To me the problem is like the boy who cried wolf too often. Eventually there really was a wolf but then no-one listened. There is plenty of evidence for some level of warming. But it is not in the least helpful to become hysterical over each and every issue that comes along. Plenty of reason for rational concern but alarmism is counter-productive. Like the boy crying wolf. Still, plenty of evidence that glaciers worldwide are shrinking. This could result in serious water shortages in Asia especially since the Himalayan glaciers are gradually disappearing , and unless this trend is reversed both China and India, plus SE Asia, will be in serous trouble. Not a major problem in north America but a good number of glaciers in Alaska are well along in stages of retreat. We can live with that but Asia is another matter, and probably Africa, with a diminished Nile a real prospect, and eventually South America --although less serious there because the Amazon is so "over-watered" now that some decline can be absorbed. I think this is real. We have the time necessary to make needed corrections if we actually do something about it. However, it isn't so much the USA as it is China and its almost exponentially increasing number of coal fired power plants. Billy --------------------------------------- 4/9/2012 8:56:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
There's also Fraudulent Global Warming Research. I have the two FIOA zipped files from the University of "Hide the decline" East Anglia in Britain. So I think that we could just say "Fraudulent Research." David _ "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."—Neal Boortz On 4/9/2012 1:07 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: What is wrong with academia-- Fraudulent Homosexual Research The study re-printed below is a prime example of academic bias in the guise of "scientific" research. True, the authors do acknowledge some limitations, most notably the fact that all the people tested in the research were college students. But they then suggest as a possible corrective for the future, testing high school students and adults in the workforce. They are completely blind to other very important considerations. That is, the study discussed here is a classic case of "experimenter bias" --skewing a test to end up with results that the experimenters wanted to begin with. To put it neutral terms, of all the people whom I have known in my life who are critical of homosexuality, most, by far, are religious believers. Most are married and close to all, if not all, can only be considered to be as heterosexual as anyone gets. However, the article / review card stacks in its use of language, this for openers, in the process creating blatant bias in the test they rely on. Who says "homophobia" is a legitimate psychologically measurable phobia ? No-one who is reputable. The coinage is propaganda vocabulary and was invented in the first place to try and discredit critics of homosexuality as bigots comparable to racists. About which I have already carried out significant research, but for now, to let readers familiar with relevant literature understand that my sources are valid for purposes expressed here, I will simply mention the fact that Bell and Weinberg documented their intentions in the early 1970s and that documentation is easily accessible. Besides, as Claude Crepault has said, and his research in Montreal is about as good as such research gets, the actual problem isn't a fictitious phobia called homophobia, but an all-too-real malfunction that can legitimately be called "clinical heterophobia," viz., morbid aversion to normal sexual relations with the opposite sex. The test also uses idiom favored by homosexuals, such as "gay" and "strait" as if these terms are neutral lexicon. They are not, they skew the results toward outcomes that homosexuals or their supporters desire. As if, in discussing Atheism someone was to use terminology like "unbeliever" and "faithful." There would be an onus in the very words of such a test put upon Atheists and , in contrast, believers would be valorized as having a good quality, faith. Points made in the review also show bias, as if, in citing the Matthew Shepard case, that was all we need to know, not Shepard's behavior prior to being assaulted, not comparable cases in which heterosexuals have been brutalized and sometimes killed, and not the timing of media coverage of the incident --and there are similar kinds of events almost every day, and they can feature either heterosexual or homosexual victims, sometimes with homosexuals "beating the hell out of each other." Un-noted was the fact that at that time a major evangelical campaign was under way that sought to persuade homosexuals to seek counseling to become ex homosexuals. The nationwide publicity that emerged around the Matthew Shepard case drowned our millions of dollars worth of Evangelical Christian advertising and associated public efforts. As for any possible skepticism about the value of therapies that are able to undo the damages caused by homosexuality and return people to sexual and social normality, perhaps the best source to turn to is a 1979 book by those "right-wing fanatics," Masters and Johnson, viz, two researchers who all Right-wingers vilify reflexively and who in their era were darlings of the political Left. Their book, Homosexuality in Perspective, based on years of clinical testing, showed conclusively that "cure" rates in the 60 % to 70 % range are very possible and that they were able to achieve such results in their work. But, of course, the Left ignores Masters and Johnson as much as does the Right, if for different reasons, but I certainly do not since I am a political Independent with no Right / Lefts axes to grind, and a Radical Centrist who essentially regards Left and Right orthodoxies as false by definition. One can, of course, make a secondary case to the effect that authoritative parenting can result in any number of psychological disorders. Among them might be a predisposition to homosexuality which, as things may happen in life, is then suppressed with anti-homosexual feelings then surfacing later in life. But to use this fact ad referendum, as if this settled the matter, is fraudulent. Why ? Because everything else relevant is left out. Most of all, is homosexuality in any way a personal "good " ? For if it is not, then any kind of aversion to homosexuality is commendable whatever its source. Besides, if authoritarian parenting sometimes has this result, what other results may it have ? And what kinds of deleterious results does permissive parenting bring about ? Don't get me started, this is only to bring up the most obvious objections to the research design in question. But for researchers to understand anything valid at all about homosexuality as it has been evaluated by the APA, they would first need to study the critical literature about the American Psychiatric Association and its bogus classification of homosexuality as non-problematic. This, of course, homosexuals and their advocates in academia simply will not do. For them any mention of the meticulous and conscientious work of Dr Charles Socarides or of NARTH, not to mention Judith Reisman and Dr Paul Cameron, and one comes up against blatant demonization. And there is still other solid research by non-psychological professionals such as O.R. Adams. In any case, to accept the APA's classification of homosexuality as within parameters of normality you would need to throw out Freud's Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, throw out the work of Anna Freud, throw out the work of Irving Bieber, Karen Horney, Sandor Rado, Erich Fromm, etc, etc, including --before he took leave of his senses and