vol_scouter

Looks interesting for dump camping. Not needed Sea Base because most of the sailboats have a more sophisticated system. For Philmont or Canoe base, it is weight that can be left behind. It might tell you that you will get wet later but you still have to hike rain or not (unless lightning makes it necessary to take appropriate cover). If high adventure just means adventuresome outings, then it might be okay if I don't have to carry it. In general, I think that it is better to be prepared for the weather and then take it as it comes. A good compass is necessary and a better investment in my book but that is just my opinion.

Beavah, I thought that attorneys were honorables agents of the court. So every time an attorney discovers that evidence has truly been altered and that key witnesses are lying that to report that they are posturing? I have a higher view of attorneys that none of them would be honest. The AGW data appears to have been altered according to reliable sources. If you read this month's Science, one of the heads of the IPCC is suggesting how to cover up bad science. The Himalayan glaciers are not melting as the IPCC has said. The report containing the Himalayan glaciers data makes a point that the data has been carefully checked and is accurate. If I had the raw data and threw out the temperatures measured near the equator and substituted mountain readings, I can make the global temperature decrease. Members of the IPCC have done just that. In computing there is an old saw that is true: GIGO which stands for Garbage In - Garbage Out which means no matter how well written a code is, bad inputs will always give erroneous answers. So if the raw data has been altered in some way to be supplied to others, no matter how good the code - it will give wrong answers. In the case of climate modeling, supplying bad data will prevent the models from being improved. If politicians favor global warming, they control the funding agencies which fund the research. Enough said.

scoutingagain, Since the healthcare bill will destroy the American medical system, their stock values would naturally go down. The election of Scott Brown may lead to the demise of a bad bill which would be to the benefit of health care stocks. So investors would naturally trade them up in anticipation of the win by Brown. This does not imply any sort of nefarious relationship only reasonable expectations. Brent, I can only hope that you are correct.

Beavah, Your argument is only correct if the models have used valid data AND can predict the future to at least some extent. All of the models failed to predict the northern hemisphere cooling which means that the models are flawed. There is considerable doubt that all of the data has been used which means that neither of the conditions may have been met. Since you bring up science, go read the news on climate today where the IPCC is stating that they need to educate the members on how to present their data. So in your legal analogy, the case is getting ready to go to the jury when you find out that the evidence has been altered and some of the key witnesses are lying. So are you going to let your client get convicted or are you going to bring up the altered evidence and the prevarication of some of the key witnesses? That is the current AGW discussion. jblake47, None of us know how language and standards will change in the future but today's scientific would term all 'laws' as theories. Further, any theory can be overturned by a finding that disagrees with the fundamental tenets of the theory. So by today's definitions, there will never be any laws of science. As to experiment versus theory, the examples are best illustrated in physics. Physicists generally work as theorists or experimentalists. A group of experiments that find anomalous results to known theories will spur theorists to extend the theories or to develop new theories that explain the anomalies while other experiments will be done to look at the anomalous results in a different way. Conversely, theorists may come up with a new theory. As I said in my previous post, theories make predictions. So the theorists will say that their theory predicts such and so. Experimentalists will then do experiments to look for whatever was predicted. If the results do not demonstrate the predicted results then either the experiment was not performed correctly or the theory is wrong. That is the way science is performed. You are certainly right about your climate comments. By the way, a flat earth was a consensus opinion.

