packsaddle

See, the thing is...there's that pesky part at the very bottom of the Eagle application that reads: "EDITIONS OF THIS APPLICATION PREVIOUS TO THE xxxx REVISION SHOULD NOT BE USED." Just prior to the 1999 rule change, the boy who had earned Life and was almost ready to advance to Eagle, who had completed everything but the six months in a POL, suddenly had to earn the Personal Fitness merit badge and no longer needed the Safety merit badge that he had earned as an Eagle requirement. The only reason this kind of thing doesn't happen for other ranks is because WE have the latitude to apply the sensible approach that has been discussed here. But where National sets the check-off and does not allow previous editions of the application, I still see a problem. I have actually seen this happen, and not just once. The boy was confronted with the change so he delayed advancement until he completed the NEW requirement. Ed, I think this might qualify as 'adding to the requirements.' Of course, I might have missed something here. Perhaps the boys' delay was needless. Someone please clarify.

"A gay scout would have to be told, in no uncertain terms, that a scout troop is not Club Med..." Huh? What the heck does that mean? You completely lost me with the Club Med thing and why does this only apply to gay scouts? Please explain "...in no uncertain terms..."

This is actually a nice ethics problem. I resolve it by viewing the agreement to begin a MB as an agreement to the terms, including the requirements. I take this from the similar situation that exists for most colleges I've been associated with. When a student applies and is accepted into a degree program, all parties are bound by the degree requirements that are detailed in the catalog at that time. I have seen this applied in many cases where the requirements changed later but students still graduated under the old requirements. It is fair to the student and to the institution (although it can cause headaches for advisors who have to keep up with multiple sets of conditions). I also note that to me, this is the conservative approach...conserving the original conditions until the process is completed. I view merit badges the same way. Since the counselor has the final say on whether the boy has completed the requirements or not, it is fair to both the boy and the counselor to apply the requirements that existed when the boy started the process, rather than to change things in mid-course. It IS possible to change things, however, and I do this with my courses occasionally due to sicknesses or bad weather. In every case the changes are unanimously agreed on by the students or else we retain the old conditions. In the case of a merit badge, if the boy agrees to switch to the new requirements then it is OK if I apply them to him. The ethical situation is similar to a contractual agreement (and here I note that I am only offering my simplistic view of contracts and not a view from legal expertise). Once a contract is made, it is not fair to either party to change the rules of the contract without their consent, especially if one or both of them object to the changes. Forcing such changes on someone, in my book, amounts to a deception by whoever is forcing it on the parties...in this case it would be the boy and his merit badge advisor who are the victims of the deception. But this is my simplistic solution. I could be wrong. Here's the thing: I would also apply this to other advancement, including Eagle. And I know that BSA does not apply this approach in those cases.

While the situation may be flawed the central question that the article asks is valid and relevant to the second point of the Scout Law. What are the limits of loyalty?

OGE, While Atticus was an exemplary lawyer, keep in mind the cultural forces from his society that he was fighting. And for those who don't know the book, Scout was his daughter. Mary Badham (who played the part of Scout) has visited here on several occasions to talk about the film, the moral, and of course, Gregory Peck, to whom she continues to refer as 'Atticus'. She's still just lovely. I have to say that while I am not an economist, I am sympathetic with the mistrust of the cap and trade approach. I have already seen some of the deceptions and I worry that BA and Beavah might be completely correct about it. It looks like fertile ground for the likes of con artists and stock brokers. I'm still studying this though and don't have a sufficient understanding to condemn the idea across the board - there may be merit, in theory at least. BadenP, I'm hoping that was tongue-in-cheek and your mention of 'killing' all those folks was just code for preventing them from having controlling power over the rest of us. I'd settle for keeping the honest ones and putting the crooks in jail. I completely agree with Beavah about these things being conservative issues in the true conservative sense. Well said. As for degrees, I actually DO have degrees in fields (water resources and ecology) that directly relate to the climate issue. They have allowed me gain the expertise, training, and experience to understand how much I still need to know before I feel comfortable with generalities and long-range predictions. On the other hand, I am completely unqualified to offer legal or political advice. And, evidently from the balance in my 401K, unqualified for investment advice as well.

We're all ready for Saturnalia! Merry Saturnalia to all!

