Wild Bill

We do when THEY need it! We also pay them to take it when we have a surplus and they DON'T have a need! This is fact, having been quoted many times the past week in the MSM. McGuinty, when on the defensive, claimed that over all we still get about $250 million profit from these exchanges. I can't argue with him, since he's never revealed the actual figures. Even if true, this just illustrates what a precarious situation is developing. If everybody cuts back on baseline generation in favour of inconstant sources like wind and solar, then everybody will have surpluses at the same time and extra power needs at the same time. Yet everyone is depending on the OTHER GUY to bail him out! A typical politician attempt at a solution that has never worked yet in the real world. This is exactly what happened in California a few years ago. Generating stations considered "dirty" were forced to shut down by the new state regulations yet nobody built any new "green" ones. Eventually brownouts and blackouts started to happen. As they occurred the spot price of electricity would go through the roof! Those owning existing generators reaped huge extra profits without having to spend a dime on new generating facilities. Ontario is heading for record high electricity bills and even brown and blackouts! It's inevitable, since that's the way our provincial government is actually setting up the structure! To a techie, it's as obvious as trying to make a car with a flat tire run reliably not by changing the tire but by choosing a "greener" fuel to make less pollutants. It CAN'T work! There's not a lot a homeowner can do to escape the higher bills. Switching to a gas stove and water heater will help, especially a tankless water heater. With all the domestic shale gas discoveries the retail price of natural gas will have strong downward pressures for years, making it a better deal than electricity. There are some companies already marketing generators for home use that run on natural gas. The capital cost is still very high but the savings in monthly gas bills compared to buying your electricity from the Ontario grid are considerable. As the capital costs go down as sales volumes increase the situation for a homeowner can only improve. McGuinty's people really should have thought things through better. Now they are trying to get a grip on things by using their bureaucracy to stop issuing any more MicroFit licences, holding up applications for weeks and months and then implementing cutoff dates that disqualify all those who mailed on time but were waiting in the queue.

Exactly! Betsy and her supporters are not content to insist on the existence of God. They have to tell HIM how he did everything! What they really care about is the truth of their Bible. They act as if the existence of God is just an afterthought.

To be fair Squid, here's another techie twist to the situation. Lights on at night really ISN'T part of the problem! You see, demand drops like mad at night-time. People shut things off and go to bed. The peculiar thing about electricity is that so far nobody's come up with an easy way to store it! The excess capacity we have at night might as well be used to light up office buildings. We can't save it to use the next day anyway. Some people have come up with some nifty ideas, like pumping water back up into a dam overnight so it can fall through the generators the next day but that's a BIG project, probably as expensive as building a hydro-electric dam facility in the first place. So to my knowledge no one has bothered to do it yet. They won't either, as long as there's lots of water in the dam anyway. Understanding this facet of the situation is crucial to understanding the failings of alternative power like wind and solar. They only produce when the sun shines and the wind blows. The rest of the time they give us nothing. So you have to build backup generating stations anyway. If it's a hydro dam you won't actually see savings, since the water flows anyway. The only way you can save is if you use a generator that burns fuel to make electricity. See where this is going? You guessed it! Coal and gas! They allow you to turn things off when you don't need the extra juice and save fuel costs. This being so, it seems a pity that guys running the show like McGuinty have such a hate on for coal and gas generators. They are busy taking them out of service in favour of paying people huge markups on wind and solar. This leaves us WITHOUT any baseline backup power and even MORE in a financial hole! It's been a scandal here in Ontario for a week or two when folks found out McGuinty has been PAYING Quebec and America to take our surplus power! He doesn't have coal and gas plants to turn off and the remaining sources of power are technologies that you can't turn off or throttle back that easily. The power company HAS to dump excess power somewhere so they have to pay other provinces and countries to take it! This is just another example of how politicians are often the LAST people on earth qualified to mess with a technical problem! McGuinty hasn't got a clue how to solve such problems so he goes looking for "experts". His first problem is finding good experts but even then, because he doesn't really understand (or care!) what they're saying anyway his mind is easily diverted towards what appears "green" instead of "will work". "Green" today means it will impress voters and win their support. "Will work" means something that sounds too technical for the average voter to understand, so it won't win any votes. Anyhow, as I said, we might as well burn the lights all night. It just doesn't make any difference anyway!

