Except that an epidemic, using Wikipedia (since that's your reference) "occurs when new cases of a certain disease, in a given human population, and during a given period, substantially exceed what is "expected,".
Now, given the predictions for H1NI, and given that this was the mildest flu season in years (in Canada, at any rate, and from what I've read in the US as well; not sure about other countries), how in the name of God does this definition hold? The number of new cases was substantially less than was predicted. So, if there's no epidemic, how can there be a pandemic?
I call shenanigans on the media, hyping another non-existent "disaster".
Not disagreeing with you, but whenever someone points out the same BS in the climate debate, they are labeled a "denier", and subject to all kinds of calumny. The AGW crowd purposely hides the medieval warming period from their graphs, applies all kinds of (undisclosed) "adjustments" to raw temp readings (all of which apparently skew the temp upwards), close off sources of raw data (there used to be about 100 temp stations north of 60 in Canada; now there's ONE), place many weather stations in places that contravene their own regulations (close to A/C exhausts, tarmac, etc.), project doomsday scenarios about Pacific islands (none of which have disappeared).
I'm a freakin' engineer, and this complete contravention of anything that smacks of science drives me nuts. I'm not saying AGW doesn't exist; it may well be true. I'm saying on the basis of what's been shown, and more importantly, how it's been shown, the case is definitely "not proven".
This gets back to my much earlier complaint that java, html, etc. are cryptic because the friggin' guys who write them and use them DON'T WANT TO DO ANY TYPING. I mean your html "Hello World" is unintelligble to anyone without programming background. Write the same thing in VB: Program HelloWorld Begin
Print "Hello World" End The html example uses 38 key strokes. The VB version uses 46. Yet I could show it to any reasonably intelligent kid, and he'd understand it pretty easily. Why should kids get wrapped up in cryptic syntax instead of programming in English? It's not like the logic in VB is inferior to the logic used by other languages. You still have to figure out all the steps in your program, get the logic correct, put in error checking/trapping if required, and then test it to make it sure does exactly what you want. I still remember my very first CS class at the University of Toronto. The instructor went on and on about the importance of documentation, both for maintenance purposes, but more importantly, for debugging. He said if we would write out exactly what we wanted our programs to do, step by step, in English, it would make debugging faster and easier. And I've found that to be true. When I do documentation first, it speeds up the whole process; when I try to do it quick and dirty, it ends up taking me longer. I'd introduce a kid to any natural language type program first. I actually liked Turbo Pascal when I started using it after university (where I wrote in assembler, Fortran, and some exotics like Lisp and Spitbol) because I found it much easier to read over parts of the program when requirements changed, and understand what I had done, and what I needed to do.
I was going to suggest Visual Basic as well. It's pretty easy to understand the code, and you can do useful things with it. I'm not suggesting VB is as powerful as other languages; it isn't. But it introduces the idea of objects, and YOU CAN READ THE CODE.
My biggest complaint about languages like C++ is they were designed by engineers who don't like to type. So they created lots of cryptic acronyms that make sense to them and don't require good keyboarding skills. I don't think a 10-year old would ever understand "grep" or "awk", for example, no matter how patiently you explained it. I think it's way too hard to get a young child to understand the condensed code AND learn the programming concepts. Let him work in something closer to natural language first, and then when he has a basic understanding of programming, move him up to something more sophisticated.
Or, you could be extraordinarily cruel, and try to teach him Lisp.
The natives from the Philippines would have the same trouble if they came here.
Quite wrong. My brothers-in-law, their wives, and my nieces visit from the Philippines all the time, and never have the slightest bit of trouble. Similarly, I have travelled all across Europe, and to Australia, and never had any problems there either. The difference is our water treatment systems eliminate a lot of bacteria, as do those in most advanced countries (I didn't have a problem with the local water in Hong Kong or Seoul either).
I live in Toronto. We get a surprisingly large number of immigrants from Africa. My elder daughter goes to school where approximately 20% of the students come from Somalia. They have complained to her about adjusting to the cold, to not being able to find their native foods, to having to adjust to North American culture, but she never once has told me that they all got sick when they first arrived.