Stosh, You have a common misconception about science. So called 'facts' are used to form theories. In the past, some theories were called laws but they should all be called theories. Accepted theories can correctly predict future events. Models are used when the basic physics is not well known or, as in the case of climate models, the initial conditions and interactions are too complex to perform first principle calculations so models are used. Models typically require assumptions whereas calculations based upon theories may or may not require some assumptions. Facts do not make predictions and thus are not theories. There are no serious scientists that doubt the correctness of special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, et cetera. These will remain theories forever because that is the way science looks at the world. Those theories are unlikely to be shown to be wrong but may be shown to have special cases that allows a new way to look at physics. Evolution is an incomplete theory. The basic ideas genetic changes producing phenotypic differences that increase the likelihood of successful procreation are not challenged by serious scientists. However, there are some phenomena that are not yet explained by natural selection. Until everything can be explained by evolution, it will remain incomplete. Natural selection does not speak to the processes that yielded life on earth but does make predictions about the processes that has led to the life on earth but in the past and present. Climate models are not theories. A theory would be to say that if the amount of some thing changes, the following would happen. For instance, if the average amount of water in the atmosphere were to significantly increase, then such and such would happen. Typically, the model would be run with increased values of water in the atmosphere holding most everything else constant to see what happens. Then the model would be refined by saying that if the H2O content is increasing then something else happens which leads to other changes. When this has been done carefully over many variables, then one could postulate that if the water content of the atmosphere certain things would happen. Those ideas could be further developed into a theory if some experiment can be performed to demonstrate at least some of the predictions. Unfortunately, the experiment to verify the predictions cannot be performed because we cannot make such things happen on the earth. So the climate models will remain models at least until they have made consistently correct predictions over several centuries into the future. Beavah, You left out the American Physical Society which is the professional society for physicists. At least 120 prominent physicists, some are fellows of the society, requested a review of the stance of the APS. The APS confirmed the belief in AGW but has referred it to another committee. These are some of the best physicists in the country who have made a studied decision based upon the current knowledge. They are not fringe or a talking head on a network. I do not go to the anti-AGW websites so I do not know if they post there or not. I do know that they are well respected and were taken seriously. Majority votes do not make science or a theory. Accepted scientific theories do not require a vote because the predictions and correlations speak for themselves. That was before the models have all failed to predict the severe winter in the northern hemisphere. The models are by definition flawed because none can be made to predict this cooling even now that it is known. The models cannot be trusted at this time. There is considerable concern about the exclusion of some data and how the temperature data is treated. We should not base large economic and political change upon models that are clearly flawed and perhaps entirely wrong.

Beavah, I have found news outlets to be rather consistently unreliable about science. I have no knowledge of the problem and limited background in these areas of science so I will bow out of this discussion though it sounds interesting.

HiLo, You are correct. What we need to do is to once again have it as a societal expectation.

Beavah, It would be very difficult to what you ask without this forum allowing the output from MathType or a similar mathematics software program. An equation is truly worth a thousand words. I don't think that you really wish a technical discussion of PCA, matrix mathematics, or similar topics. I can discuss these and other topics. I have listened to scholarly talks on climate change. If the AGW models had predicted the current cooling cycle, one could have some confidence in the predictions of AGW. Some competent scientists disagree with the majority view - that is why it is consensus rather than the unanimous view. Since there is clearly to present only one view (as the East Anglia emails confirm), these scientists must get their views out through various venues. This is not unique to climate change. As an attorney, if you are insistent that some group is not portraying the way that law is correctly performed, I would have to bow to your experience. I assume that all scouters posting here are trustworthy about their knowledge base. I would like to believe that when you say that you do not understand the mathematics in the climate models and the problems in data collection and others of us say that we are knowledgeable in those fields, that you would likewise accede to their opinions. I believe that GAHillBilly, HICO_eagle, BrentAllen, and myself have presented long discussions about the problems with data collection, error bars as compared to measured effects, model problems, issues with consensus opinions, et cetera. We have additionally cited journal articles as well as demonstrated skills in the hard sciences. There is considerably uncertainty about the correctness of AGW.

Beavah, Sorry about the typo. My mother tried to talk me into taking tying ballroom dancing and typing - I should have listened to her on both counts! (Being a hillbilly has something to do with it to!)

GaHillBilly makes many good points. Political correctness (PC) is damaging this country and scouting. In order to be PC, people try to never offend. So if a scout requirement says that the youth must tie four knots, tying 3 knots with help and being shown the 4th then asked if they can tie it without ever demonstrating the ability leading to being passed is PC. It is PC because people do not wish to tell the youth that you did not pass, work on it for a week and try next week because it could 'hurt their self-esteem'. Youth are being passed, and expect to do so, for half way trying to do something. Mastery is a thing of the past. I don't think that my patients would appreciate that level of care but I see a definite attitudinal difference between young physicians and older physicians about their responsibilities to their patients. So this is not just scouting. I would like to see scouters enforce there youth actually having to master the skills that they are being asked to learn. Maybe it could start a movement to overturn PC before the country is destroyed.

Beevah, Those are statements that I can support to some extent. I agree that we should limit fossil fuel consumption. I do not believe that focusing on carbon is the correct way to look at the issues because carbon is not the problem (we are some carbon with a lot of water). We must turn to nuclear energy, continue developing solar, wind, and geothermal energy though these currently all seem to be likely to be minor sources of energy for decades. There should be zoning and tax incentives to encourage living closer to the places of employment which should be cities. That would allow more possibilities for mass transit. We should quit wanting the rest of the world having 'dirty' industries and start having more manufacturing here which would help jobs and national security. As an example, the USA is no longer capable of building a large scale nuclear reactor because we do not have industry that can build the containment vessel (Japan and China can - that doesn't make me feel safe). We cannot expect to have a pristine country with no heavy industry, have everything imported, and then complain about the pollution from industry in other countries. We want no industry, high wages, high standard of living, no pollution, and security (economic and military). We cannot have all at once. So I agree, that we should pay as we go and look to the future. Don't place the change on AGW which looks positively silly now with the northern hemisphere gripped in one of the worst winters in decades that was not predicted by the models and cannot be fit by the AGW models.

