Thanks GY for your analysis of John Daysh's AI posts. But I thought JD was more a perverse Chewbacca Defence Sequence than Gish Gallop, if the glove doesn't fit... Cathy Newman from Channel 4 of course made the Gish Gallop famous.

Graham,

Yes, I used AI - openly. Just like you have. The difference is I supplied the full, unedited debate file for public inspection.

That’s transparency, not trickery.

Claiming the AI was “misled” is just a fallback. Anyone can test it themselves:
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1UuiCgyLvCe7NufXgFNLzxr9ZUqA3Gy0U/view

//Every technology requires subsidies” is false.//

Not really.

Many foundational technologies (flight, combustion engines, rail, nuclear) were scaled with massive public support. Your examples like “fire” and “flint tools” are irrelevant. Those aren’t modern deployable systems.

//It is also wrong about the IMF figure...//

That’s semantics.

The IMF explicitly includes externalised pollution, health, and climate costs because they are real public costs not borne by producers. That is a subsidy, whether you like the framing or not. It’s standard economic language across the IMF, IEA, and OECD.

//Nordhaus shows it’s not a cost.//

Wrong again. Nordhaus models climate costs, he just prefers gradual mitigation. He doesn’t deny the costs exist. Don’t cherry-pick his caution as if it’s dismissal.

//Citing AEMO and CSIRO is an argument from authority.//

No, not when those sources are publicly verifiable, methodologically transparent, and when the alternative is a single uncontextualised Lomborg chart.

That’s evidence, not dogma.

//CSIRO now sees coal as being as cheap.//

Nope. CSIRO’s latest GenCost report shows wind and solar as cheapest new-build options, especially when storage is factored in. If you think otherwise, cite the page.

//Maybe Daysh could go back to writing his own stuff…//

Still am. I used AI as a tool to validate argument quality, not to hide behind. Ironically, it’s mhaze who’s unable to stand on his own material, hence the ellipsis tantrum and evasions.

//...a bit less of the Gish Gallop?//

Projection. I responded point-by-point - precisely the opposite of a Gish Gallop.

//Try writing your own stuff again.//

I used AI as a logic-check, not a crutch. You’re attacking the method because you can’t fault the outcome.

This isn’t about left vs right. It’s about who is transparent, who relies on evidence, and who resorts to noise and projection.

And just for fun...

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_e6276c81-a922-4b11-adf8-e273a684bf38
http://drive.google.com/file/d/17R0Nhx5QKYK3t1fM1RjCEmeFOWnIxetH/view?usp=sharing
_____

You were saying, Canem Malum?

Fester,

//It stands to reason that if something is cheaper then it should not be more expensive.//

That’s only true in isolation. Renewables are cheaper on a new-build LCOE basis (as confirmed by CSIRO, IEA, Lazard), but we’re not starting from scratch. We’re retrofitting a 20th-century grid built around fossil fuels. Legacy infrastructure, regulatory lag, and poor market design mean those wholesale savings don’t fully flow through to retail prices - at least not yet.

That’s not a contradiction. It’s a transitional systems issue.

//You are familiar with amortisation?//

Of course. But amortisation applies to fossil assets too - and many of those long-paid-off assets still dominate billing structures and market behaviour. That’s why new cost ≠ current price.

//That loss-making solar farm might become more common.//

Yes, and it proves my point. As more zero-marginal-cost renewables enter the market, wholesale prices crash during peak generation. This “cannibalisation” effect is real, which is why storage, demand management, and firming capacity are the next frontier. It’s a grid-engineering challenge, not a cost-based indictment.

//Would you attempt to calculate historical R&D costs for solar?//

We don’t need to. That’s the job of analysts using levelised costs. If you dismiss nuclear’s R&D and risk subsidies but expect full costing of renewables, that’s an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The truth is, every energy technology has required public support to scale - including nuclear, coal, and gas.
_____

Canem Malum,

Calling it a “Chewbacca Defence” might score rhetorical points, but it doesn’t answer anything. If there’s a flaw in the argument, name it.

//Cathy Newman from Channel 4 of course made the Gish Gallop famous.//

No, Cathy Newman strawmanned Jordan Peterson - repeatedly - but he was allowed to respond between each mischaracterisation. That’s not a Gish Gallop. A Gish Gallop is when one side floods the field with claims without allowing a reply.

And ironically, my posts have been nothing but structured point-by-point replies - to multiple people, with full citations. That’s the opposite of a Gish Gallop.

mhaze, meanwhile, fled from citations and screamed “ellipses!”

"No, not when those sources are publicly verifiable, methodologically transparent,"

John, that is not the case for CSIRO methodology, and what methodology is released is concerning. For example, aside from some of the known methodology like halving the plant life, reducing the capacity factor and assuming a completely new build of a bespoke plant, the CSIRO also inexplicably give a cost range from mean to high, not the low to high range given for wind and solar.

Another indicator that things aren't right is the comparison with data from other institutions. Here for example is data showing the generated cost of nuclear power to be about $50 AU per mw.

https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/resources/reports-and-briefs/2024-Costs-in-Context_final.pdf

"and when the alternative is a single uncontextualised Lomborg chart."

Aside from the brazen hypocrisy you demonstrate in contrast to your treatment of nuclear power and cancer risk, in this instance your use of the tobacco executive's denial makes no sense. Cost calculation is possible, unlike determining exactly what caused an individual's cancer.

Fester,

You haven’t discredited anything. You’ve just dressed your frustration in accusations and doubled down on selective sources.

//that is not the case for CSIRO methodology, and what methodology is released is concerning.//

False.

CSIRO’s GenCost report publishes full technical appendices, outlines modelling assumptions, and incorporates stakeholder feedback annually. You may not like the conclusions, but claiming it’s not transparent is just wrong.

//…halving the plant life, reducing the capacity factor and assuming a completely new build of a bespoke plant…//

Because it would be a new build.

Australia has no nuclear plants, no trained workforce, no regulatory framework, and no domestic supply chain. Assuming first-of-a-kind costs isn’t bias, it’s the only responsible modelling approach. Quoting mature-market costs from countries with 70+ years of nuclear experience isn’t apples-to-apples.

//…the CSIRO also inexplicably give a cost range from mean to high, not the low to high range given for wind and solar.//

It’s not inexplicable.

Wind and solar have hundreds of completed Australian projects - there’s real-world variation to map. Nuclear has zero. There’s no empirical low bound to quote, and GenCost explains this explicitly.

//Here for example is data showing the generated cost of nuclear power to be about $50 AU per mw.//

That figure comes from the Nuclear Energy Institute - a US industry lobby group. Their $50/MWh figure is based on large-scale US nuclear operators, benefitting from sunk infrastructure, amortised regulatory pathways, long-established supply chains, and multi-level subsidies.
Australia has none of these. Pretending we could match US nuclear costs from day one is economic cosplay.

//Aside from the brazen hypocrisy you demonstrate in contrast to your treatment of nuclear power and cancer risk…//

We’ve already covered that, and there was no hypocrisy on my part:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23429&page=0

//Cost calculation is possible, unlike determining exactly what caused an individual's cancer.//

And yet you haven’t done one.

You’ve provided commentary - not a model, not a dataset, not a number. Meanwhile, I’ve cited CSIRO, AEMO, Lazard, IEA, and IMF - all with transparent, internationally vetted methodology.

"
"But Grok is getting better and is now my go-to when I'm checking facts for the first time." - mhaze"

Yes. For facts.

But for analysis and opinion....well I rely on my own experience and understanding. You should try it one day.