Where on earth did you get the information that he didn't have a valid passport?
Unlike you apparently, I visit sources other than/. One of them, the amusingly named "smalldeadanimals.com", had a post which picked up an eyewitness account from the Nigerian airport. That person said he was startled when he saw the terrorist, accompanied by a much older man, who talked to the ticket agent, and said he wanted to buy a ticket to the US for the younger man, but the younger man didn't have a passport. Later in the conversation, he said to the agent "I'm from Sudan; we do this all the time". Then the three disappeared into a back room. The man reporting said he was very surprised to see the terrorist on the flight, and surmised some cash had exchanged hands.
Apparently, you missed the part of my post where I said the van in Scotland was unable to penetrate the terminal because of security barriers. You can have security barriers placed in such a way that people can still be dropped off or picked up easily, and that would still prevent cars or trucks from crashing into the terminal.
How on earth does he get a US visa without having a passport? The few times I've travelled to countries that require visas, I had to go to their embassy or consular office and present my passport, or mail it to them. Maybe a little baksheesh?
Sorry, but didn't some terrorists try that truck thing in Scotland a few years back? As I recall it was a spectacular failure - one of the two men driving the van died, and five passengers sustained minor injuries , most while helping the police subdue the two hapless bombers. And most US government buildings I've seen lately have big, ugly concrete barriers out front, placed there after the Oklahoma bombing years back.
Running everyone's shoes through the x-ray machine is an example of a good and appropriate measure. In the first place, it's only an extremely minor inconvenience
Oh yes? I lost a lot of weight recently, and when the TSA goon insisted I take off my belt as well, I had to carry my shoes, my carry on, my laptop, and my belt to the conveyor. I was in constant panic that somewhere in that short trip, my pants would end up around my ankles. The embarrassment would have been bad enough, but I was really worried about the TSA people's reaction, as they seem to be hired based on a complete lack of a sense of humour, and the discernment skills of a raw vegetable.
Man, I had a bout of swine flu last week - it was awful. I felt like death warmed over for four days, and had a miserable Christmas. Of course, I didn't get a flu shot, even though the Canadian health system is practically begging you to go. I regret not doing that now.
But in general, I think Canadians and Americans have pussified their immune systems. When I visit the Philippines, I have to avoid raw vegetables, tap water, and ice. And that's even though I always bring a good supply of Immodium for when the eventual bout of deadly diarrhea hits. But the natives eat anything, anywhere, and never get sick. Clearly, their bodies have stronger or more complex immune systems than people from Canada/the US. And you can lose that strength; my wife came to Canada from the Philippines more than 30 years ago, and when she goes back now, she has to watch what she eats as well.
It's funny; my grandmother used to tell me "A little dirt never hurt anyone" if I dropped an apple on the ground, but my mother was a fanatic about having an almost sterile cooking environment, and wouldn't shop at some grocery stores because they were "too dirty". Unintended consequences?
You believe the theory that has observations to prove it works. Not the scientist. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Um, but if that scientist consistently, and repeatedly, refuses to give you his data or his methods (hi Michael Mann!) and just says "believe me" on an issue that will cost your country literally billions of dollars, are you just supposed to shut up and go along? Especially when it appears after much prodding and poking that some of the data were cherry-picked, others were "adjusted", and finally, the raw data was deleted? The Earth may well be warming, but it has warmed and cooled countless times over the millenia, and the case for AGW is certainly "not proven". So I think a healthy skepticism before imposing the huge financial penalties and bureaucracies that are being punted about is the only wise position.
I beg your pardon, but I've never seen a situation where "data" predict anything. Data are measurements of the past, not the future. Data in isolation only tells us what happened, not what will happen.
However, data in conjunction with a model can be used to predict the future. And when you plug your observed data into your model, and you don't get the result you expected, I think your first step should be to re-examine your model, not throw your data in the trash. The email's author even admits it's a "travesty" that their model can't account for the lack of warming. But he never suggests that there's anything wrong with the model. Seriously, honestly, despite your obvious belief in AGW, can't you see anything wrong with this picture?
