Any effort to reduce sexual harassment in the military needs to recognize that some men have never learned to adequately control their sex drives. Unfortunately, the military may need many of these men for their military related skills. Winning wars requires using men, and women, who don't always play well with others. Thus, the military may need to find a way to reduce sex assaults while keeping those who have trouble controlling their zippers.

The military has some experience in this area because of personnel who occasionally "forget" who they are supposed to fight and who they are not supposed to fight. 99% of the time these men are valuable soldiers, sailors,etc. The military needs people who are willing to fight, but it needs to discourage assaults against other American military personnel by punishing their misconduct..

At one point I was considering suggesting that sex assault cases be turned over to the civilian court system. Then I remembered that the civilian justice system is so ineffective in this area that many women feel reporting sexual assaults is a waste of time. Conviction in civil courts requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and many cases are just he said - she said with no actual other evidence to support the claim of rape..

The military may actually have a superior ability to handle these cases because it has alternative ways to deal with rule breakers. When I was in Vietnam we had a man from New York City assigned to our post office who had gotten lucky and arrived at a time when we needed a "warm body" to perform miscellaneous duties. He had never driven any kind of vehicle, so of course the army made him a truck driver. Shortly before I left Vietnam he was caught smoking pot. Instead of sending him to Long Binh Jail, the army simply reassigned him to an infantry company.

The civilian courts only options for punishment are probation, imprisonment or fines. The military can reassign someone to another unit, reduce an individual's rank or make it harder for him to get future promotions. The military could have some male only units that men who can't control their zippers could be reassigned to.

The military should change the way investigations are handled. Male officers have been having problems maintaining a proper relationship with those who claim to have been assaulted. The military could eliminate this problem by having female officers investigate assaults against female personnel.

The military can limit sexual stimulation by providing men and women with separate living areas. If men and women cannot be assigned to separate buildings some type of partition, even if its only some type of tarps or blankets should separate the male and female areas. If it isn't practical to provide separate showers for men and women, men and women should use the facilities at different times.. Physical training should be sexually segregated because seeing women exercise can arouse men even if the women are fully clothed and aren't using poles or other props.

Members of the "oldest profession" have long operated near military bases and followed military units around. Some feel that the term "hooker" comes from the women who provided their services to those under the command of MG Joseph Hooker during the Civil War. The military should consider allowing such women to operate their businesses on American bases. Those operating on bases in Muslim countries would have to be particularly discrete. The military might even consider establishing a "sex therapist" duty assignment.

Religious groups might complain. but providing a sexual outlet to those in high stress military assignments would be preferable to having some men attempt to force their attentions on women who aren't interested in them.

I interrupt my discussion of sexual harassment in the military for major breaking news.

Sen. Bill Nelson, Democrat - Florida, in effect said that President Barack Obama committed treason by claiming that Edward Snowden's revelation of NSA monitoring of American phone calls was an "act of treason". Nelson served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for six years.

Burgess Everett reports in Politico that Nelson said, “On the issue of if this a whistleblower or is this an act of treason, I think it directly is [treason]. And I think most of the people who served on intel will tell you that,”

“I think he ought to be prosecuted under the law,” Nelson told reporters. “Extradited and prosecuted. We cannot have national security if our secrets can’t be kept on our methods of gathering information."

If Snowden committed treason by revealing NSA's program to spy on American phone calls, then President Barack Obama committed treason when he released similar information about how the CIA found Osama bin Laden. After the execution of bin Laden Obama revealed that the CIA had been monitoring al Qaeda phone calls in its efforts to find bin Laden and had used satellite cameras to track bin Laden's suspected courier.

If Snowden should be "extradited and prosecuted" as Nelson suggests, then Obama should be impeached and removed from office. Obama's offense was far more serious than Snowden's. Snowden only revealed NSA is using computers to monitor phone calls. Obama told al Qaeda the United States was able to identify and monitor its calls. Obama went further and told al Qaeda that the United States knew which phone numbers they were using.

I don't know what Edward Snowden's motive was in revealing NSA montoring of domestic phone calls. I do know that if his actions qualify as treason then so do Obama's.

The current sexual harassment scandal comes as no surprise to those of us who understand the danger of not teaching young males to control their sex drives.

The first thing parents teach their children is to control their eating and sleeping cycles so they don't expect to eat in the middle of the night. The next thing parents teach their children is to control when and where they expel waste products so the children don't have to wear diapers. When I was young, the third thing parents taught their children was to control their sex drives.

