Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Global warming

2007-03-12T01:39:09Z

Thisisausername: as mentioned in the Talk page, neither 'global warming' nor 'climate change' mean the measures proposed to prevent them.

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations.

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is unanimity..<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

== The Liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref> The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref> They are also trying to silence the critics, as outlined in the first part of this section.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

== Conflicting data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Pro-global warming scientists claim that the record freezing temps are caused by global warming. citation needed

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the scam by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-11T21:47:57Z

Thisisausername:

== Biased Line ==

"Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him"

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Points ==

"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-11T21:43:42Z

Thisisausername:

Global warming

2007-03-11T21:19:33Z

Thisisausername: /* Global warming advocacy sites */ they're certainly websites, whether or not they're biased/false/whatever.

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earths' temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Therefore, the phrase has also come to apply to
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations.

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is unanimity..<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, insteasd of hitch-hiking everywhere like the [[hippie]] he is. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than some boring, obscure climatologist with no experience at public speaking who we can ignore conveniently?
Furthermore, Gore exhaled molecules of [[Carbon Dioxide]] while lecturing on tour, proving that he is a hypocrite who can be ignored without loss.

== The scam and liberal bias ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, since the [[Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy]] will only provide grants for pro-Global Warming research.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. Note that this does not apply to climatologists employed by oil companies, (the main source of the dissenting viewpoint), who are supporting [[capitalism]], making them unimpeachably objective and accurate.

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many experts call global warming a big scam to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears to be a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others, unless we want to take actions to avoid it devastating the planet we live on. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

== Conflicting data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, unless you accept the notion that massive disruption of existing climate patterns can lead to colder weather occurring. (For example, if warming seawater disrupts the [[Gulf Stream]], Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, when we didn't have world-wide records, weather satallites or supercomputers, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the scam by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies. Thank heaven nothing like that could happen on Conservapedia!

==References==
<references/>

Boy Scouts of America

2007-03-11T20:41:09Z

Thisisausername: edited using [http://www.scout.org/en]

The Boys Scouts of America was founded on February 8, 1910 by James West. The movement began two years earlier in England, where Lieutenant-General [[Sir Robert Baden-Powell]] founded it. He had been a hero of the South African Boer Wars.

Today the Scout Movement is the largest voluntary youth group in the world. Its membership exceeds 28 million, counting boys and girls. Most (95 of 155 National Scout Organisations) are now mixed at at least some ages.

Baden-Powell wrote in a pamphlet "Scouting & Christianity" (1917): "Scouting is nothing less than applied Christianity." Since then, various Scouting Organisations have been founded for members of other religions, or which are not specific to any religion.

Here is one version of the Scout Oath:

<blockquote>On my honor, I will do my best: To do my duty to God and my
country, and to obey the Scout Law, To help other people at all
times. To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally
straight.</blockquote>

Many presidents have praised and addressed the Boy Scouts over the years. President Calvin Coolidge said this to a group of Boy Scouts in 1924:

<blockquote>The three fundamentals of scouthood are reverence for nature ... reverence for law ... and reverence for God. It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Doubters do not achieve. ... No man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is part of an unending plan.</blockquote>

In designing the Scouting program, Baden-Powell drew ideas from the Japanese warrior's ''bushido'' code, on educational methods of the African Zulu tribes. on the Victorian "ragged schools" movement, and the educational methods of Montessori.<ref>Baden-Powell, ''Scouting for Boys"[http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0192805479&id=LdtVxcFpWFQC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&ots=j1TxsQhuis&dq=baden-powell+scouting+bushido&sig=6nhFG3I_TD7AB0mP7lzSHebCT7c#PPA44,M1]</ref><ref>[http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-bp.htm Robert Baden-Powell as an Educational Innovator</ref>

==Controversy==

As a result of their strong adherence to traditional Christian morality, the Boy Scouts of America have come under criticism for their policy regarding [[homosexuals]]. As stated in a press release from the organization:<ref>http://www.scouting.org/media/press/2002/020206/index.html</ref>

::The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to local option choices.

This has led to several high profile lawsuits, such as the one brought by the ACLU of San Diego<ref>http://www.aclusandiego.org/boy_scouts/boy_scouts_082800.html</ref>, which proposes that the discriminatory practices of the organization should make them ineligible for the use of public funds or public lands.

Prohibition of homosexual scout leaders is not universal within the BSA, however. The Massachusetts Minuteman Council, for example, adopted a bylaw in 2001 barring exclusion of anyone on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. The bylaw, which resembles the U. S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, permits homosexuals to lead troops so long as they do not discuss their sexual orientation. Some other councils have similar policies.<ref>[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20010802/ai_n13920546 Mass. Scouts permit gay leaders], Chicago Sun-Times, Aug 2, 2001</ref>

==References==
<references/>