Please put this comment into the proper context for me:
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
Riiiiiight.. if the data don't fit your preconceived notion of what they should be, obviously the data are wrong. No chance that your hypothesis is incorrect; no possibility that your theory doesn't reflect reality. It's the data. I mean, that's what I learned when they taught me the scientific method.
Whether a scientist's discoveries support or debunk global warming hypotheses, they still get the same amount of grant money.
Good God, who made you up? Grant money flows to scientists whose results are published by respected journals, and cited by other scientists. Apparently, you missed the emails where the following was written:
"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think?"
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"
Yes, this sounds like the scientific method at its best - try to shut up and demean anyone who disagrees with you, ensure that they aren't published or cited, and hence are shut out of the grant money gravy train. Meanwhile, hide your data from public view, and privately chat about how you manipulated it.
I'm no authority on whether AGW exists or doesn't, but the actions of those who claim it is true certainly don't fill me with any confidence.
leaving us all too busy slathering butter on our McDinners
What's a McDinner? I know they have a Big Breakfast, but I've never seen a McDinner. And based on their current dinner offerings, why would you want to slather butter on them? Do you put butter on your Big Macs or McNuggets? You must have some weird eating habits, dude.
our health care sucks but it sucks in an egalitarian way for everyone
Off-topic, but:
I've been a diabetic, controlled by pills, for 15 years. About a month ago, my pancreas finally gave up; unfortunately, it didn't send me an email. My blood sugar skyrocketed over the weekend, and by Monday, I was in diabetic ketoacidosis. I vomited non-stop for two days until I could get a ride to Emergency.
When I arrived, I had a pulse over 140, and blood pressure through the roof. I was triaged, processed, and in an ER bed within 30 minutes. I had a swarm of people tending me, taking blood, pumping me full of various fluids and drugs, attaching an EKG and vital signs monitor, etc. Within 90 minutes, they had my heart rate down to a still elevated but reasonable figure, my blood sugar down, and my electrolytes improving. They kept me in ER for a day, then moved me to a regular bed. I was taken in for an endoscopy the next morning, which revealed severe erosion of my esophagus. They kept me in the hospital for five more days, with a follow-up endoscopy the next Tuesday. I was given an insulin kit, and taught how to inject myself. When things appeared stable, I was discharged, with a follow-up visit booked to the Diabetes Education Centre associated with the hospital.
And it cost me nothing out of pocket. I shudder to think what this would have cost me if I'd been uninsured in the US. Are there problems with the Canadian system? Yes. Does it "suck"? I, for one, don't think so.
No, elitist is a term used to refer to people who think that due to to talent, money, or power, they possess a higher moral value than people without those talents/money/power/&c.
Um, do you mean like Hollywood stars who jet around the globe to tell us to cut down our carbon footprints? Or ex-secretaries like Nancy Pelosi who want to decide what health care options we have, and how our children should be educated? Sounds like the definition of the modern liberal to me "I'm better than you, so I can tell you how to live your life". Feh.
I shouldn't speak for the OP, but if I read his post correctly, he wasn't talking about "plastic twine" - he was talking about encasing the entire bale of straw in a giant plastic bag. I have seen this infrequently in Ontario, and wondered why so much extra packaging was used. I vaguely recall my farming friends telling me that the if the straw wasn't allowed to dry out, it would rot.
I have no idea about how often this happens in the US, but in Canada, there have been two high profile incidents in the last two years where an unarmed man died after being repeatedly "tased". Does that mean you're afraid to visit Canada too? If so, how do you venture out of your own room?
nuclear plants A) have a fairly large permanent physical foot-print, B) require a local and constant supply of water for cooling, C) they are vastly expensive
Nuclear plants have a fairly large permanent physical foot print compared to solar?! What are you smoking? The new Darlington plant in Ontario, Canada has a foot print of less than 2 square miles and produces 3.5 GW of power. First Solar has recently signed an agreement with China to build a solar plant that produces 2 GW, and will cover 25 square miles. That means solar takes up to 20 more times space, and can only produce electricity 50% of the time.