Just thought I'd add something from a techie standpoint about CFLs. Although they were pushed on us as a way to "save the planet" while saving money, that actually was a lie! You see, the amount of your electrical bill that came from lighting was always mice nuts compared to everything else in your house. What runs up the bill is electric heaters, stoves and anything with a motor in it. That includes refrigerators, furnace blowers and the like. Just one reasonably efficient laundry dryer in the typical family home would use as much electricity in a month as 111 one hundred watt old-style light bulbs, burning 24/7! Scale that for CFLs and you would have to have over 1000 of them constantly burning in your home to equal that dryer's consumption. I doubt if CFLs saved anyone enough money per month to buy a beer! LED bulbs have other advantages but they still won't save the typical homeowner any real money, except possibly a few bucks for not having to replace them as often. The person who saves is the government! Although the savings from more modern lighting are trivial to the homeowner they do add up when you include everybody on a provincial grid. The electric companies don't have to spend capital on new generating capacity, at least for a while and not as much. Of course, they will likely jack up their rates anyway, claiming that since people have successfully reduced their consumption they aren't paying the company as much money! We have already seen this here in Ontario, not just with electricity but with metered water. In effect, by being good citizens by buying CFLs, better home insulation and low-volume toilets and showerheads we've all screwed ourselves! Our government has shown us how we will be rewarded! There seems to be two things happening here. First off, decisions are being made to let us all participate in LOOKING green and not actually BEING green! Second, the people in government making these broad-brush, global decisions like banning old style bulbs in favour of CFLs really don't understand much of anything about electricity, power and how lights and appliances actually work. What else is new?

In common usage any cockamamie idea can be called a theory but not to a scientist. In the scientific community, a theory is something that fits the facts and is a useful tool when working with the problem and all things connected to it. Anything else is basically just balderdash! We have had a number of theories about gravity over the years, including the effect of mass upon space from Einstein and lately even deeper and more involved aspects of modern physics. Each new theory was built upon the last. What happens is that a theory may work well until one day we discover some new aspect about gravity that it can't explain or predict. So a new theory is formed that satisfies everything the old one did PLUS the new input! Some scientists may not totally agree with any theory but only if they feel that it is lacking in explaining or being useful in some cases. They aren't necessarily refusing to accept a theory at all, just differing over how accurate a tool is that theory. Their concerns are part of the pressure that gives way to improved theories. Rarely does the new theory prove 100% of the old theory false! This of course is completely different from the idea of coming up with a biblical or religious myth that may or may not suit the facts in anything but a simplistic, primitive manner and holding to this myth forever, no matter what new evidence is unearthed.

I can only speak for myself, but I have no problem with someone believing in God. However, I have no respect at all for their attempts to put their mythical explanations of how the Universe works on an equal footing with what Science has discovered. That means evolution, physics, Big Bangs and whatever over Genesis. Not because I wish to be unfair but simply because the Christian fundamentalist pseudo-scientific doctrines don't make any sense! They don't fit the evidence we discover or the physical laws of how the Universe works that we uncover. As a parent, I would fight any attempt to put Creationism and such into our schools. It would cripple my children's chances to become scientists with beliefs that would actually WORK in the real world. Try to cure a genetic disease when you believe in Creationism! You haven't a chance of coming up with something that will work! You might as well just give up and sit around praying for miracles.

Guyser, my reply had nothing to do with Saipan being a troll. I merely made a prediction based on my experience with some posters in the threads having to do with native rights, particularly with the Caledonia protest. I absolutely believe that my predictions would prove accurate, that's why I made them in advance to "head them off at the pass", as it were. You yourself were not considered a target in any way. I just wanted to defang some more trolls before they showed up!

