HICO_Eagle

I thought the question of the post was supposed to be about what would have to change if gays were allowed in yet I keep reading more attacks about "small minded" people block the acceptance of open homosexuals in BSA. Perhaps it would help getting back on track if we set up a list of axioms for the discussion like (feel free to comment on whether these should be axioms or suggest your own): 1. National BSA has decided to change policy and allow admission of open homosexuals 2. Individual units will have to observe the new policy or drop their charter 3. Some units will in fact drop their charter rather than accept the new policy 4. Some individuals will also quit Scouting rather than accept the new policy 5. You have been asked by Council and National to help frame changes to the program before the new policy takes effect I think Oak Tree's intent was to discuss #5 without arguing about the desireability of #1 or attacking the character or motives of units/individuals under #3/#4.

vol_scouter -- While all that is true and it's sometimes fun to ask "who stole my global warming" when it's subzero out there, I would exercise the same caution about short-term cooling effects as about short-term warming effects. As one climatologist said, "The last 40 years? That's weather. The last 40 centuries? That's climate."

Beavah, I'm the one you apparently quoted and I don't believe I said anything about your ability to understand the science. In fact, the reason put the list up (including sources for the AGW proponents) was so you and others could read and judge for yourselves. However, I reject the charge that they are all bogus sources, bloggers and partisan hacksites. Spencer, Singer, Lindzen, Pielke (both), etc. are legitimate scientists. Watts is a professional meteorologist. I gather McIntyre is not a physicist but he IS an engineer and statistician -- and his beef isn't with the physics but with the way Mann, Jones and Briffa handle data. In fact, if you read Pielke Jr's website, he apparently thinks there probably are manmade effects on the climate but he objects to the way Mann et al are activists and pushing policy based on science with a lot more uncertainty than they're admitting to. I inherently have more trust in scientists and analysts that put everything forward for others to replicate, comment and judge than those who try to hide it. Pons and Fleischman ended up eating some crow but they didn't try to hide data the way Mann/Briffa/Jones seem to have done. There's a reason NATURE's policy requires all data be available for replication of results before publishing papers (apparently a policy that was violated for one of the AGW proponents -- details are in the American Thinker article). One of the big problems with Jones, Mann and Briffa is that they have NOT -- have in fact even discussed how to evade FOIA requests for their data and processing methods. Other statisticians have attempted to replicate their results and only been able to do so with some very spurious methods; they could always respond "that's not how I did it, I did this ..." but they haven't. Hansen claims to have posted all his code but has a very lengthy defense on why he cut off free access to the raw data and is only releasing processed data slowly. I note that CRU is starting to release some of its data now although it appears to be difficult to determine which data has been adjusted and which is raw. The typical defense seems to be "we're just overwhelmed right now and this stuff is so easy to take out of context that we're reviewing it before we post anything." That is far more representative of political spin than the science I've grown up with -- I was always taught to put everything out there so you can have a free and open discussion about the data and analysis. If someone points out holes, you fix them and end up with a better product -- if they're wrong, the greater community will point that out. Spencer, Singer and McIntyre (among others) practice this way; Jones, Mann, Schmidt et al have not. I do read RealClimate and some of the other pro-AGW sites but they strike me as more partisan hacksites than Climate Audit or Watts Up With That if you get past the comments. Climate Audit at least puts up links to websites in both camps including RealClimate, Revkin's dot Earth, Connolley and Tamino. Jeff Id at The Air Vent is a bit more strident but he does put up more "facts" (as opposed to allegations or character assassinations) than Schmidt at Real Climate. Let's face it, a lot of the comments on any site are posted by some very emotional people. The difference is that the primary posters at Climate Audit or Watts Up With That ask legitimate questions about data, put forward analyses of data, etc. while Schmidt and the posters at RealClimate will get huffy or put up a strawman or red herring argument. I'd almost think Schmidt was trying to be funny with the "trust me, I'm a scientist" bit (was it Dan Akroyd or Bill Murray in Ghostbusters?) or the way he relies on someone like Ben Santer as "an independent view". I also note Mann wrote an editorial in the Washington Post. I'll refrain from editorial comment on his essay but read it yourself along with the pertinent emails. Hansen also posted an essay called "The Temperature of Science" -- I personally found it unpersuasive after watching him for the past 20 years but YMMV. Anyway, as I said, read it all for yourself. I purposely put out subjects and sources people could search out themselves so they can judge for themselves. I think most of us on this thread are fairly intelligent and willing to form opinions based on sound rational thought and have tried to act accordingly. I try very hard not to use terms like "alarmist" or "denier", opting for "proponent" or "skeptic" instead.

