vol_scouter

Beavah, Cap and trade is capable of wrecking an economy - I did not say that it WILL wreck an economy only that it is capable of doing so. I do not believe that cap and trade is a good idea though I have said several times that I believe that it is a good idea to decrease the nation's dependence on foreign oil. I do not think that the decision to decrease the dependence on fossil fuels on AGW but it should be based on long term energy sustainability and national security. It must include a vigorous nuclear program since the other resources are not going to provide sufficient energy in the foreseeable future. The problem once again with the warming data is what does the average earth temperature mean and how is it calculated? The temperature reporting stations around the world have changed over time as well as the technology. For example, there could be reporting station that has reported rather consistent temperatures for several years. When the old system is replaced with a newer one, the new system is once again consistent with itself and prior recorded seasonal variations but is averaging 0.5 degree C warmer than the previous readings. It is likely that one is not correct or that the experimental station has changed (the old roof was removed and the new roof is slightly smaller causing a higher temperature). If everything is found to be the same, someone will make a decision to either increase the old temperatures to match the old ones or to lower the new temperatures. It is not possible to know the 'truth'. The actual situations are more complex but they still require a judgment as to how the data is to be adjusted. Certainly, if the folks doing the research have a personal bias, it is likely to manifest in those decisions even if the researcher is attempting to be unbiased (the data could then biased in the other direction as well). Another problem is the location of the temperature measurements. In the past, they were all made by thermometers near the surface of the earth. Obviously, some areas would be well covered, i.e. the US; whereas the Pacific Ocean would have very few reporting stations. So if were are N reporting stations worldwide in say 1950, the average temperature would not be the usual mean: (T1 + T2 + T3 + ... + TN)/N but would be a weighted mean: (a1*T1 + a2*T2 + a3*T3 + ... + aN*TN)/N where the coefficients a1, a2, a3, ... ,aN are weights that are proportional to the area covered by the temperature measurement. So that the a's for New York city may cover a small area where the a's for the few stations in the Pacific Ocean would be much larger since it would represent hundreds of square miles. Therefore, a small uncertainty in the magnitude of the temperature at a Pacific Ocean station gets greatly magnified. As time goes on, some stations go out of existence and others are added. So they have to be accounted for in much the same way. Some remote stations may be damaged and not report data for months due to severe weather. How do you account for the lost data representing a portion of the surface of the earth. Simply to disregard the station skews the data but how it is adjusted for can skew it as well. Once again, the temperature variations on the earth's surface is much greater than the temperature changes being claimed. For example, HiLo says that Australia has increased 0.48 degrees C over the past decade. But in the winter in the southern hemisphere, the temperatures in Antarctica can by ~ -70 degrees C while the southwest US at the same time can be ~ 40 degrees C. So that the daily variation on the earth can be on the order of 100 degrees C. So that the effect being measured is on the order of 1/200 th of the temperatures. In order to account for those magnitude of differences, the temperature measurements must be quite accurate for the region that they represent which they are not. So the errors in the measurements are larger than the effect reported which makes any claims suspect. The weather models are not accurate for more than a few days at a time. It is not reasonable to believe that models that cannot predict weather patterns for more than a few days at a time can be expected to be accurate for decades. The AGW folks were touting that last summer would have even worse Atlantic hurricanes but it was an unusually quiet summer. The models did not predict that the northern hemisphere would have one of the worst winters in decades. The models do predict more capricious weather patterns so that a locale could have a more severe winter one year while the surrounding areas are generally warmer which is not what is being seen. Global warming is not an unchallenged fact by climatologists. The reporting is difficult and the modeling requires high performance computing that is not generally available. This is a difficult area that deserves much more research and funding. Most of the researchers are dedicated and hard working. There are some who appear to have political aims. Consensus opinions should not be used for such important political decisions like cap and trade. In medicine, consensus opinions often change within a few years, sometimes dramatically.