Vastly expensive? Compared to what? Darlington cost $14 billion Cdn (approx. $12 billion US) to generate twice as much power as the First Solar project, which has a projected price of $6 billion US. And let's note that the solar project will not produce peak output for every one of the twelve hours a day it's in operation, so its cost per USEABLE kilowatt is going to be higher.
Nuclear is the only viable option for the short term. Of course, it would help if many of us were to install the same type of ground water cooling and heat exchange system that GWB has at his ranch in Texas, and avoided the conspicuous consumption of, say, Al Gore. I'd rather see subsidies directed to these proven technologies than to intermittent and unreliable wind/solar systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that an epidemic, using Wikipedia (since that's your reference) "occurs when new cases of a certain disease, in a given human population, and during a given period, substantially exceed what is "expected,". Now, given the predictions for H1NI, and given that this was the mildest flu season in years (in Canada, at any rate, and from what I've read in the US as well; not sure about other countries), how in the name of God does this definition hold? The number of new cases was substantially less than was predicted. So, if there's no epidemic, how can there be a pandemic? I call shenanigans on the media, hyping another non-existent "disaster".
I'm a freakin' engineer, and this complete contravention of anything that smacks of science drives me nuts. I'm not saying AGW doesn't exist; it may well be true. I'm saying on the basis of what's been shown, and more importantly, how it's been shown, the case is definitely "not proven".
This gets back to my much earlier complaint that java, html, etc. are cryptic because the friggin' guys who write them and use them DON'T WANT TO DO ANY TYPING.
I mean your html "Hello World" is unintelligble to anyone without programming background.
Write the same thing in VB:
Program HelloWorld
Begin
Print "Hello World"
End
The html example uses 38 key strokes. The VB version uses 46. Yet I could show it to any reasonably intelligent kid, and he'd understand it pretty easily. Why should kids get wrapped up in cryptic syntax instead of programming in English? It's not like the logic in VB is inferior to the logic used by other languages. You still have to figure out all the steps in your program, get the logic correct, put in error checking/trapping if required, and then test it to make it sure does exactly what you want.
I still remember my very first CS class at the University of Toronto. The instructor went on and on about the importance of documentation, both for maintenance purposes, but more importantly, for debugging. He said if we would write out exactly what we wanted our programs to do, step by step, in English, it would make debugging faster and easier. And I've found that to be true. When I do documentation first, it speeds up the whole process; when I try to do it quick and dirty, it ends up taking me longer. I'd introduce a kid to any natural language type program first. I actually liked Turbo Pascal when I started using it after university (where I wrote in assembler, Fortran, and some exotics like Lisp and Spitbol) because I found it much easier to read over parts of the program when requirements changed, and understand what I had done, and what I needed to do.
My biggest complaint about languages like C++ is they were designed by engineers who don't like to type. So they created lots of cryptic acronyms that make sense to them and don't require good keyboarding skills. I don't think a 10-year old would ever understand "grep" or "awk", for example, no matter how patiently you explained it. I think it's way too hard to get a young child to understand the condensed code AND learn the programming concepts. Let him work in something closer to natural language first, and then when he has a basic understanding of programming, move him up to something more sophisticated.
Or, you could be extraordinarily cruel, and try to teach him Lisp.
Quite wrong. My brothers-in-law, their wives, and my nieces visit from the Philippines all the time, and never have the slightest bit of trouble. Similarly, I have travelled all across Europe, and to Australia, and never had any problems there either. The difference is our water treatment systems eliminate a lot of bacteria, as do those in most advanced countries (I didn't have a problem with the local water in Hong Kong or Seoul either).
I live in Toronto. We get a surprisingly large number of immigrants from Africa. My elder daughter goes to school where approximately 20% of the students come from Somalia. They have complained to her about adjusting to the cold, to not being able to find their native foods, to having to adjust to North American culture, but she never once has told me that they all got sick when they first arrived.