It's called "back-pedaling", Michael! Some folks seize evidence that supports their argument as fast as it appears and shout it to the rooftops! Apparently, being loud and snide somehow makes you more "right". However, if they're too quick about it they find their evidence doesn't stand up. Standard Operating Procedure in such cases is to first: Get a lot quieter! Second: distance yourself as fast as possible from the poor evidence. There's so much zealotry with climate science, sometimes from both sides of the argument. Hopefully, we will live long enough to let reality prove what's right and what's wrong. Meanwhile, I prefer to avoid zealots. Like reformed smokers, they tend to be a preachy and cheerless bunch.

Be patient, Saipan. A few of our posters will no doubt be jumping in very soon to explain to us how natives have such a perfect society that they are entitled to a different sentence than any other Canadian. What's more, it will be explained that the woman raised in an aboriginal society would never have committed such a violent act in the first place. This means that the entire report must be a fabrication of some white reporter like Christie Blatchford, as a ruse to try to make aboriginals look bad. Failing all that, we'll be told that since her case was based on logic the entire affair must have been "a figamentation of your imagination", as Bullwinkle J Moose used to say...

I saw one years ago dealing with a student in a classroom who questioned his professor over evolution. What actually made me laugh out loud was how the professor was drawn as a screaming, spitting, over the top fanatic while the student was portrayed as a neat, well-dressed and soft-spoken young man, simply asking questions! These tactics will be around forever however, because they WORK! There will always be people ignorant, or unintelligent, or just mentally stubborn. They are prime targets for these tactics.

If we brought back the death penalty, we wouldn't have to use it for EVERYTHING, like some people in this debate seem to suggest would be a problem. I'd be happy if if was applied only in cases of horrific crimes proven "beyond reasonable doubt". That way a Donald Marshall might get life and a Paul Bernardo would get the chair. Or, I could be happy with life imprisonment. I might quibble if a Bernardo got cable tv when I couldn't afford it myself but still, knowing he would pay for his entire life and would never be a threat to anyone else would no doubt be comforting to the families of his victims. Those collateral victims seem to be forgotten in these debates. What DOES bother me is we don't seem to get EITHER! No capital punishment, and life often doesn't mean anywhere near life at all. First class murder can mean less than 15 years. Often the charge is reduced to second class or manslaughter in order to better ensure a conviction. So the murderer can serve what seems to be an inappropriately short sentence. I wish Canada would make up its mind!

Again Betsy, you show that you have no idea what the term "Theory" means in the scientific community. Hawking's theories are accepted because they fit the facts already discovered so beautifully! That's what SCIENTIFIC theories do! You seem to think that a scientific theory is merely any old crap of an explanation. Someone throws it out and then you wait for some evidence to prove it. It doesn't work that way at all. Rather, when a scientist sees some aspect of the Universe and wonders why it exists or how it works, he formulates a theory that can explain things while AGREEING WITH EVERYTHING WE ALREADY KNOW! Better yet, a theory should also make predictions about how associated aspects also work - again, without contradicting what we already know. Those predictions are what are often used to help prove a theory. Sooner or later we discover evidence and we can see if it fits those predictions. Hawking's theories are no exception. They jive with everything already known and make predictions about what we hope to discover. To properly understand the theories of someone like Hawking usually requires a good knowledge of his subject. This is where those who cling to their Bible can't compete. Again, Hawking's theories do not prove or disprove the existence of a God. Yet many of those who believe in a God take exception, since along with their idea of God comes their Bible, which they take to explain how their God actually did everything! In effect, their Bible is a "magic wand". It doesn't have to explain anything beyond saying "God did it." I posted about this before. From my POV, it is YOUR side that is picking the fight! It's as if your God gave you people a brain to learn about HIS works and you choose instead to cling to primitive myths and tell HIM how he did it all! As long as fundamentalist Christians take this stance, they can never win. Things will only get worse for them. Every day forevermore Man will discover more and more about the Universe, using Science as one of his tools. This means that every day fundamentalists will have to deal with more and more contradictions. One of my childhood friends grew up to be a highly placed priest in the Orthodox Church. We talked about this Science/Religion conflict many times. His church seemed very rational about the subject. He explained how in the Orthodox Church they have a fixed list of items they must believe in and everything after that is considered theological opinion! This allowed them to successfully dodge all the fights over evolution and whatnot. They never had a problem with Galileo. It might be productive to talk to some in that Church. After all, they've been around longer than any other Christian faith. It stands to reason they might know a bit more about some things than some of the johnny-come-lately faiths...