vol_scouter -- I've decided to quit mudwrestling with the pig but this article http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html is a fascinating insight into how Santer, Jones et al manipulated the normal peer review processes. These kind of machinations as a part of "science" are new to me but then I've never had to bother with publication -- we just analyze and solve problems and move on. Stuff like this are why I moved from the cautiously skeptical camp to extremely skeptical. It would be astounding to me that they've been able to pull this off for so long if it wasn't for the fact and the way they control the data. That's one thing that the Climategate e-mails really opened my eyes on -- just how much they controlled and to what lengths they were willing to go to push the AGW agenda. It's really rather astounding given the basic scientific process is supposed to be completely open -- give all your code and data so others can recreate your work. This I think is the difference between Climategate and Cold Fusion. The Cold Fusion guys really thought they were on to something. They put everything out and then questions started popping up because physical chemists couldn't replicate their results. Mann, Jones et al wouldn't provide code or processes and are willing to destroy the data rather than give it out -- I've never heard of anything like that before!

Merlyn, if you don't understand that willfully - skewing data - picking minority data selectively because it fits with your predetermined hypothesis - altering historical data - gaming the peer review process to ensure friendly reviews for your hypothesis and negative reviews for opponents constitutes a hoax in scientific circles then there is nothing any of us can do to remove the blinders you've put on. It's your own ideological fault if you don't understand that intentionally pushing fraudulent data and fraudulent analyses is a hoax -- most of the rest of us with real scientific, engineering or analytic backgrounds can see it. Even AGW proponents like Judith Curry are very uncomfortable with what the East Anglia e-mails have revealed. As we've said before, the e-mails show things like Briffa recounting all the problems with Jones' and Mann's analyses TEN YEARS AGO -- then agreeing to keep his concerns quiet to avoid diluting the message. Schneider advocated getting any signature they could for their "scientists petition" because in the end, the media would only report numbers and a few prominent names. It doesn't matter if they perpetrated this hoax for money (Jones alone has received roughly $20M in academic grants because of his prominence in promoting AGW), ego/fame (Mann's career shot up like a rocket since his first "hockeystick" graph even after it was debunked) or some sense of being a savior (Hansen has been near-religious in his zealotry from the start). Clinton could probably keep dancing around this fraud ("it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is") but the fraud in this is becoming ever more apparent. Hmm.... and here I was going to ignore the whinnying ...

I think you have to use your best judgment on the particular scenario. Was the requirement change significant? Does the Scout still know the material? Some people say a partial from summer camp is good forever. I do spot checks -- if they don't seem to know the material they have two choices: redo it all with me or find another counselor who will accept the partial. My boys (and the troop committee) know that my signature on a blue card means I think the boy has DONE the badge requirements and KNOWS the material. Having said that, I won't get worked up if the changed requirements are functionally the same as the old ones.