Unfortunately, a few decades ago some very ignorant people decided there was no need to teach children to control their sexual inclinations. These people ignored the fact that all human males are natural sexual predators and encouraged them to fulfill their sexual fantasies. These people in effect told young girls that they were supposed to give into the requests of boys and learn to be sex objects.

When I was an adolescent, we boys were taught to respect girls' sexual privacy. We expected girls to tell us no if we asked to have sex with them. Girls who gave in to boys were looked down upon and considered to have a "bad reputation". Today girls who protect their sexual privacy are looked down upon.

Human males are natural sexual predators with some of us being more predatory than others. Many of us are satisfied with the situation mentioned in the old popular song -- "a boy chases a girl until she catches him." Many of us prefer a situation in which we don't have to worry about our performance being compared to other males. Many of us think there are more important activities than sex.

Other males, such as former President Bill Clinton, believe women exist to provide them with sexual pleasure and may consider themselves God's gift to women. In societies that discourage sex outside marriage these men may limit their actions to women with "bad reputations". In societies that encourage casual sex, these men may expect most women to have sex with them. They may convince themselves that women who resist their advances are "playing hard to get" while hoping to be overpowered.

A third group "goes with the flow". They will limit sexual activities if society discourages casual sex. In societies like ours they may feel that if they don't attempt to have sexual relations with women, people will think there is something wrong with them. Some of them may feel relieved if they are turned down, but still think they should make the attempt.

"Make love, not war" was a popular slogan used by anti-Vietnam War protesters. Generations of soldiers have used "making love" to forget about the realities of war. Survival in war requires soldiers to live by the law of the jungle and be prepared to kill or be killed. Wild male animals not only kill, but in many species expect to have sex. The prostitutes who served the men of Civil War Union MG Joseph Hooker are believed to be responsible for the use of the word "hooker" to describe themselves.

Soldiers fighting in foreign countries typically have used local women for sexual relief. American commanders may feel it is better for American men serving in Muslim countries to be having sex with their fellow female soldiers than having sex with local Muslim women. Officers who know they might have to send those under their command to certain death, may not understand the psychological impact of allowing their male soldiers to force their attention onto female officers.

Some male officers may have an .attitude that female personnel should consider it an honor to provide sexual services to male personnel who face potential death in battle. The more sexually aggressive men, and some women, have a less personal attitude to sex than many women do. To them, sex is just another physical activity like playing football. These men may not understand those women who only want sex as part of an intimate personal relationship.

I'm not sure of current military practices, but I have read stories in the past indicating that the military has required women to share living quarters and shower facilities with men. In addition, women have been required to exercise with men. Such practices can sexually arouse men and reduce their respect for women's sexual privacy.

In my next post, I'll discuss actions the military might take to reduce sexual assaults and harassment.

Do those who want the Boy Scouts to allow openly homosexual boys to participate understand why it's the Boy Scouts rather than the Boy and Girl Scouts? Do they think boys and girls should share tents on camp outs?

Male homosexuals claim they look at other males the way males look at females. If that is true than they sometimes look at other males as potential sexual conquests. They sometimes invade the sexual privacy of other males by imaging sexual contact with them.

I don't know if the claim is true or not. I only know that scientific research indicates homosexuals are born with the body of one sex and the brain of the other. This Gender Identification Disorder seems to create confusion about whether their behavior should be consistent with their brains or their bodies.

Heterosexual behavior is based in part on a predator / prey model. For most that is a friendly relationship like in the old song "a boy chases a girl until she catches him." The recent military scandal in which men assigned to protect women from sexual assaults assaulted them instead demonstrates that some men are unfriendly predators.

The natural sexual attraction process involves males imagining relationships with females. Sometimes these fantasies involve sexual intercourse. Human imagination sometimes becomes detached from reality with males and females imagining relationships that don't exist. A boy sharing a tent with a girl might fantasize about having some level of physical contact with her.

Would a homosexual boy sharing a tent with another boy have a similar fantasy? The important thing is that the other boy might become concerned that the homosexual boy was fantasizing about him and react violently,

Males sometimes have trouble interpreting smiles. A male can mistake a female's smile as inviting a relationship when the female is just being friendly. A similar mistake involving a male homosexual. could produce violence.

