China will remain on-schedule with their build-up of nuclear plants (70%) ... The mainstream position of major environmentalist groups in Europe and North America will continue to be that nuclear plants are always delayed and far over budget, even as China continues to demonstrate otherwise (90%).
Is this the conjunction fallacy here? I read this as P (China on schedule) = 70% but P (enviros dis nukes & China on schedule) = 90%.
Do you mean P (enviros dis nukes | China on schedule) = 90%, or P (enviros dis nukes) = 90% with the reference to China a rhetorical flourish?
Looks like I could have phrased that better. My 70% prediction was that China would remain overall on schedule. My "China continues to demonstrate otherwise" statement only requires that a significant number of China's nuke plants continue to be on schedule and under budget, which requires much less conjunction of events. For example, if huge setbacks arise for the construction of AP1000 reactors, but China's CPR1000 reactors continue to be constructed cheaply and smoothly, then this could invalidate my first prediction but not the second.
That's ...
As we did last year, use this thread to make predictions for the next year and next decade, with probabilities attached when practical.
Happy New Year, Less Wrong!