HiLo, Obviously, I have no knowledge of the incidence of sexual molestation in Australia. I do no know that it happens here more often than most would believe and that it is kept out of the media as much as possible. Fortunately, most cases are groping and the adult is quietly dismissed. Since there are no restrictions in Australia on membership, then the policy of no sex is clearly the correct one. The BSA has the same policy. The issue here is that homosexuals are not allowed in the organization at present (yes, I am aware that there are here but not officially). So the question remains, If the policy is changed, would the incidence of sexual molestation increase in a statistically significant manner.

merlyn, If you have nothing to add to the discussion about AGW, then why are you posting? I have discussed consensus opinions and how they are reached as well as pointing out that I have participated in a consensus opinion. If you do not like settled science, try generally accepted, not fundamentally questioned, or whatever phrase that you choose. I refuse to spend my time defending word usage. If you don't want to post on AGW, then start your own thread on word usage.

Once again, pedophiles have sex with pre-pubertal children and are most commonly heterosexual in nature. Homosexuals and bisexuals have same sex relationships with pubertal and post pubertal children. Heterosexuals who have sex with children do so out of dominance and it is often violent. So for most of the boys in the boy scout age range and virtually all venturers, same sex relationships relationships are homosexual or bisexual. A few of those are heterosexual dominance interactions. It is not correct to call people having sex relationships with pubertal and post pubertal children pedophiles. The actual question is still: "Would changing the policy lead to a statistically significant increase in the molestation?" I do not know the answer and I do not believe that anyone on this forum does either. HiLo has said that no records have been kept (or at least made available) so his experience is not even truly anecdotal but rather speculative.

Gern, Then you would be incorrect. I have often argued with friends about religious issues taking the side of science over 'religious explanations'. I am rather skeptical about most reports of miracles and other unusual occurrences. As an Eagle scout, I strive for honesty in posts as well as in my life.

Gern, Please read your question and my response. If there exists a scientific explanation that can reasonably explain a phenomena, then I will embrace. I attempt to be intellectually honest which I expect of others. There are natural phenomena that are not understood such as dark matter and dark energy. There are reasonable physical theories which may explain these phenomena. There are other things that happen that defy reasonable explanation that could be due to: poor reporting, our lack of understanding, or some phenomena (such as God) that is far beyond our ability to understand and measure. I try to not allow politics to interfere with science though that is not true for all in science. All of us have a bias but I attempt to examine science as unbiased as I am able.

Gern, No.

Gern, Miracles are events that are often unsubstantiated and always not explainable by known science. That does not mean that they are not the result of natural phenomena that has not been explained. For decades, scientists doubted ball lightening that has critically observed and explained. Will all things in the universe be explained by science? That is not clear - physics at this time can predict anything before the big bang. So what was there prior to the big bang? Why is there an universe? Is there a creator? Those are currently answered only by religion and possibly will only be answered by religion. If God exists, then can God interact in a physical sense in a universe that he created? I don't know. So all miracles in the future may be explainable by science. Perhaps, there are things that happen because God exists and intervenes. One can have an opinion but science cannot answer that question at this time. So to be intellectually honest, one must allow for the possibility of a miracle being due to a supreme deity. In my example, the SM relates a story that I, as a physician, cannot explain by known medicine. So the incidence was either not told in a factual manner or it was a miraculous event. merlyn, I asked you factual information. You have asked me to defend word usage which I refuse to do. You have not questioned the science but try to criticize my word usage as a reason to negate an argument. I will not play your games.

merlyn, I refuse to take the time to find the popular sources that I had used in the Cradle of Liberty issues. You seem to have a lot of time to look up things so answer your own question and lookup settled and science and combine the two meanings. Then serve on a consensus committee about a scientific issue - Oh, I forgot that you have no training. You wish to pick at word usage since you cannot argue the facts. Please argue the facts and quite asking me to cite scientific sources to define consensus and settled.