Women respond to unwanted attention as "prey" by "running away" or calling for help. Males may respond to imagined unwanted sexual attention as a predator would by launching a preemptive attack.

As boys pass through puberty they move from an attitude of "girls, yuk" to "girls, wow". Boys don't all make the transition at the same time. Boys who want to stay on good terms with friends who haven't made the transition may have to deny an interest in girls. A recent "For Better or Worse" comic strip the son is interested in a girl, but denies it when his friends accuse him of liking her. She of course over hears his statement.

An accusation of a relationship by a heterosexual boy [I'll call Billy] with a homosexual boy [I'll call Jimmy] could produce violence. If some boys say, "Billy, we hear Jimmy's sweet on you", Billy may feel he has to beat up Jimmy to prove there is no relationship.

Puberty is a difficult time for children. Separating boys and girls reduces the potential for sexual tension between them. The current Boy Scout policy of not allowing homosexual members keeps sexual tension out of scouting activities. Allowing openly homosexual boys to join would risk introducing sexual tensions that could result in violence because boys in a situation they don't know how to handle may respond violently.

The Boy Scouts should not allow adult homosexuals to supervise scouts for the same reason the Girl Scouts shouldn't allow heterosexual males to supervise girl scouts. Not only is there a potential for child molesting to occur, there is the possibility of a child making up a story about being molested. The Boy Scouts would have difficulty defending themselves from a lawsuit, even one based on false charges, if the organization knew the alleged offender was homosexual.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the fall of the American consulate in Benghazi is the similarity of the situation to one of the most famous murders in history,

Most people have probably heard of the romance story of Israel's King David and Bathsheba. Fewer are aware of how David got rid of Bathsheba's husband, Uriah the Hittite.

To summarize the story: David saw Bathsheba bathing and decided to have a brief affair with her and got her pregnant. He tried to cover up his role in the pregnancy by having her soldier husband Uriah the Hittite recalled with the hope Uriah would spend some time with his wife so he would appear responsible for her pregnancy. Uriah's code of ethics prevented him from having sex with his wife while his comrades were still in combat.

David then issued orders for Uriah to be placed in the middle of a battle and have other soldiers withdraw so he would be killed.

It has been alleged by those in Benghazi at the time of Benghazi attack on the consulate that they were ordered not to try to rescue U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and the others in the consulate. Such orders would normally seem unlikely considering the fact that Viet Cong attack on the American embassy in Saigon in 1968 was part of the reason President Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for reelection. The capture of the American embassy in Tehran was one of the reasons President Jimmy Carter lost his reelection bid.

Any order not to mount a rescue effort to prevent an al Qaeda victory could be construed as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" -- the Constitutional definition of treason. American forces quickly retook the American embassy in Saigon in 1968. President Carter launched an ill fated rescue effort to rescue personnel at the American embassy in Iran. Obama and Clinton had personnel available to attempt a rescue effort. Why weren't those forces used?

Normally American presidents would be expected to do whatever was necessary to protect the lives of American ambassadors. Why did President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fail to protect Ambassador Stevens? Were they too dumb to recognize the possibility al Qaeda would take the consulate? Did one of them or someone else high in the administration want Ambassador Stevens, or someone else at the consulate, to die for some reason?

Ambassador Stevens wasn't married, so the motive couldn't have been the same as the motive for killing Uriah. Perhaps Stevens was connected to a scandal that hasn't been uncovered yet. I'm aware that there are rumors that both Stevens and Obama are homosexual, but don't know if the rumors are true.

I don't have any answers, only questions. Congress needs to consider the possibility that the Benghazi incident was used by someone high in the Obama administration to kill Ambassador Stevens or someone else at the consulate. It would also be possible the intended victim wasn't at the consulate even though someone in Washington thought he, or she, would be.

Reporters covering the investigation of the major al Qaeda victory at Benghazi should ask themselves: "what would Walter Cronkite do" if he were covering the story.

Let's consider the facts. Most people familiar with the War on Terror knew in September, 2012, that there was a heightened risk of an al Qaeda attack in the U.S. or at American installations outside the U.S. on or about the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack.

The danger was particularly high at American facilities in Libya because of the very unstable situation there and the presence of al Qaeda personnel who were trying to take over the country. Military and CIA personnel in Libya should have been on a high state of alert and prepared to back up personnel at any facility that might be attacked. Their orders should have been to respond immediately to any attack without requesting authorization from Washington. Security should have been particularly tight in Benghazi with the Ambassador in the building.