Unlike you apparently, I visit sources other than /. One of them, the amusingly named "smalldeadanimals.com", had a post which picked up an eyewitness account from the Nigerian airport. That person said he was startled when he saw the terrorist, accompanied by a much older man, who talked to the ticket agent, and said he wanted to buy a ticket to the US for the younger man, but the younger man didn't have a passport. Later in the conversation, he said to the agent "I'm from Sudan; we do this all the time". Then the three disappeared into a back room. The man reporting said he was very surprised to see the terrorist on the flight, and surmised some cash had exchanged hands.
Apparently, you missed the part of my post where I said the van in Scotland was unable to penetrate the terminal because of security barriers. You can have security barriers placed in such a way that people can still be dropped off or picked up easily, and that would still prevent cars or trucks from crashing into the terminal.
How on earth does he get a US visa without having a passport? The few times I've travelled to countries that require visas, I had to go to their embassy or consular office and present my passport, or mail it to them. Maybe a little baksheesh?
Sorry, but didn't some terrorists try that truck thing in Scotland a few years back? As I recall it was a spectacular failure - one of the two men driving the van died, and five passengers sustained minor injuries , most while helping the police subdue the two hapless bombers. And most US government buildings I've seen lately have big, ugly concrete barriers out front, placed there after the Oklahoma bombing years back.
Oh yes? I lost a lot of weight recently, and when the TSA goon insisted I take off my belt as well, I had to carry my shoes, my carry on, my laptop, and my belt to the conveyor. I was in constant panic that somewhere in that short trip, my pants would end up around my ankles. The embarrassment would have been bad enough, but I was really worried about the TSA people's reaction, as they seem to be hired based on a complete lack of a sense of humour, and the discernment skills of a raw vegetable.
Man, I had a bout of swine flu last week - it was awful. I felt like death warmed over for four days, and had a miserable Christmas. Of course, I didn't get a flu shot, even though the Canadian health system is practically begging you to go. I regret not doing that now. But in general, I think Canadians and Americans have pussified their immune systems. When I visit the Philippines, I have to avoid raw vegetables, tap water, and ice. And that's even though I always bring a good supply of Immodium for when the eventual bout of deadly diarrhea hits. But the natives eat anything, anywhere, and never get sick. Clearly, their bodies have stronger or more complex immune systems than people from Canada/the US. And you can lose that strength; my wife came to Canada from the Philippines more than 30 years ago, and when she goes back now, she has to watch what she eats as well. It's funny; my grandmother used to tell me "A little dirt never hurt anyone" if I dropped an apple on the ground, but my mother was a fanatic about having an almost sterile cooking environment, and wouldn't shop at some grocery stores because they were "too dirty". Unintended consequences?
Um, but if that scientist consistently, and repeatedly, refuses to give you his data or his methods (hi Michael Mann!) and just says "believe me" on an issue that will cost your country literally billions of dollars, are you just supposed to shut up and go along? Especially when it appears after much prodding and poking that some of the data were cherry-picked, others were "adjusted", and finally, the raw data was deleted? The Earth may well be warming, but it has warmed and cooled countless times over the millenia, and the case for AGW is certainly "not proven". So I think a healthy skepticism before imposing the huge financial penalties and bureaucracies that are being punted about is the only wise position.
Did no one watch the second X-Files movie?
Actually, I called Jeff Goldblum, but he's busy attending Tiger's seminar on marital relations.
However, data in conjunction with a model can be used to predict the future. And when you plug your observed data into your model, and you don't get the result you expected, I think your first step should be to re-examine your model, not throw your data in the trash. The email's author even admits it's a "travesty" that their model can't account for the lack of warming. But he never suggests that there's anything wrong with the model. Seriously, honestly, despite your obvious belief in AGW, can't you see anything wrong with this picture?
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
Riiiiiight.. if the data don't fit your preconceived notion of what they should be, obviously the data are wrong. No chance that your hypothesis is incorrect; no possibility that your theory doesn't reflect reality. It's the data. I mean, that's what I learned when they taught me the scientific method.
Good God, who made you up? Grant money flows to scientists whose results are published by respected journals, and cited by other scientists. Apparently, you missed the emails where the following was written:
"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think?"
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"
Yes, this sounds like the scientific method at its best - try to shut up and demean anyone who disagrees with you, ensure that they aren't published or cited, and hence are shut out of the grant money gravy train. Meanwhile, hide your data from public view, and privately chat about how you manipulated it.