Well, it appears some horses just won't drink no matter how many times you lead them to the well so it would be best to just ignore their whinnying which is what I'll do. For the rest of the True Believers who are willing to at least check the science, I'll suggest these lines of inquiry to start: - Effect of the geomagnetic field on cloud formation and aerosols in the upper atmosphere - Associated effect on the geomagnetic field (above) from solar flares and geomagnetic storms - Data sourcing to the GISS, GHCN and CRU - Briffa's Yamal tree ring studies - Selective mixture of data on Mann's hockey stick chart (reused by IPCC until Climategate surfaced) - Changes to IPCC reports AFTER peer review - Selective use of Antarctic monitoring station data - Urban heat island effects - Selective use of satellite data - Strategic misuse of the peer review process by Jones, Mann, Wigley et al - Principal component analysis (especially as applied to dendroclimatology) By the way, don't bother using Wikipedia as a source although you might use it as a starting point to get to other sources. There is a group of activists at WP who maintain tight editorial control on anything or anyone associated with AGW (pro or con) -- look up William Connolley and Kim D. Petersen. Sources frequented by skeptics will include (in no particular order) Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That) Steven McIntyre (Climate Audit) Dr. Roy Spencer Roger Pielke, Sr. Roger Pielke, Jr. (Jr specializes more in science policy while Sr is a climatologist -- note that Jr isn't a skeptic per se but he is very troubled by the actions of the Mann/Jones/Briffa/Hansen cabal) Warwick Hughes Jeff Id (The Air Vent) Sources frequented by AGW proponents include Gavin Schmidt (Real Climate) Ben Santer William Connolley Jim Hansen Michael Mann Phil Jones Keith Briffa I presume no one is dumb enough to try to cite Al Gore.

OGE, I spoke of him doing some research and reading since he claimed I hadn't presented any data on the hoax when in fact the very first paragraph of what I posted had tons. Mention of his posterior orifice was perhaps a bit of a reaction to his persistent and seemingly intentional obtuseness but you're right, it would not be acceptable in Debate class. Merlyn, you still haven't addressed the point that none of what we are laying out requires a conspiracy of thousands. I pointed out for you that many of the "thousands" don't even have any expertise in the causal physics, that the data being used to push this bizarre hoax traces to a handful of zealots who refuse to provide access to the raw data, processing methods, etc. Your strident defense of the AGW hypothesis underlies all you wrote including the specious request to talk about CO2 levels when it's not clear you even understand what the levels are, potential sources, magnitude of overall effect, etc. You can sneeringly talk about us "experts" and ask about the color of the sky all you want (it's a pale gray here but we're anticipating snowfall tonight), I've followed this debate for well over 20 years. I've given you citations, specific instances of data manipulation, etc. and all I've seen from you are vague references to "idiocy". Please go on.

I think the main thing that would change would be the rules and chaperoning for overnight activities. Actually, when I think about it, I would want at least one female leader with me on ANY troop activity to help with first aid incidents. America has a far more litigious society than Canada or other countries. We would probably have to redesign some of our training programs -- the fact of the matter is that teenage boys are easily distracted and we'd have to take that into account. I would be far more inclined to extend an olive branch to GSA toward planning combined activities but allow us to keep appropriate distances when needed than to make BSA officially co-ed.

Merlyn, instead of repeating myself, I'll direct your attention to rereading my first paragraph for my 02:05:09 post. Plenty in there about the hoax including Briffa's cherry-picked Yamal data, recent "homogenizing" of historical temperature records to create or increase a warming trend, etc. You want measurements? There's plenty of them in the raw satellite data, raw global monitoring station data, etc. There's also CO2 in the geologic record -- up to three times present day measurements albeit with entirely different global ecosystems. Try going through Dr. Roy Spencer's presentation at the AGU last week: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/cloud-feedback-presentation-for-fall-2009-agu-meeting/ or the adjustments at Darwin Zero: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/#more-14358 In the last roughly 50 years, the records at Mauna Loa have gone from 320 to 390 ppm. I would note that Kilauea has been smoking for over 25 of those 50 years and there's a "new" submarine volcano going off the coast of Hawaii although the claim at RealClimate.org is that ML measurements have trended consistently with other worldwide measurements. I haven't got access to those other measurements so really can't say although other claims at RealClimate about data consistency haven't really panned out. I'll let you get down to doing some research and reading before speaking out of your posterior orifice again ... (This message has been edited by HICO_Eagle)