With modern cell phone technology, personnel should have been calling the State Department as they took cover, grabbed weapons, etc. Both the Secretary of State and President should have been notified immediately. State Department protocol should have required the Secretary, or least the top undersecretary for the region, to monitor the situation using both audio and video from the site, possibly using devices such as smart phones . If a satellite was in position to monitor the situation someone in Washington should have monitored its video. Keep in mind the government has better quality cameras than Google on its satellites.

The Obama administration's initial claim that the facility fell to a rag tag mob of demonstrators implies the facility essentially had no security. Any decent security protocol should have been prepared for the type of attack that Iranian students had used to take over the American embassy in Tehran during the Carter administration. An attack by trained military personnel would have been more easily explained, although security personnel should have been prepared to handle such an attack.

Determining the significance of the successful al Qaeda attack is difficult because of the nature of the War on Terror. Significant battles haven't involved large groups. Although the American casualty toll in the 9/11 attack was high, barely a dozen men conducted the attack. A similar sized American force killed Osama bin Laden. Much of the killing by both sides is done by remote control. Americans use aerial drones. Al Qaeda uses road side bombs.

The attack is at least as significant as the temporary Viet Cong capture of the American embassy in Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive. The attack indicates that al Qaeda has successfully broadened the war and is now able to defeat the Americans in Libya and possibly elsewhere. The size of the victory isn't as important as the fact that the attack was an al Qaeda victory. Al Qaeda may not be "winning" the war yet, but as a football sportscaster might say, al Qaeda "has taken the momentum", as demonstrated by the recent successful bombing of the Boston Marathon. Al Qaeda can use its success as a recruitment argument.

The failure of the Americans to come to the rescue during the attack could be interpreted by al Qaeda as proving bin Laden was right when he said the Americans would eventually tire of the fighting.

Walter Cronkite began questioning the American handling of the Vietnam after the attack on the American Embassy in Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive. I'm sure he would have asked questions about the War on Terror after the fall of the American consulate in Benghazi, particularly considering the allegations that someone in Washington prevented sending a rescue force. Cronkite knew that Presidents are sometimes mislead by their subordinates and it is the duty of journalists to learn the truth.

My youngest brother recently died. He was only 55, but because of a genetic defect he began aging more rapidly a few years ago. He went from being the chronologically youngest to the biologically oldest within a few years. He had suffered from bouts with pneumonia the last two winters.

Reflecting on my brother's life I cannot understand why some people would hate individuals like my brother so much that they don't think those with Down Syndrome should be allowed to be born. These people are the equivalent of racists because those with Down Syndrome are genetically different from them. They seem to be living in the "dark ages" when those with Down Syndrome weren't expected to reach their 20th birthdays.

Fortunately for my brother, people ranging from the wealthy politically powerful Kennedy family to ordinary individuals like my mom recognized that those called "retarded" might be able to lead productive lives if given the opportunity. My mom helped establish a scouting program for boys in special education.

We were fortunate to move to a city where local leaders set up a special education program to give my brother and others the opportunity to reach their potential. The program would eventually include a workshop that would have contractual arrangements to provide services for various local businesses.

Medical research has produced beneficial medications for those with Down Syndrome.

Persons with Down Syndrome such as my brother are usually very loving people. They're not two faced like many "normal" people.

There are some things individuals with Down Syndrome don't do. They don't injure people while driving while intoxicated or texting like normal people sometimes do. They don't defraud people of their life savings like Bernie Madoff and other normal people have done.

Individuals with Down Syndrome may not have the athletic ability of "normal people" but they give 110% when they participate in Special Olympics. One Oregon teen recently accomplished a physical feat most of us would never even attempt. Eli Reimer led a group of climbers to the 17,600 foot base camp of Mt. Everest.

Individuals with Down Syndrome do many things most of us wouldn't attempt. Chris Burke was a star on the successful tv series "Life Goes On". Sarah Itoh was playing the clarinet by the time she was11 years old and is an accomplished public speaker who travels around talking about Special Olympics.

Four years ago the scouting program my mom helped start produced an Eagle Scout when Lucas Wondra met the necessary requirements. He's not the only scout with Down Syndrome to reach that goal. Daniel Camacho of Overland Park, Kansas, achieved that goal and has plans to attend college.