I'm no authority on whether AGW exists or doesn't, but the actions of those who claim it is true certainly don't fill me with any confidence.
What's a McDinner? I know they have a Big Breakfast, but I've never seen a McDinner. And based on their current dinner offerings, why would you want to slather butter on them? Do you put butter on your Big Macs or McNuggets? You must have some weird eating habits, dude.
Is that why we call them "lusers"?
Off-topic, but:
I've been a diabetic, controlled by pills, for 15 years. About a month ago, my pancreas finally gave up; unfortunately, it didn't send me an email. My blood sugar skyrocketed over the weekend, and by Monday, I was in diabetic ketoacidosis. I vomited non-stop for two days until I could get a ride to Emergency.
When I arrived, I had a pulse over 140, and blood pressure through the roof. I was triaged, processed, and in an ER bed within 30 minutes. I had a swarm of people tending me, taking blood, pumping me full of various fluids and drugs, attaching an EKG and vital signs monitor, etc. Within 90 minutes, they had my heart rate down to a still elevated but reasonable figure, my blood sugar down, and my electrolytes improving. They kept me in ER for a day, then moved me to a regular bed. I was taken in for an endoscopy the next morning, which revealed severe erosion of my esophagus. They kept me in the hospital for five more days, with a follow-up endoscopy the next Tuesday. I was given an insulin kit, and taught how to inject myself. When things appeared stable, I was discharged, with a follow-up visit booked to the Diabetes Education Centre associated with the hospital.
And it cost me nothing out of pocket. I shudder to think what this would have cost me if I'd been uninsured in the US. Are there problems with the Canadian system? Yes. Does it "suck"? I, for one, don't think so.
Um, do you mean like Hollywood stars who jet around the globe to tell us to cut down our carbon footprints? Or ex-secretaries like Nancy Pelosi who want to decide what health care options we have, and how our children should be educated? Sounds like the definition of the modern liberal to me "I'm better than you, so I can tell you how to live your life". Feh.
OK, 2005 statistics, and clearly incomplete (hardly any African countries represented) but: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_lac_of_foo-mortality-lack-of-food Shows a total of 298 starvation deaths for 2005. Boy, I'm really upset about that. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070327044448AAMio1U Suggests there are 1-2K deaths from plague each year. Now, in the US, there are approximately 10,000 deaths each year attributed to falls. Don't see you getting all worked up over ladders and stairs, there, bunky.
I shouldn't speak for the OP, but if I read his post correctly, he wasn't talking about "plastic twine" - he was talking about encasing the entire bale of straw in a giant plastic bag. I have seen this infrequently in Ontario, and wondered why so much extra packaging was used. I vaguely recall my farming friends telling me that the if the straw wasn't allowed to dry out, it would rot.
I have no idea about how often this happens in the US, but in Canada, there have been two high profile incidents in the last two years where an unarmed man died after being repeatedly "tased". Does that mean you're afraid to visit Canada too? If so, how do you venture out of your own room?
Nuclear plants have a fairly large permanent physical foot print compared to solar?! What are you smoking? The new Darlington plant in Ontario, Canada has a foot print of less than 2 square miles and produces 3.5 GW of power. First Solar has recently signed an agreement with China to build a solar plant that produces 2 GW, and will cover 25 square miles. That means solar takes up to 20 more times space, and can only produce electricity 50% of the time.
Vastly expensive? Compared to what? Darlington cost $14 billion Cdn (approx. $12 billion US) to generate twice as much power as the First Solar project, which has a projected price of $6 billion US. And let's note that the solar project will not produce peak output for every one of the twelve hours a day it's in operation, so its cost per USEABLE kilowatt is going to be higher.
Nuclear is the only viable option for the short term. Of course, it would help if many of us were to install the same type of ground water cooling and heat exchange system that GWB has at his ranch in Texas, and avoided the conspicuous consumption of, say, Al Gore. I'd rather see subsidies directed to these proven technologies than to intermittent and unreliable wind/solar systems.