Eagle92, that's why I prefer promoting and highly encouraging courses that will help fill the holes in the trainee's knowledge -- but not making things mandatory. One of our most active fathers is already a very experienced manager, he knows leadership, management, training, etc. What he needs are outdoor skills -- IOLS or the old SMF would be perfect for him. He could also use the TCC training so he knows what's expected of him or how to solve some of the problems that come his way. On the other hand, he works 12 hours days and many weekends -- I would rather deal with his incomplete knowledge than lose him over some training mandate. I started Scouting over 30 years ago, read the 6th edition BS Handbook before I even joined Cubs, got the train-the-trainer and unit leadership stuff over my military career, etc. What I could use would be refreshers on current first aid thinking (I notice BSA training material hasn't kept up with current thoughts about not needing to do artificial respiration when performing CPR), skills I lack (e.g., chainsaw use), etc. All of this would be better solved IMNSHO by laying out a course outline of OPTIONAL courses with an explanation of the target audience and benefits. For example, "IOLS is intended to provide basic outdoor leadership knowledge and skills for those who are new to the BSA outdoor program. This course will cover the basic outdoor requirements all Scouts need on their journey to first class such as ....". Sell the course based on the fact that it will cover things the adult knows s/he doesn't have but don't mandate it unless it is one of a FEW easily done courses for legal coverage like YPT. If National had implemented these mandates 30 years ago, my troop would probably have folded. It was a small troop but roughly 25% of us made Eagle despite the adults' official training deficiencies. I appreciate the fact that we had some adults willing to devote ANY time keeping us and the program going.

More nonsense from National which I'm afraid will cost us volunteers when we need them the most. Instead of H/W rules, they should be using performance guidelines -- e.g., able to hike 5/10/20 miles unassisted in 2/4/8 hours or able to be carried by any four Scouts participating on trip, etc. As was pointed out, mass is mass -- that 12 year old Scout isn't going to be any happier about carrying 300 pounds of muscle than 280 pounds of fat. I love Scouting but I am really getting annoyed by this profusion of dictates from National.

"I'll see your good reason for not allowing gay males to be scout leaders with the recent story of a female Scouter in Illinois caught in a sexual relationship with a Scout, and raise with the statistic that 95% of all child molesters are straight men. I guess that leaves only lesbians as potential Scout leaders from now on." Assuming for the sake of argument that your statistic is correct, that's a good reason to not have male leaders for GSA units or male coaches for girls athletic teams. The child molesters BSA must worry about are predominantly homosexual or bisexual by definition which makes your hypothesis (only lesbians can be potential Scout leaders) invalid by induction. Of course, there's a huge looming catch of how (or why) you would establish that male leader ISN'T bisexual but the pro-homosexual arguments try to make this more complicated than it is.

As others have stated, it's pretty clear the patches should be touching. I've never left space between the council shoulder patch and unit numerals -- generally don't bother with the veteran unit bar although we are going to put it on the special Centennial patches I'm having made (integrated council / troop numerals all in the classic white-on-red).

I won't go into too much detail because I'm a privacy nut but I have degrees and years of experience in "hard" science and engineering. My CV isn't germane here -- my points are either factual and cogent (they are) or you can offer a sound reasoned rebuttal (you haven't yet). Just don't try to argue science with the equivalent of trying to pit the NYC phone book on a balance scale against A Brief History of Time or Halliday & Resnick. Most real scientists and engineers know it's dangerous to step outside their domains of expertise. Schneider and Gore didn't care about that -- you don't seem to either. It doesn't take a conspiracy of thousands either -- when you do the data traces, you find most of the AGW tree ring and temperature slope data coming from a handful of sources. Worse, you find those sources won't tell you which data sets they use, how they selected them, how they processed them, etc. Professional statisticians have managed to recreate the results of Briffa, Jones, Mann et al but only with very selective cherry picking of data that supported a predetermined AGW scenario and dubious application of standard statistical techniques. GISS hasn't or won't explain the "homogenization" begun in 2007 which altered the temperature records for 1900-1950 to lower temps (and conveniently get rid of the ca. 1930 warmth) and increase temps for 1950 onward which increased the slope or actually CREATED a warming trend for the 20th century. There are numerous overlays available on the web showing station data captured prior to 2007 and the "same" station data from GISS or GHCN after the "homogenization". Briffa himself expressed TEN YEARS AGO most of the doubts voiced by skeptics now -- then agreed to keep quiet about his doubts so as not to weaken the AGW argument. Probably the biggest problem AGW proponents have here is that skeptics like McIntyre or Spencer or Watt post their data and processes up for everyone to see and poke at -- peer review on steroids -- while Mann, Jones, Briffa et al have relied on a small incestuous cabal to "review" friendly papers and kill skeptical papers. They won't release data or processes even under FOIA request when the government has paid for that data or code. That's not Science -- but go ahead and argue that it is, I'll enjoy the show.