Eagle92, glad to read about your thick skin - I grant that the stereotype exists. So also don't forget about Snuffy Smith, Little Abner, Dukes of Hazard, Beverly Hillbillies, Sweet Home Alabama, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, Forest Gump, Cletus in the Simpsons, most of the books by Pat Conroy, not to mention much of Faulkner, the scathing words of Mencken, and on and on. You can find similar stuff about other regions as well but not as much of it...as you probably understand. We DO provide such rich material to write about. So I note that it doesn't help much for Southerners to willfully and proudly support the stereotype. Brent, the severe snow storm that hit the East Coast recently does not contradict the underlying mechanisms that support the climate predictions. By itself it is not evidence against the idea.

Twocubdad, our height measurement is posed in terms of a practical problem. A large tree must be cut. It is near several buildings. How far away from the buildings must it be to clear them if it falls that direction? If the tree grows one foot per year, how long can we delay cutting the tree? The 'building' is a cardboard box. Sometimes we throw in a power line (piece of rope on the ground). They have to measure the distance to the building and the height of the tree. If they get it wrong we crush the box for effect. If they get it right, they get the initials in their book. After we eat we recycle the 'buildings'.

Yeah, we allow anything in the animal kingdom. We allow bird calls, feathers, tracks, scat, fur, trails, and actual animals. It's pretty easy around here because we have a lot of diversity and the boys have usually acquired some of these skills before they arrive in the troop.

There is a lot of topography in our area so for boys this young we decided that it was important to decrease the probability that they'd get lost in the exercise. So I set up a course in a large tract of property that allows frequent long-distance views so we could actually SEE them a lot of the time, assuming they were on course. I set it up both of the ways described in the opening message. The exercise using the marked map is fairly easy, as noted, because they do have landmarks to help orient them. The most challenging course is the one where they have to find the correct points using only compass bearings and estimates of distances. They are given numbered flags to leave where they think the points are and there is a final destination point near the origin. If they do everything right they end up within a reasonable distance from the actual target. It took me about two days to lay this out using surveying tools and then I had other leaders check it using their gps units. After we're confident about the layout it's easy to transpose it to a GIS system and modify the headings and distances for any range of difficulty. (I haven't tried Google Earth for this yet but I bet it would work) If they make an error near the end it isn't so bad but if that error is at the beginning it seems to be magnified as they take about a dozen changes in direction and distance through the course. So we try to check them after the first couple of segments to make sure they're not going to end up in a lake or something. Going through the whole thing takes about an hour if they know what they're doing. We start first thing in the morning and they do an initial run-through to demonstrate to themselves what it's like to get it badly wrong. Then we swap the course directions (there are multiple course sequences) and run it with better skills. By the end of the morning they're pretty good at it. The troop supplies pizza for lunch and if needed we work some more in the afternoon. The height stuff is really easy so that only takes a short time at the end.

GHB, yeah I noted the same thing about that document. I also suspect bias, although as you note, in a 'best-foot-forward' kind of way. These kinds of documents are almost always biased to some extent. The objective view is often restricted to the primary literature, and sometimes not even there. "Calm down, breathe deep. Let good scientists do their job, puzzle things out, debate things and deal with da occasional bad egg." You know, I have mixed feelings on this. I tend to agree, especially on that 'bad egg' part. (If some climate scientists HAVE been dishonest, as suggested by some, then once they have been clearly identified as such by their peers, their careers are over permanently - I'm currently studying the far-reaching effects and outcome of the Lysenko affair as an example of this) However, I also enjoy the people who are willing to lay it on the line to try to poke holes in ideas, no matter who the critics are. I think that the ones who are truly honest about their criticism and who are willing to honestly consider and admit their own fallibility actually do us a service through their willingness to point at the occasional naked emperor. The ones who engage in deception in order to promote or attack an idea are destructive to progress. I wish they'd just devote their attention to retail marketing or something along those lines "...would you like regular or extra crispy?". Edited a typo: (and I just made myself incredibly hungry...headed to KFC!!!)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

GHB, I think you can find the answer to your question here: http://www.awea.org/pubs/documents/FAQ2002%20-%20web.PDF According to the studies I've read, wind energy not only pays back all that invested energy but does it in a shorter time than most other technologies. If sited correctly the payback time can be measured in months. This kind of analysis is sometimes referred to as 'energy return on investment' or back in the 1970's the EPA referred to it as 'net energy analysis', which is the term that sticks in my mind. But the idea is the same - account for all of the energy invested in manufacturing the machine (from mining the ore to drilling the holes), marketing, transportation, installation, operation and maintenance, and then disposal afterwards - and comparing that total energy investment to the expected output to see if there is a net gain. There are a lot of variables, however so if, for example, I invested in a wind turbine and put it in my backyard where wind is very rarely available, I would probably never get a net return. But put that same turbine where it's capacity factor is, say, 30% or greater and it could 'pay' for itself very quickly. Of course there still are unknown variables that engineers are trying to overcome using models. These include things like the ability to withstand storms (hurricanes). We won't really know some of the answers to those questions until there is a reality test. But wind energy, if designed right, is a pretty good thing. Me, with my perpetual doldrums, I've invested in geothermal, using well water as an energy exchange medium. Next on the list is solar hot water - that one is probably going to save me a bundle over the long run.