Merlyn, Have you ever participated in a meeting to deliver a consensus opinion in an area of science? Have you published scientific articles in peer reviewed journals? Have you given scientific talks at international meetings? Have you ever given an invited scientific talk? Have you studied science at the graduate level? Have you written a thesis or a dissertation? Have you taken graduate level mathematics courses? Have you taken graduate level physics, chemistry or engineering courses? Have you ever taught science courses in a graduate school? Do you work professionally as a scientist? I am able to answer in the affirmative to all of these queries. What you are asking is like Clinton asking the definition of is. Note that I have helped to determine the consensus knowledge in a field of science. You pick at semantics rather than issues. Once again, scientists would understand what I have said but you do not or do not wish to do so.

Merlyn, Any scientist understands my comments completely. I have stated facts and you wish to pick at word choices because you do not understand the process of science. I am sure that you will be the last to post on this issue because all of the rest of us will tire of trying to educate someone who does not wish to learn but only to be a parrot to ideologues whose work you do not understand.

Merlyn, I thought that you might take such an attitude. One cannot reason with the uneducated who are so arrogant about the correctness their own opinions that are unable to accept truth. Please, quit making you self seem foolish.

Merlyn, You cannot even understand why I would have to educate you!!! How science is done is not something in papers. I have many peer reviewed publications in medicine and in physics. I have given talks all over the world, some invited. I am a scientist and I do not have the time or desire to fill in your lacking education. I don't believe how silly you seem to other scientists.

ljnrsu, Thank you for the confirmation and the update. I certainly hope that the issue is resolved correctly soon. I would think that it could be March or April before a definitive decision has been rendered.

Merlyn, You can't even understand when it is spelled out in detail. Why do you continue to embarrass yourself? I do not have time to educate you. GaHillBilly is obviously right.

Merlyn, You are so ignorant about science. Consensus opinions are generated when a political decision is requested or when a practice decision is made. An example of the second is practices guidelines in medicine. They will say that the 'best' way to care for a particular condition is to do such and so. They are guidelines instead of rules because consensus opinions are not settled science. The guidelines typically change every other year because we are still understanding the basic science. I am sorry that you have embarrassed yourself again but please cease and desist on insisting upon something that is simply wrong.

Since this began on April Fool's day and has not been concluded, it makes one wonder. Earlier, some offered mdsummer45 help. Can anyone corroborate her story?

acco40, I agree with your statements with a caveat about the temperature. The changes in temperature are on the order of degrees while the surface temperatures on the earth varies by tens of degrees at a given time at different locations on the earth (equator vs poles) and also by tens of degrees at a given location over 24 hours. The technology used for recording temperature over the years have changed as well as the number of reporting stations. So how the earth's temperature is determined can change the value significantly. Also, the meaning of that temperature is a difficult concept. Should it be a simple average? If so, areas of the oceans have for years not had measurements made - that changed with the advent of satellites. So the earth temperatures in for most of 150 years did not include temperatures over the ocean which makes up the majority of the earth's surface. Still, the temperature measurements are not uniform over the earth's surface. These problems are dealt with by 'adjusting' the raw data. Part of the problem is that some of the groups will not reveal the assumptions made to 'adjust' the data. The more significant problem is that the uncertainty in the raw data is on the same order of magnitude as the effect being inferred. That means that there could be more or less warming. The earth is thought to have been significantly warmed and have higher levels of CO2 in prior epochs. Life flourished during these epochs in contradistinction to cooling periods. There should continue to be a vigorous research effort in climate modeling. In the future, the models should be clearly defined as well as the assumptions upon which the model is based should be well described. Any 'adjustments' to the data should be clearly defined. Political decisions that can destroy the economy of a country should not be made upon consensus opinions because that means that the science is not settled.

HiLo said: "That's not what I said. It's a sneaky debating strategy to change someone else's words and then argue against what you said I said. But I'm happy to play your game. " Actually, you had first changed the argument, I was getting it back to the question of whether allowing homosexuals would significantly the rate of child molestation. "Evidence? All those Scouting bodies, including my own, where we don't regard homosexuality as an issue. To me, rates of sexual molestation would appear to have reduced in Australian Scouting in the past decade or two, though I don't think anyone is obsessed enough to collect statistics. And they would have been significantly affected anyway by much stronger youth protection policies overall, and, shock horror, admitting girls as well. " So you have no evidence merely your feeling. I did not think that collecting statistics on crimes was an obsession. If there are no statistics, how do you base your conclusion that the rate of molestation has decreased? This is an example of trying to justify what you wish to be true. It could well be true but I rather doubt it. Once again, I cannot make a cogent argument that allowing homosexuals in scouting would not increase the rate of molestation. I would like to believe that it would not be statistically significant but that is the crucial question.