I have a lot of good memories of my brother, particularly the day I picked him up at school after he had finished making a magazine rack. He was just beaming. Then there was the day we noticed he was missing. About that time we got a call from the supermarket three blocks away where we normally shopped. He was down there buying groceries and even though he was elementary school age he was buying things we normally got including the right brands. Our mom had mentioned she didn't think she would have time to go to the store, so he apparently decided to help out..

I admit I wish that Down Syndrome hadn't hampered my brother Steve's ability to do some things such as run like his hero Steve Austin, "The Six Million Dollar Man". However, I would never wish that he hadn't been born. My brother taught me a very valuable lesson -- how to accept and relate to those who are different and may march to the beat of a different drummer. I feel sorry for those who cannot accept people with disabilities.

President Barack Obama's approach to the spending cut issue is like a child who suggests that if his family needs to reduce expenses it should stop buying fruits and vegetables while continuing to purchase cookies and potato chips. Obama and his playmates in Congress have responded to the issue of cutting spending by proposing elimination of essential spending such as meat inspectors instead of nonessential spending such as grants to local governments for purely local matters.

Instead of trying to work with Congress to arrange some type of compromise, Obama is running around like a chicken with its head cut off squawking for somebody to do something. Obama needs to be taking care of business in Washington instead of outside of Washington giving speeches.

Both Obama and Congressional Republicans are ignoring the nature of the budget problem. They remind me of a beer commercial except instead of crying "great taste" or "less filling" they are crying "more spending" and "less taxes".

The solution to the budget deficit will require a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. At the very least congress should suspend all tax credit programs and all non-education or highway construction grants to state and local governments. Tax credit programs are of dubious constitutionality because they allow individuals to spend what is essential federal tax revenue without congressional approval of specific spending decisions.

Most grants to state and local programs are of limited economic value. Intercity highway construction provides significant economic benefits as does education spending.

Layoffs in agencies such as meat inspectors and air security would hurt the economy and reduce federal tax revenue which would make the deficit worse. However, layoffs in regulatory agencies such as the EPA wouldn't hurt the economy. Layoffs at EPA might benefit the economy considering the EPA's continuing efforts to eliminate jobs in the coal industry.

Congress should eliminate funding for climate research. The people claim that carbon dioxide causes global warming insist that climate science is settled. If that is so then there is no need to spend money on further research. Congress should only fund research to learn new things. The only justifiable reason to fund climate research is to find

Congress cannot cut enough money from the budget to eliminate the deficit without adversely affecting the economy. Tax increases will also be needed. The easiest way to increase taxes would be to have the payroll tax apply to all income received from an employer up to and including the million plus salaries of corporate CEO's and professional athletes and entertainers.
Republicans claim that the rich would use excess income to create jobs. However, only business owners would use their money in that way. Increasing taxes on corporate employees won't affect job creation because employees don't use their incomes to create jobs.

Our system of government depends upon the President to provide leadership. Unfortunately, President Dunseld seems incapable of providing the leadership necessary to deal with the budget crisis. To use and expression from the sixties: "Obama is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. [NOTE: "Dunseld" is a term used at Starfleet Academy to describe a part with no useful function.]

Remember Enron, the corrupt firm whose failure should have disproved the myth "too big to fail", but didn't? At the time it was the seventh largest corporation. It's bankruptcy was the largest in history until Lehman Brothers failed. Incidentally, Lehman Brothers was also involved in carbon trading.

Enron owed part of its early success to emissions trading. Basically emissions trading was established as a way for some companies to profit from pollution while allowing some companies to continue to produce the chemicals that can cause acid rain.

Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute, is reporting that Enron played a major role in pushing the global warming scam, including establishing the Kyoto Protocals. [Solomon's article in the National Post is apparently no longer posted on the web.]

Enron had already profited from trading sulfur dioxide credits and saw the potential for even greater profits from trading what would become known as "carbon credits".

The article is the first in a series of articles about those who seek to profit from what Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls "the greatest scam in history."

Solomon states, " The climate-change industry — the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake — has emerged as the world’s largest industry. Virtually every resident in the developed world feels the bite of this industry..." which increases the costs of various goods and services.

Enron was an early player beginning early in the administration of Bill Clinton to push for a carbon dioxide trading system. Enron also sought support from environmental groups. "Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a leading force for global warming reform, while [Chairman Kenneth] Lay and other individuals associated with Enron donated $1.5-million to environmental groups seeking international controls on carbon dioxide."