Vol, I would add that because the federal government did not open Yucca Mountain on time, those taxes are now being repaid to the industry. At least that is what my industry contacts have informed me. They are rather proud of their pile of spent fuel, anticipating reprocessing in the future. And getting their money back to boot.

Gern, you're right, what was I thinking? I am reminded of the state legislator on a committee providing oversight for the quality of science education who said, "The Bible is the only textbook we need." If only he and like-minded people would reject all medical technologies not mentioned in the Bible....but there's that 'selective pressure' thing again - absent from the population for the time being. Back to an old comment on textbooks: I think the biology text by Miller and Levine is fair and objective. I'd be interested in hearing evidence to the contrary. I mention this one because Miller was one of the primary witnesses at the Dover trial in which the creationist liars were pretty much destroyed by the evidence and a ruling by a Bush-appointed conservative judge. le Voyageur, the deed is done. Sorry. Might as well enjoy the show.

GHB, I actually had to google "confluence of spiritual power in Sedona" just in case I had missed something. Gad! There was even a photo...of Fred with Betty - and Dino! (he must have told Wilma he was out hiking on the AT) Thanks Skeptic, a good laugh is always welcome.

What the heck...according to snopes and other sources, the Sarah Palin 'quote' was a fabrication, perhaps for the purpose of satire. Are there really many people today who actually believe that dinosaurs and people existed at the same time?

HiLo, even my contacts in the nuclear industry admit (in careful whispers) that government regulation with regard to safety has probably been a good thing for both the public and the industry. Think about it, at Browns Ferry, all of the redundant safety system cables were run through the same conduit and some technician that industry selected to do the job, employing an industry-selected method (checking for leaks with a candle), set them on fire. That's the unregulated approach to minimizing costs. The regulations that resulted are a burden to some extent but because of tighter regulation you are less likely to encounter those kinds of bonehead actions in the future. I'd say that's a good thing. The issue of what to do with the spent fuel remains unresolved. I have to note that there is a difference between spent fuel and nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is material for which there is no further use and must be disposed of. Spent fuel is potentially quite a valuable resource. The small mountain of it that has been accumulating at nuclear power plants could, under different circumstances, become a 'gold mine' for the industry as well as a lifeline for the future. Stay tuned. Brent, creationism or intelligent design should stay out of SCIENCE classrooms...because they are not scientific ideas. But if people in comparative religion classrooms or perhaps social studies classrooms want to discuss these things, no problem. Are you saying that scientists are entering churches to mount attacks on your faith? That seems to be what you're claiming, and if so, I'm unaware of it. Perhaps some examples? Al Gore is not an authority on science. Period. This is one reason that I and others have argued with some success NOT to use his video in K-12 classrooms, even though it has been offered for free. There ARE objective ideas and evidence associated with issues affected by science. Those ideas and evidence are the things that students need to understand first, before they begin to try to unravel the tangled web of politics.

