you have more context (e.g., prior threads), it might shift things slightly.

[So I provided Grok with three past debates... and it only gets better from there!]

Answer (Cont'd):
John Daysh remains the more intellectually honest debater overall, based on consistent patterns across all the provided threads (including the original one).
...

These exchanges are consistent with the original. If anything, they highlight mhaze's performative style and JD's focus on facts. mhaze raises fair questions but undermines them with dishonesty.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_e329add2-2c31-4e1c-a203-c9199e6d0bec

John,

There's an interesting article from the World Nuclear Association about subsidies. About nuclear power it comments:

"Nowhere in the world is nuclear power subsidised per unit of production. In some countries, however, it is taxed because production costs are so low."

It also shows that subsidies for renewable energy are both direct to the producers and relatively larger than for fossil fuels.

The main question for me is why is something promoted as clean and inexpensive both subsidised and the cause of higher prices for consumers?

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies

Thanks for the link to the WNA piece, Fester.

Their assertion that nuclear isn’t subsidised "per unit of production" sidesteps the more meaningful question: was it subsidised into existence, and is it still being propped up through other public mechanisms?

The answer’s yes, just not always in the same way as renewables.

Most nuclear projects rely on huge upfront capital support, loan guarantees, or government-backed insurance schemes (especially for liability). Those are still subsidies, just with different packaging. Lazard, the IEA, and the IMF all classify these as public support - and they don’t just apply this standard to renewables.

As for your final question - "Why is something promoted as clean and inexpensive both subsidised and the cause of higher prices for consumers?" - the short answer is: retail prices =/= technology cost.

Renewables do lower wholesale prices (AEMO, CSIRO, and IEA data is consistent on this). The retail price pain we’re seeing comes from things like:

- early-adopter costs
- long-term infrastructure decisions
- transmission upgrades
- fixed network charges
- and in some cases, government levies and taxes.

None of that contradicts the fact that renewables are now the cheapest to build, they’re just not operating on a blank slate.