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

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

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 insis

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 c

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

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. Con

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 the

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 cha

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

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 pol

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

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 gentl

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 lo

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.