So the very people that have to fly in the damn things have no confidence in their safety. Yet you just blow them off as "cats playing the piano" in some youtube clip. Apparently, we each have a world view so different that I see little or no possibility of agreement. Plus, I find your debating tone strongly reminiscent of Mr. Canada and also "rubble.com". I'll just put you on 'ignore' and I'm sure we will get along better.

Talk about your forest and your trees... The point should be flippin' obvious! It's the fact that the servicemen charged with flying, maintaining and being transported in our old Canadian fleet of SeaKings came up with such a damning parody to show their true feelings about the aircraft! Christ, you'll be writing 3 or 4 paragraphs about the rivets next!

The logic of the Muslim Brotherhood seems kinda loopy to me, Scrib. They want to close the Suez Canal and cut off gas to Israel, in order to get rid of Mubarak? Seems to me that they're not talking about making war on Israel. They're talking about making war on the rest of the world! Israel is not the only country that uses the Canal, after all. As far as I know, Mubarak is not in Israel or dependent on that gas. And there are a lot of countries, some even Arab, that don't want to trigger a war. The only way their logic makes sense is if they want to create a situation that might benefit THEMSELVES, by giving them a chance at taking power!

I remember years ago the company I worked for took on a project in Saudi Arabia. They were desperately trying to coax some of us employees to go work over there for a time but most of us weren't very enthusiastic. You see, we had found out that under Saudi sharia type law, if we were a passenger in a taxi and there was an accident, WE would be charged since we were foreigners and non-muslims! I'v always thought that as far as rights and laws go, I would feel much more comfortable in Israel than in most of its neighbours. Bully is as bully does.

I'm just not interested in being diverted into defending my model and not my point. What our soldiers and airmen who have direct experience with the aircraft feel about it is proven:

Leaving aside for the moment that you are effectively asking Harper to throw all the money the Liberals spent to get us into the program down the nearest rathole, how can we get competitive bids when there is no other fighter being made or even in development of the specs of the F-35? For that matter, we can be confident the Liberals would already have done their due diligence and investigated if there was another aircraft that would have better suited our needs. The fact that cancellation charges would cost likely a billion or so dollars in themselves would've ensured that the Liberals made a thoughtful, well-considered decision to enrol us in the program! Why, if that were not true then the Liberals would have learned nothing from their cancellation of the EH-101 and the decades-long fiasco of finding replacements for our killer SeaKing helicopters! I've been assured by a few present day Liberals that those were a different crew way back then and besides, any Liberals still left in the party today long ago learned their lesson. For that reason they tell me I should have no qualms about voting Liberal next election. Any comparisons between their idea to cancel the F-35 and Dief's cancellation of the Arrow are false and just mean-spirited, they tell me! As for your link, I decide already to follow your advice and not pay any attention to that "buck rogers" stuff.

I'm surprised that you keep dumping this all on Harper, when it was the Liberals that first enrolled Canada in the F-35 program, ponying up a HUGE bunch of cash to get us in, in order to secure a place in the delivery line and to get many of the manufacturing contracts for various pieces for Canadian firms. Harper just inherited the damn thing! Don't you find the present Liberal opposition a bit hypocritical?