According to Solomon, "Political contributions and Enron-funded analyses flowed freely, all geared to demonstrating a looming global catastrophe if carbon dioxide emissions weren’t curbed. An Enron-funded study that dismissed the notion that calamity could come of global warming, meanwhile, was quietly buried."

Enron advised the Clinton administration what to do at the Kyoto Japan Conference in 1997.

To improve its chances for success Enron hired former Environmental Protection Agency regulator John Palmisano to become the company's lead lobbyist as senior director for Environmental Policy and Compliance. Palismano wrote a memo describing the historic corporate achievement that was Kyoto.

“If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States,” Polisano began. “The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous.”

The memo, entitled “Implications of the Climate Change Agreement in Kyoto & What Transpired,” summarized the achievements that Enron had accomplished. “I do not think it is possible to overestimate the importance of this year in shaping every aspect of this agreement,” he wrote. He cited three issues of specific importance to Enron in the climate-change debate: the rules governing emissions trading, the rules governing transfers of emission reduction rights between countries, and the rules governing a gargantuan clean energy fund.

Polisano’s memo expressed satisfaction bordering on amazement at Enron’s successes. The rules governing transfers of emission rights “is exactly what I have been lobbying for and it seems like we won. The clean development fund will be a mechanism for funding renewable projects. Again we won .... The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us.”

“Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute] and Worldwatch. This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized),” Polisano explained.

Those who believe in Global Warming like to claim that they are opposed by corporate interests in the form of the energy companies. They neglect to mention that the battle isn't against corporations, it is between different groups of corporations. The energy companies are attempting to continue providing energy to consumers. Companies on the other side are merely attempting to create a financial opportunity for themselves as financial parasites who provide nothing to anyone and get rich in return.

Democrats often criticize Republicans for being too close to business. Democrats are just as close to business. They simply favor different businesses.

As William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, puts it: "The American people have had enough of convoluted, indecipherable financial schemes and the opportunists who exploit them. The public is understandably angry about Wall Street's exploitation of Main Street, and yet our political leaders are setting the stage for another complex trading market, ripe for corruption. The future Enrons and Bernie Madoffs of the world would like nothing better than to see the U.S. impose a new market for carbon emission trading."

Climatologists pay too little attention to the role water plays in earth's energy system, including the way water vapor affects air temperature. Water's potential to affect air temperature is well established in science. As I have noted in previous posts the ability of CO2 to affect temperature is highly questionable. Those who spend much time in greenhouses know that they are often very humid places because water evaporates from plants and from surfaces that get wet when the plants are watered. Meteorologists typically refer to the water vapor content of the air as relative humidity which is how close the air is to holding as much water vapor as it can hold at its current temperature.

Unfortunately many climatologists waste so much time on the nonexistent impact of radiation on air temperature that they don't provide sufficient emphasis to the significant impact of water vapor on air temperature. Those who want to blame climate changes on humans ignore the fact that the combustion of hydrogen containing fossil fuels increases the amount of water vapor in the air. Other human actitivies such as watering yards, washing cars and operating public fountains also add water to the atmosphere.

Water has some special thermal characteristics that can significantly affect atmospheric temperatures. Water heats and cools signicantly slower than other components of the atmosphere. Water vapor needs to absorb over four times more heat energy than the same mass of other air molecules to raise its temperature the same amount.

Thus as the water vapor content of the air increases the atmosphere will heat and cool slower than when the air is drier. This process tends to keep the temperature from rising as high during the day or cooling as much at night, although the increase in the overnight low may lead to an increase in the daytime temperature because the air doesn't have to heat as much to reach a higher temperature. In equatorial areas deserts have higher maximum temperatures and lower minimum temperatures than jungle areas where the humidity is higher.

Water vapor possesses what physicists have traditionally called "latent" heat. Latent heat refers to the heat energy water molecules must absorb to go from a solid to a liquid (heat of fusion 80 calories/gram) or a liquid to a gas(heat of vaporization 540 calories/gram). This energy isn't reflected in the temperature of the water vapor. However, when water vapor condenses back to a liquid, or freezes, the release of this latent heat can raise the temperature of the air. A gram of water vapor releases enough heat energy when it condenses to raise the temperature of 2 kg of air by 1 C.