Heck, the deaths in coal mine disasters alone exceed the health impacts of nuclear power, not to mention acid rain, mine drainage, etc. You don't even have to invoke climate change. (I remind everyone that acid rain was viewed by the Reagan administration as just a myth, a political ploy by the Northeast to recapture jobs lost to the midwest, but I digress...Reagan also viewed AIDS as a gay problem, no need to do anything about THAT) "...Can't see where yeh can be a sound scientist and not agree that for the moment, nuclear is a necessary component of our energy future..." I can agree with this in a qualified manner. Nuclear IS here and it's going to stay. It is hugely profitable and it doesn't emit greenhouse gases other than those involved in producing the concrete and other materials, and the energy to build the plants in the first place. I remind everyone that the Savannah River Plant reactors where we generated the material to build the bombs that we had to have in case we needed to kill hundreds of millions of people in other countries....this vast nuclear complex got its operating electricity from an on-site coal-fired power plant. I think the nuclear industry should compete with other technologies on a level playing field (marketplace). My beef with the policy people is the games that are being played with regard to costs and benefits. Nuclear power receives a gargantuan subsidy. Other subsidies are offered to solar, etc. These subsidies effectively manipulate their ability to compete in the marketplace. This is very risky decision-making behavior because it risks promotion of technologies that do not provide the most benefit versus real cost (in energy terms). The profits that are shifted by these political decisions could be invested in real advances, identified in a free market. We already play games with the market to make huge profits from energy that is consumed for no purpose other than to shift energy demand, and in the process consume even more energy. In energy terms this is obscene. But it is good business in terms of dollars. I question whether this kind of thing is the best basis for policy decisions. If we were merely redistributing current wealth to play these political games (subsidies), that would be bad enough. But we're redistributing wealth that doesn't exist yet, from future generations, in order to promote lobbyist interests with very little attention to actual energetic costs and benefits. These decisions are being made in terms of dollars and not units of energy, and seemingly with little care about future generations. I am just a scientist. But my simplistic view of these things makes me recoil strongly at what seems to be a system of systematic lies. There ARE actual answers. Few if anyone in our national leadership seems to care enough to seek them, or heed them. Neither party.

Vol, what effect do you think there would be on the viability of nuclear power if the Price-Anderson Act was abolished and the industry had to assume all of the potential liability? Same as other forms of energy production. Do the math as well. How many nukes would it take to replace fossil fuels? For that matter without reprocessing spent fuel, how long do you think the nuclear fuel would hold out? Are you advocating restarting the fast breeders? Also, same comment as I made to John-in-KC: show me the electric tractors, electric fertilizer, and electric pesticides. Convince me. I'm open to evidence. I'd like to thank Brent for those passages from Ehrlich et al. I use some of the better ones in my spectacular-failures-to-predict lectures. My opening slide is one of those Popular Science covers from back in the 1950s in which we're all flying around and levitating through cities of the future, LOL. It's one of the reasons I refrain from similar speculations. Ehrlich was shameless. Fervent for sure, but shameless. Good for laughs. I feel much the same about the Book of Revelation. Brent, I'm not clear what you're saying about the age of the earth. Are you saying that the age of the earth is NOT a matter of interest for both science and religion? It seems clear that some people reject the scientific view on purely religious grounds. "my point was that in biology today, and to some degree in physics, opportunities are governed, NOT by scientific rigor or skill, but by groveling submission to the current PC notions." GHB, is this your opinion or do you have actual evidence? Perhaps you could be more specific. If you do have evidence, please share. What you just described does not occur in any department with which I've had interactions. le Voyageur, granted that chemical contaminants and similar things are widespread but I think you are overstating the effects. Fact is, this is the Faustian bargain that we've made. We have a technological needle in our vein and we wouldn't remove it even if we could. Moreover there are far greater things to worry about. Combining the recent prediction by the IEA that conventional oil will peak in 2020 with the kinds of predictions in the document called "Eating Fossil Fuel" - now that is something to cause fear, for those who get off on fear. One thing is for sure, though. In this and most other developed countries, we've been spared the kinds of selective pressures that could have acted on us, thanks to technology. If selective pressures ever do start to act in a significant way, it's going to be really interesting. "For some little bug is going to get you someday. Some little bug will creep behind you some day. Then he'll send for his bug friends And all your troubles they will end, For some little bug is gonna find you someday."