I hate to say this but I really think they need to get rid of the professional educators afflicting National. Heck, at this point, I'd be willing to get rid of all of National and rebuild it from the ground up with a Back-to-Basics approach. Most of what they produce is pap; I got nothing useful at all from the TDC last spring, very little from SMF years ago -- and the funny thing is that I love learning. The more mandatory they make courses -- especially ones I consider a waste of my time like IOLS -- the more resistant I will be toward taking them.

It's really funny that they obscured the actual Boy Scout in order to show the female Venturer. I'm rather offended by the design -- doesn't surprise me it was chosen by Secretary Geithner. I'd say immediately that I want 3-4 for myself and my nephews but that front design really bugs me.

Global Warming, maybe. Anthropogenic? No. Biggest scientific hoax of all time -- exceeding Piltdown Man at this point. I say this looking at it as a pure matter of physics, the specious computer modeling done by the AGW proponents (I've never seen any other discipline so willing to make extreme projections based on computer models sensitive to 1 percent variations when the input data is only known to within 5 percent), rampant fraud in the way they have "homogeneized" and cherry picked data worldwide (look at Briffa's selective use of 12 data sets of Yamal tree rings while ignoring 200 more appropriate data sets, CRU's selective preference for Russian temperature sets that show warming, unexplained massive "adjustments" made to historical data from stations worldwide starting approx Sep 2007 which increase or create a warming slope for the past 50-100 years, etc.). As a pure matter of physics, the amount of energy contained in solar storms impacting the Earth and the gaseous content in volcanic eruptions simply overwhelm manmade sources by orders of magnitude. Physics usually also requires concrete theories with at least a modicum of evidence for a causal mechanism. Allegations based purely on statistical linkage are normally only accepted in the "soft" sciences and even then the soft sciences don't usually ignore things like trying to use proxies which fail to approximate the most recent and reliable 40 years of measurements. The documents are more revealing about the "science" than the e-mail but the e-mails themselves show a shocking perversion of the peer review process and communal willingness to hide or distort data, analysis, even their own concerns about each others' papers (see Briffa's comments in 1998) in pursuit of the politically desired goals. I see Merlyn is doing exactly what Schneider hoped for which is jump into a numbers game without any regard for the population of those numbers (a large number of the "thousands" of "scientists" cited by Al Gore weren't even involved in physics or chemistry or geology at all much less in climate research). I was relatively agnostic 20 years ago, perhaps mildly skeptical but open minded. What I have seen over the last 20 years -- even more so the last 2 months -- has shifted me to being extremely skeptical. If I had done what Mann, Jones, Briffa, Wigley, et al have done, I'd have been failed out my classes and program -- and deservedly so. I still support continued research in this area because Real Science is never a bad thing -- but AGW to date hasn't been Real Science.

I don't think there are quite as many gays among us as Gern and Merlyn would have us believe so yes, the ratio WOULD go up if the ban were lifted. Unfortunately, you have to treat tenting, showering, etc. arrangements based on the POSSIBILITY of hanky-panky, not the probability. This isn't an anti-gay reaction, I have exactly the same reaction to the idea of inviting girls along on our camping trips (female adult volunteers are another matter). Oh and to address Gern's question about adults, 2 of the last 3 troops I've assisted in have had official policies addressing adults engaging in carnal activities on troop outings (one troop didn't have any mothers interested in participating in the outings at all). It's just not appropriate on a Scout outing, hetero- or homosexual, youth or adult.