At approximately 65 F water vapor in the atmosphere holds as much heat energy as the rest of the atmosphere. This condition explains why dew points above 65 F are associated with the strongest thunderstorms.

Physicists define a "calorie" as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a gram of water 1 C. 27 C (82 F) is the same temperature as 300 Kelvin [the absolute temperature scale]. At 300 K water vapor has 300 calories of heat from its temperature and 620 calories of latent heat.

The dew point is the temperature at which water vapor will condense on objects or aerosals. The dew point normally is the lowest temperature the air will fall to. As the water vapor content of the air increases the dew point rises and the air doesn't get as cool at night.

The situation is more complex than I am presenting it in this post. I . The important facts to consider are that increases in humidity can raise the low, or minimum temperature, and limit the high, or maximum temperature, each day. In areas where significant snowfall occurs, the increase in low temperature can increase the melting of snow and ice by keeping the temperature above freezing for longer periods of time.

I recently came across a 10 year old study done by David R. Easterling of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., indicating that humidy had increased and, as should have been expected, the minimum temperature had been increasing and the difference between the minimum and maximum daily temperatures, diurnal temperature range (DTR), had been declining.

The potential impact of changes in atmospheric water vapor are real science. Water vapor holds a substantial amount of heat energy. The only potential impact climatologists can find for carbon dioxide is the highly questionable claim about absorbing and re-radiating low energy IR. But then, if would be difficult for the politicians behind the global warming scare to make a case for getting rid of water.

Do those who want the Boy Scouts to allow openly homosexual boys to participate understand why it's the Boy Scouts rather than the Boy and Girl Scouts? Do they think boys and girls should share tents on camp outs?

Male homosexuals claim they look at other males the way males look at females. If that is true than they sometimes look at other males as potential sexual conquests. They sometimes invade the sexual privacy of other males by imaging sexual contact with them.

I don't know if the claim is true or not. I only know that scientific research indicates homosexuals are born with the body of one sex and the brain of the other. This Gender Identification Disorder seems to create confusion about whether their behavior should be consistent with their brains or their bodies.

Heterosexual behavior is based in part on a predator / prey model. For most that is a friendly relationship like in the old song "a boy chases a girl until she catches him." The recent military scandal in which men assigned to protect women from sexual assaults assaulted them instead demonstrates that some men are unfriendly predators.

The natural sexual attraction process involves males imagining relationships with females. Sometimes these fantasies involve sexual intercourse. Human imagination sometimes becomes detached from reality with males and females imagining relationships that don't exist. A boy sharing a tent with a girl might fantasize about having some level of physical contact with her.

Would a homosexual boy sharing a tent with another boy have a similar fantasy? The important thing is that the other boy might become concerned that the homosexual boy was fantasizing about him and react violently,

Males sometimes have trouble interpreting smiles. A male can mistake a female's smile as inviting a relationship when the female is just being friendly. A similar mistake involving a male homosexual. could produce violence.

Women respond to unwanted attention as "prey" by "running away" or calling for help. Males may respond to imagined unwanted sexual attention as a predator would by launching a preemptive attack.

As boys pass through puberty they move from an attitude of "girls, yuk" to "girls, wow". Boys don't all make the transition at the same time. Boys who want to stay on good terms with friends who haven't made the transition may have to deny an interest in girls. A recent "For Better or Worse" comic strip the son is interested in a girl, but denies it when his friends accuse him of liking her. She of course over hears his statement.

An accusation of a relationship by a heterosexual boy [I'll call Billy] with a homosexual boy [I'll call Jimmy] could produce violence. If some boys say, "Billy, we hear Jimmy's sweet on you", Billy may feel he has to beat up Jimmy to prove there is no relationship.

Puberty is a difficult time for children. Separating boys and girls reduces the potential for sexual tension between them. The current Boy Scout policy of not allowing homosexual members keeps sexual tension out of scouting activities. Allowing openly homosexual boys to join would risk introducing sexual tensions that could result in violence because boys in a situation they don't know how to handle may respond violently.

The Boy Scouts should not allow adult homosexuals to supervise scouts for the same reason the Girl Scouts shouldn't allow heterosexual males to supervise girl scouts. Not only is there a potential for child molesting to occur, there is the possibility of a child making up a story about being molested. The Boy Scouts would have difficulty defending themselves from a lawsuit, even one based on false charges, if the organization knew the alleged offender was homosexual.