Merlyn, Thanks for finding my typo. The sentence should read: Consensus in science is used when the correct scientific explanation has NOT been elucidated. We do not agree because you are wrong. You do not understand science. I am weary of you.

Merlyn, As usual, I regret ever responding to you. First, the most accurate theory none to man is quantum electrodynamics. The general relativity and quantum mechanics do not have to be reconciled because they are not making conflicting predictions. As I said before, whether or not the gravitational field can be quantized will provide fundamental understanding but it does not affect the validity of either theory if the gravitational field cannot be quantized. You seem to revel in showing how little you understand. As usual, you change the subject because you are simply wrong. Consensus in science is used when the correct scientific explanation has been elucidated. In AGW, it is becoming more doubtful that it is correct. Consensus opinions in science and medicine are issued when the science is still not clear.

HiLo, So are you saying that the rate of sexual molestation will not increase in a statistically significant manner if homosexuals allowed? If so, what is the evidence upon which you base the argument?

Melyn, Please quit showing your ignorance. General relativity and quantum mechanics are well verified theories. The Gravitational field has not been successfully quantized which does not mean that they are not reconciled. It has to do with grand unification. The Strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic field have been successfully quantized. If the gravitational field can be quantized, then all forces could be derived from a single force. This does not mean that general relativity is questioned or that quantum mechanics is questioned. Whether or not they can be combined into a single theory is not answered and has fundamental implications. That does not mean that there is doubts of the correctness of the theories. Special relativity says that information cannot be sent faster than the speed of light. Quantum entanglement does not transfer information faster than the speed of light. Rather it is a type of coding. There might be ways to exploit this which has intense interest. I may soon be involved in a quantum entanglement experiment. If there is a way to exploit quantum entanglement, it would not damage the theories of quantum mechanics and special relativity. I qualified my statement by saying that classical mechanics would have to be employed in classical realms. So you comments are silly since I had already said that. In your example, the friction of the atmosphere is primarily a first order differential effect with only a small second order component. My PhD is in physics, please stick to areas that you know.

Merlyn, You clearly know little about science. Quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, special relativity, classical mechanics in a classical region, et cetera are considered to be correct and there was no need for a consensus opinion because the correctness was clear (in some cases nearly immediately). My statement was correct.

HICO_Eagle, That is what amazes me. If I had such strong feelings that the BSA was wrong, I would leave. Why do such individuals not join a competing organization? I certainly agree with people wanting to make constructive changes in an organization but if it is such a large and ingrained issue, it is better to leave. A good example is churches that have changed their stance on homosexuality are seeing large and in some cases massive losses. The people leaving do not believe that accepting homosexuality is in keeping with the Bible. I do not know why the people who wanted to change the church stance didn't leave before and form their own church. The only way that I know how to understand this is that people pushing some ideas wish to force everyone to accept those values. These people are not the tolerant people that they believe themselves to be. The attacks on several on this list show that they are not tolerant and some are rather ill behaved.

Who would listen to this guy. He, like Gore, is not a scientist and has demonstrated his poor judgment by dumping the beautiful and charming Diana for the unattractive Camilla. In this area, I have avoided listening to any of the politicians. They are parrots at best. They do not understand the mathematics required for the climate modeling and therefore have absolutely no conception of limitations and uncertainties in the model. Charles' statement is clearly ridiculous. Even some of the worst scenarios for AGW take many decades before most of the human race would be dead. A large scale nuclear exchange is a real and more likely scenario especially with Iran developing nuclear weapons and Pakistan being unstable. So ignore the politicians. Read what the scientists write in papers and remember that consensus opinions are required when the science is NOT settled, i.e. it is not scientifically shown which side is correct.