This species will not go extinct. There might be a substantial decrease in population size but the same adaptive abilities that allowed us to swarm out of Africa and over the planet in the geological blink of an eye will ensure that no matter how the climate changes, at least some of us will continue the line...perhaps in less comfort than many of us enjoy now. But if a really big object from space collides with earth, that might wipe the slate. Or maybe if the LHC, sometime next summer, does happen to synthesize a tiny black hole.... With regard to nukes, sorry but we've made that bargain already. We have them already and we're going to have more of them. Might as well learn to love it. Not too far from where I'm typing there is a stack (literally) of concrete containers that contains more spent fuel in one place than probably any other place on the planet. And it continues to pile higher and higher. Lovely. This is just one more burden that we've decided to leave to future generations. GHB, anyone who does not want to engage in actual science should not attempt it, degree or not. Especially when other endeavors such as engineering, psychology, politics, law, or economics beckon. Edited to address John-in-KC: Geothermal has significant problems that limit its application. Perhaps you are unaware of the recent closure of the plant in CA due to causing earthquakes. Also to mention the sparse distribution of those hot rocks near enough to the surface. With regard to wind, etc., these technologies will only be viable if in the course of their lifetime they can produce energy in excess of that required to produce them in the first place. This kind of critical analysis is being displaced by political and economic interests. Besides, I'd be interested in learning about the all-electric tractors, electric fertilizer, and electric pesticides. Most of us haven't the slightest idea how incredibly difficult it would be to replace fossil fuels. It is a void that invites fantasies and illusions, reminiscent of a religious faith.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"Human's are now a virus on this planet, and a massive die off of these invasive parasites would see huge global benefits for other species, and eco systems." A combination of "The World Without Us" and agent Smith's tirade to Morpheus, LOL. Virus or not, we're here and the option of the massive die off is not one many of us would willingly choose. I can't think of a less-likely group to concoct a massive global conspiracy than a bunch of scientists. We're highly trained in our specialties but most of us are insufficiently skilled and insufficiently dishonest to be able to pull of a conspiracy bigger than stealing reagents from the next lab. Anyone who has worked with massive numerical models understands the sources and behavior of uncertainty, especially if the model contains stochastic components (which the climate models do). Confidence diminishes rapidly the farther into the future the predictions. But as some of us have noted, the risks associated with the worst predictions are 'interesting'. This is one reason politics enters the picture...potential public consequences and interest. It is still quite possible to pursue science for its own sake. In fact I'd say that the majority do just that...it's one of the reasons they're not as visible as the few who like to be in front of the cameras. Yes, I know some 'true believers' with regard to climate change. It's troubling to me but scientists are human and susceptible to human error. I also am willing to acknowledge that they might be correct. Some of us do take them to task and the exchanges are outside public view so most of the time the public is unaware of them. I have not observed a single element of conspiracy or even coercion with regard to publications or data. On the contrary, there are instances where our ideas are very wrong...and it takes a while for us to reject them. (I actually pepper my lectures with these examples as 'cautionary tales' for the students) I hope this is the case for climate change but I have not seen evidence to reject the hypothesis in favor of the null. At the same time I'm not optimistic. I am certain that if we live long enough, most of us will know the actual answer (as Beavah mentioned). But I doubt that our political process will lend itself to the kinds of policies that lead to meaningful solutions. I think the most likely course, globally, is that we'll essentially do nothing about the problem even if we ALL become convinced that it is real. There is already a model for our behavior that leads me to this opinion: We KNOW what our fiscal irresponsibility will do to future generations and we ignore it. We have been ignoring it, now, for decades. And we will use similar thoughtless rationalizations to do nothing, essentially ignore, climate change...even if we all think it's real. GHB, if your son wants an advanced degree and if he's really as good as you say he is, HE should take the initiative and find something other than UGA. Believe me, there are plenty of better exciting, intellectually-challenging options. I say this to our best graduates, "now, for your own good, go somewhere else." On the other hand, if he is unwilling to question his own ideas or put his convictions to independent scrutiny or test, maybe UGA is good.

Gern, I stand corrected, thanks.

To answer Trevorum, I'm not sure about Buddhism or Scientology (although I like to poke fun at Scientology), and I defer to Dan with regard to Wicca. But I am certain that consumerism, capitalism and environmentalism (at least part of it) meet those criteria. Consumerism is, of course, strongly related to capitalism, perhaps a logical outcome, so the 'unseen hand' takes care of the supernatural part. The ritualized behaviors are rather obvious and the behavioral rules are, well, practically the definition of these 'isms'. Environmentalism as practiced by lay persons with little actual formal understanding of environmental structures or processes seems to be susceptible to beliefs in mysterious forces that have supernatural characteristics. The ritualized behaviors are sometimes comical but they're there. And the behavioral rules...all I need to invoke is 'Birkenstocks', etc. or maybe stupid floppy hats made of recycled hemp (you get the idea). So environmentalism at one extreme could be considered as a rather weak or confused religion for some of those afficionados. However, I have serious doubts that there is any risk of this last group infiltrating the United Nations and successfully replacing the known world religions with what they have to offer. But the attempt sure would be interesting...(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Kudu, that's your cue if you're paying attention. As I remember it was "Religion of the Woods" aka "Religion of the Backwoods". I also remember I kind of liked the idea.

You want to see reverence? Present a troop of cold, hungry scouts with a warm campfire, a big pot of hot chocolate, and a Dutch oven full of hot, fresh peach cobbler. That's when you'll see reverence. Heck, I'm about to drop down to my knees in prayer just thinking about it.