Didn't wade through the 9 pages of discussion but I think there'd be a lot of fundamental changes -- most for the worse (I take issue with Gern's statement that it would be better for BSA in the long run but you wanted to discuss changes to the programs politely so I'll leave it at that). From a youth protection standpoint, you'd have to treat homosexual youth tenting together like a mixed heterosexual couple -- forbidden -- so how would you handle it? Allow girls in as well so you can have the homosexual boy tent with the heterosexual girl? I'll presume that for some reason the boys won't have an incentive to claim to be homosexual just so they can get a female tentmate ... The group shower or changing facilities? We're going to have to revamp them to allow more privacy which also means allowing more time to get all the boys through the shower/changing rooms. A lot of camps have already put in single shower stalls with doors or curtains but not all. We'd probably have to be much more careful in things like First Aid classes. I already do my hands-on demonstrations on myself or another adult but we might have to think about the boy-on-boy practices. We might have to alter the buddy system somehow so there aren't any "couples" wandering off. Things were bad enough when there was a Girl Scout camp 3 miles downhill from the Boy Scout camp ... In fact, we'd probably have to reassess YPT somewhat when you consider the case of the 16-17 year old open homosexual doing 1-on-1 counseling or training with a new scout. When it comes to homosexual adult male leaders, one could argue to treat them like heterosexual adult female leaders but statistically male pederasts have been more of a problem than female pederasts (until recently anyway). The situation is equivalent IMHO to the heterosexual male adult wanting to coach the girls' volleyball or girls' basketball teams. On the other hand, we've now had YPT guidelines for years because of past incidents so perhaps adults would be easier to handle than boys.

This is an example of a course I'd like to take. I've never had need to use a chainsaw but I'd like to get the instruction so I have options. Again though, I see the dreaded "need to have" phrase. So is this yet another mandatory course even if said individual (unlike me) has 20+ years of experience using a chainsaw?

The first thing you need to do to create a "training culture" is make the training worthwhile for the attendee. Not mandatory, personally worthwhile, something they will feel they learned something from, not something they get done with and think, "okay, checked that block." Making it mandatory doesn't culturize it any more than making alcohol illegal got it out of the culture during Prohibition. If anything, more mandatory training will just drive more people out -- something Scouting DOESN'T need. Demonstrate a personal benefit from the training course and you'll have waiting lists for the courses. This is the big fallacy I see in both Scouting training/education and a lot of military training/education. The professional educators seem to think everything would be solved by just making their courses mandatory, the erstwhile students think things would be better by getting rid of the wasted drains on their time. Truth -- as usual -- lies between.

This was in San Francisco? Well obviously the young lad should have told them he needed the knife to trim his medicinal marijuana or cut the duct tape for his S&M play with the adult teacher after school ... they probably would have not only let him go but made him a poster child for that ...

Dean, I'm going to disagree with you a little here. I have always felt that the reason BSA requires multiple signatures is PRECISELY as a check and balance so that one or two individuals couldn't ramrod an undeserving Scout through. The BOR provides a check and balance on the SM for all rank advancement (or should). In the case of the Eagle candidate, every signature required is a potential point to call out something wrong with the application. Having said that, I stand my my original response -- you should look at the total Scout because none of us is perfect and his "atheism" may not be all that that phrase implies. I'd probably sign it if he displays reverence despite claiming to be atheist but I'd invoke my conscience if I felt he really fell short of the practicing the Scout Oath and Law in daily life. I've seen a handful of undeserving Scouts be given Eagles (and yes, I choose those words intentionally) because no one wanted to make waves or be the "bad guy" who stepped forward to say the Emperor had no clothes. It happens but I wouldn't want to be a party to it.

I would bring it up with both the committee as a matter of conscience and the District Advancement Chair asking if there was an alternate way to submit the application without your signature. That should be a bit of a red flag to Council but this is a quandary. This situation seems to be one that is enforced on a local basis -- yes, a Scout is Reverent but different units or locales apply different standards to this point. Bear in mind no one is perfect -- how does this Scout apply the Scout Law to his life other than this point? Personally, I was at the "questioning" stage of life when I earned my Eagle -- I believed in a Higher Power but was uncertain about my church (frankly, I've gone back -- even beyond -- that stage lately as I believe "my" church has engaged in increasing heresies over the past 10 years). Regardless of his professed atheism, does he respect the idea of a Higher Power?