merlyn, As I recall, I used popular sources for the Cradle of Liberty Council and the city of Philadelphia dispute. When you pointed out that you had read the actual contract and that contract laid out a method to get out of the contract, I acceded to what you had to say. I am certain that you cannot judge the science that I have discussed. You have shown yourself to be uneducated in the area of science and unwilling to learn so I should not have expected you to be able to judge scientific discussions.

merlyn, As a Scouter on this forum, I try to live by the Scout Oath and Law. You are not a Scouter and are impugning my veracity. I have demonstrated my knowledge of science here which you cannot do. I will not teach you English despite your insults. Science is learned by being mentored so much is learned that is some written tome. I have the credentials and you have demonstrated no understanding. I leave to members of the forum to judge for themselves.

merlyn, I have given my credentials and tried to help you to understand science. I will not spend my time looking up English language references because that is what you are asking me to do. The other scientists on the forum understand what I have said and have not indicated anything other than agreement. The reason is that I have discussed how science is performed. I have helped to form a consensus opinion along with ~15 other scientists in a prior area of endeavor. You do not understand science and I refuse to stoop to the level of defining words for you. Quit embarrassing yourself.

Beavah, One other comment. To say that scientific theories can only be proved wrong is to not clearly understand science. Since the scientific method has been followed, there have not been revolutions in physics that overturn prior 'laws'. For instance, Newtonian mechanics still works well in most cricumstances. Special relativity and general relativity produced revolutions in our understanding of physics but only affects calculations when dealing with very massive bodies or mass that is moving at very high velocities. Quantum mechanics also changed our understanding but did not negate many classical experiments. For instance, throwing a baseball can be quite well described by classical physics although the same problem can be solved (with considerable more effort) by quantum mechanics - called complementarity. Clearly, until all experiments that are possible can be performed (will never occur), a theory is never 'proven', but a theory can be shown to be very good at explaining the physical phenomena is not likely to be shown to be false but there could be modifications that occur in particular circumstances. The models for climate change are very complex, require a lot of assumptions, and depend upon noisey data to measure small effects in the distant future. Climate models are not physical theories and should not be treated as such.

Beavah, I have based my criticisms on the merits of the science. My major concern is the damage that AGW us doing to science and scinetists. Research is now my career having left medicine. So from a personal and societal standpoint, it is important to me that science and scientists are viewed in a positive light with trust in our work. Science is based on trust that scholarly, peer reviewed articles have been performed in an honst manner. The AGW folks have pushed their claims and essentially telling the world that siginificant changes must be made at the same time that they appear to have worked to suppress conflicting results. This hurts all of science. Since you are a conservative by your statements, you know that at times no matter how hard the conservatives tired in the past to get their ideas to the public, the media chose not to report on the stories. The same thing is happening here. Researchers in climatology who have conflicting results to AGW have been supressed. I do not know which is true but I do know poor ways of doing science which is what we are saying. Also, we should not allow science to be damaged for the political goal of decreased dependence upon fossil fuels. That is a mis-use of science and I am frankly appalled that you would think that the ends justify the means.

Beavah, I disagree with you on the modelling of the climate. I am not aware of stock market programs that accurately predict the long term stock market changes. To say that you know that it will go up in the long run is like me saying that there will be warming and cooling cycles. My statement is more certain since it is dependent upon physical forces whereas a financial disaster or war could destroy the US (unlikely and not my prediction) and there would be no stock market to go up. The question of any model in science is can it accurately predict physical phenomena. In the case of climate models, the predictions are now quite good for 24-72 hours, good for ~10 days and only fair for several weeks. The farmer's almanac does about as well as sophisticated climate models at a year. So to extrapolate for 50-100 years and say that it is known what will happen is not being intellectually honest. As GaHillBilly said, this does not mean that the models are definitely wrong but it means that it cannot be concluded that they are correct either. I as tried to show in a clear and concise manner, the input temperature data is a significant issue to begin with. The models are solve simultaneous many couples nonlinear partial differential eqautions that require high performance computering. The models are sensitive to the initial conditions which are already full of errors. Estimates are made of the effect that the oceans play in buffering the CO2. Those estimates have been revised several times. In most models, water vapor is not accounted for beause it is so volatile and variable but it is a stronger greenhouse gas than is CO2. Once again, there has been global warming just as there has been global cooloing. These are driven by solar variability and will continue to happen no matter what we do. Could there be AGW? Yes, but it is far from certain and as others have pointed out, the problems with some of the most important scientists for the IPCC being questioned as to their scientific integrity , makes the whole subject questionable at the present.