If you're trying to build on the old Progressive Conservative Party, is there anything that might attract the old Reform demographic? It was MILLIONS of votes, you know! I wouldn't think you would want to just blow them off. Or expect them to suddenly become Progressive Conservatives.

Well done, Betsy. You successfully ignored and avoided every point I made! I thought I was quite careful to take no stand on whether or not there is a God. You made that the point of your rebuttal and ignored everything else I had said. Tell us the truth. Do you believe in the Genesis stories of the Bible? Do you also feel you already know how God did everything and anything, making every new Science discovery a contradiction to your faith? Are YOU one of those who tells God how he did his works?

Did you read my post? Maybe He did, maybe he didn't. We don't know. Doesn't matter, 'cuz that's not the real argument the Intelligent Designers are pushing anyway. They reject the idea of a Big Bang for one reason only - it contradicts the stories from Genesis that they've already chosen to believe. The "Church of the Presumptuous Assumption", if you like.

Well, for a start, that watch did NOT come to happen in a quick explosion. We had the explosion and it took about 11 BILLION YEARS of things coming together to make that watch happen! Moreoever, while the creation of life took the larger first part of those 11 billion years, once it happened things were no longer entirely random. Some things work better than others once the groundwork has been prepared. Once mankind came on the picture, things started to develop at a HUGELY faster rate! We went from sundials to inventing that watch within a couple of hundred years, because there were all sorts of people all over the place busy inventing and developing all the pieces necessary to make that watch. This is MUCH different than your analogy paints! There are other points to argue as well but those aren't the real issue anyway. It's been my experience over the years that those who favour Intelligent Design are guilty of trying to have things both ways, eating their cake and having it too. That's just illogical. Why do I say that? First of all, virtually all of them are not just trying to prove the existence of God. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant to how the Universe came to be and how it works. It is what it is and we may never be capable of understanding all of it. The existence of God is not necessary to explain it. He may have started it all off or it may have been random chance. The result is the same. No, what the proponents of Intelligent Design seem always to be pushing, once you scratch the surface of their arguments, is a literal acceptance not just of their Faith but of their interpretation of their Bible. They don't just want God to be accepted as real and the Creator of the Universe. They want it accepted that he did it the way THEY say He did! No evolution, no dinosaurs, just Adam and Eve chomping apples in some mythical garden. This idea of telling God how he did his works has always struck me as incredibly arrogant and presumptuous! A bunch of people barely out of the caves, wearing skins and scratching their asses come up with some stories to explain how the universe came to be and a few thousand years later their descendants are still taking it as truth and gospel! If someone wants a discussion solely and only about the possibility of a Prime Mover I could enjoy it. What I can't abide is someone who really just wants to use that idea to get his foot in the door to justify his collection of tribal myths and fantasies that outright contradict the evidence that Science keeps discovering every day! Science does not contradict ANYTHING on how a God may have created the Universe and set up its Laws of Operation! The only contradictions are with what some people chose to believe in ADVANCE of those discoveries! To put my own views more succinctly Betsy, although I personally am a 'devout agnostic' I can get along with someone who believes in a God just fine! What I can't abide is someone who rejects the continuing unfolding of evidence as to how the Universe began and endures because he feels that his simplistic little book of myths has given him all the answers, somehow making it unnecessary for him to actually learn any Science, Math or Physics! It's no shame to be ignorant or math challenged, but it is a shame to use some prop to be arrogant!

Hey Keeps, are you implying that some folks 'cherry pick' their data?

Betsy, that is the most illogical parable I have read since I picked up a WatchTower magazine about 20 years ago! It paints the Big Bang theory of Creation in a childish, simplistic, totally unscientific light, completely different from how the scientific community describes it, and then having made it into something silly proceeds to label it so! Talk about your straw men! These guys wrote the book! Just because their understanding of science stopped in Grade 5 when their bean sprouts up and died, trying to grow out of that jar full of wet tissue paper, doesn't make them competent to comment!