Oak Tree, Good points. I do not believe that making tolerance such a platitude is a good idea. Using the same logic, I could say that we should not prevent paranoid schizophrenics with command hallucinations be leaders in order to be tolerance. The flip side is certainly the opposite is not true - to be intolerant. So while I believe that tolerance is a good thing in general, I do not believe that it should be elevated as some sort of goal but rather be a guide. I really do not know what the effect on the incidence of homosexual molestations in scouting would be if the policy was changed. My concern comes from very poor data. The data compares the percent of molestations associated with homosexuals versus their percentage of the population. Based on that crude analysis, homosexuals commit child molestations greater than 10 times that of heterosexuals. This is based upon very poor data. How is the sexual orientation determined and reported? What is done in the case of bisexuals? How accurate is the reporting of events? All of these things would have to be answered before anything can be said other than it is a disturbing number though possibly entirely wrong. I would like to believe that the change would cause only a small increase that is not statistically significant but I really don't know how to estimate it in a reasonable way. By your argument, we do not exclude adult males because they make up a very large group. On the other hand, long term homosexuals make up less than 2% of the population. Thus like Alzheimer's and paranoid schizophrenics who would be a small group to exclude, homosexuals are a small group. We are not talking about hiring adults, renting, making loans, etc. but rather we are talking about protecting our youth. I do not know the answer and I am not saying that anything bad would happen in significant numbers only that it is a risk that would be difficult to estimate. If there is no problem, then I think that the BSA should try to gradually try some local option 'experiments'. If there is a significant problem, trying the local option is not a good idea. My other comments have been what the thread asked: What do you think would happen if homosexuals were admitted. In my area, I feel that today the result would be catastrophic. That will likely change in time. What should be done and when it should be done is a very difficult question. I am happy to exchange ideas with other scouters and not have to be involved in that decision. I have seen to many broken lives due to molestation so that I would err on the side of protection over tolerance. That is my view - everyone will decide what is best based on how they balance that equation and their moral beliefs. As to society's view, I would prefer to be right rather than politically correct. So those are my concerns. I do not know if they are valid but I do not know how to show that they are false.

Oak Tree, If the retrospective study could be well done and showed a significant increase in the number of molestations for a given age group, then it would be prudent to ban them. I doubt that would be the case. I would suspect a bimodal distribution with the first and larger peak in the late 20's and early 30's while the second peak would be in the 60's. One way or the other, I do not believe that there would be a statistically significant increase in a given age group. So, now answer my question.

HiLo, That is certainly true. Part of the problem is understanding what probabilities in science mean so the politicians bend it to their benefit.

HiLo, I have never said that homosexuals were evil. Any sexual molestation of children is too much. I do consider heterosexual relationships with minors to be as damaging as homosexual relationships. You called me names when you did not use the correct definition of pedophile as defined psychiatry. You called me ignorant when in fact I am more knowledgeable than you. When this is pointed out, you are more insulting by calling me arrogant. How many HIV/AIDS patients have you cared for? How many times have you risked exposure to blood and body fluids of such patients in order to help them when waiting for appropriate protection would jeopardize their outcome? Read the scout law again, you actions are not what is expected of scouters.

I try to encourage the boys to provide evidence, show, etc. several kinds of animals. Trying to stay within the bounds of not adding requirements, I will say that is good but can you show that there are other animals besides 10 pieces of evidence for birds. If they balk and insist that they fulfilled the requirement, I pass them. Most of the time they will provide evidence of other species. I try to ask questions to be sure that they actually found whatever and have a reasonable explanation. Occasionally, the story is awful weak that they understand what they did. In those cases, I gently suggest getting something else.

HICO_Eagle, I try not offend but I am often attacked by folks on this list and other places who make ad hominem attacks. In fact, most of the criticism that I receive is such attacks. From my standpoint, they are all on the left. From my perspective reading other posts, it is lopsided that way. I should not use such a broad brush and obviously my perspective is skewed - just as those on the other side. My apologies if you have been improperly categorized. As to your point, if those who wish to open scouting up to homosexuals cannot in some way argue in a reasonable and logical way that the incidence of sexual molestation will not increase in a statistically significant manner, the current policy should stand. To say otherwise is to sacrifice children for a social goal. In the case of sexual molestation of children, that is immoral. Merlyn, I agree that you should quit trying to argue weak points where you always lose, get angry, and attack others.

Merlyn, Argue the point. You did equate theft to molestation. You make personal attacks. I have never seen a socio-economic age matched study that says that one group is more likely to steal than another. I guess you believe that blacks are more likely to steal. You are truly a pitiful individual.