started to fall for the specious research findings of Evelyn Hooker-- Abraham Maslow. The tests reported on in the following review remind me of other research I came across in the late 1990s. A copy is beyond access to me at this time but the gist of things was that some percentage of normal males, when seeing photographs of homosexuals in action, will get erections. Therefore, so the research said, these purported heterosexuals really are latent homosexuals. Which is pure garbage by way of a conclusion. Anyone familiar with relevant sociobiology literature knows otherwise. Of course, academics on the political Left ( approximately 80 % to 90 % ) of all academics outside of engineering, business, and hard science ) are opposed to sociobiology and are as anti-evolution in their own way as the Far Right, and so they never look at that literature. However, sociobiology makes it very clear that we have primate characteristics built into us as a result of millions of years of evolution in which our ancestors eventually arose from beings who might today be compared to orangs. Now, among a number of primate species male behavior often enough consists of the "bucks" of such a population standing guard at the boundaries of the social group. If a troop of marauders arrives on the scene there may be any of several male reactions, especially making warning sounds, but including getting erections. Why ? Because doing so is a fight response and lets the enemy know that these males will stand their ground and offer serious resistance. That is, an erection may have a non-sexual purpose as a threat response. All of which completely sails over the heads of homosexuals and of people like the researchers who carried out the study presented here. Yet all kinds of opinion leaders read such unmitigated nonsense and regard it as gospel truth. After all, it "sounds" scientific. Except that when analyzed the whole project is based on fraudulent premises. Ignore the religious component of opposition to homosexuality and you make a fundamental error in research design. Were the student subjects in the study --at three "liberal" universities-- at all representative of the population of people at large who are critics of homosexuality ? Answer : Obviously not. Did the study consider relevant sociobiology literature ? Obviously not. Did the study examine the Left-political assumptions of its designers ? Don't make me laugh. What follows is ( 1 ) typical of many university research projects on the subject of homosexuality there days, and (2 ) is almost completely worthless. I would be happy to debate against any of the 'worthies' who produced this study. Billy Rojas Former teacher of Comparative Religion, history and social science. Alice Lloyd College, Phoenix College, Lower Columbia College, City Colleges of Chicago assigned to the US Navy PACE Program to provide college course instruction to military personnel on board the aircraft carrier , USS Enterprise. Also a lecturer for Pacifica Forum at the University of Oregon, 2008 - early 2010. Additionally, a professional graphic artist with research interest in art history. ============================================= University of Rochester 2012-04-05 Is Some Homophobia Self-phobia? Anti-gay Bias Linked to Lack of Awareness of One's Sexual Orientation and Authoritarian Parenting, Study Shows Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates. The study is the first to document the role that both parenting and sexual orientation play in the formation of intense and visceral fear of homosexuals, including self-reported homophobic attitudes, discriminatory bias, implicit hostility towards gays, and endorsement of anti-gay policies. Conducted by a team from the University of Rochester, the University of Essex, England, and the University of California in Santa Barbara, the research will be published the April issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. "Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves," explains Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex and the study's lead author. "In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward," adds co-author Richard Ryan, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester who helped direct the research. The paper includes four separate experiments, conducted in the United States and Germany, with each study involving an average of 160 college students. The findings provide new empirical evidence to support the psychoanalytic theory that the fear, anxiety, and aversion that some seemingly heterosexual people hold toward gays and lesbians can grow out of their own repressed same-sex desires, Ryan says. The results also support the more modern self-determination theory, developed by Ryan and Edward Deci at the University of Rochester, which links controlling parenting to poorer self-acceptance and difficulty valuing oneself unconditionally. The findings may help to explain the personal dynamics behind some bullying and hate crimes directed at gays and lesbians, the authors argue. Media coverage of gay-related hate crimes suggests that attackers often perceive some level of threat from homosexuals. People in denial about their sexual orientation may lash out because gay targets threaten and bring this internal conflict to the forefront, the authors write. The research also sheds light on high profile cases in which anti-gay public figures are caught engaging in same-sex sexual acts. The authors write that this dynamic of inner conflict may be reflected in such examples as Ted Haggard, the evangelical preacher who opposed gay marriage but was exposed in a gay sex scandal in 2006, and Glenn Murphy, Jr., former chairman of the Young Republican National Federation and vocal opponent of gay marriage, who was accused of sexually assaulting a 22-year-old man in 2007. "We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat," says Ryan. "Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences," Ryan says, pointing to cases such as the 1998 murder of _Matthew Shepard_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard) or the 2011 shooting of _Larry King_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.O._Green_School_shooting) . To explore participants' explicit and implicit sexual attraction, the researchers measured the discrepancies between what people say about their sexual orientation and how they react during a split-second timed task. Students were shown words and pictures on a computer screen and asked to put these in "gay" or "straight" categories. Before each of the 50 trials, participants were subliminally primed with either the word "me" or "others" flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds. They were then shown the words "gay," "straight," "homosexual," and "heterosexual" as well as pictures of straight and gay couples, and the computer tracked precisely their response times. A faster association of "me" with "gay" and a slower association of "me" with "straight" indicated an implicit gay orientation. A second experiment, in which subjects were free to browse same-sex or opposite-sex photos, provided an additional measure of implicit sexual attraction. Through a series of questionnaires, participants also reported on the type of parenting they experienced growing up, from authoritarian to democratic. Students were asked to agree or disagree with statements like: "I felt controlled and pressured in certain ways," and "I felt free to be who I am." For gauging the level of homophobia in a household, subjects responded to items like: "It would be upsetting for my mom to find out she was alone with a lesbian" or "My dad avoids gay men whenever possible." Finally, the researcher measured participants' level of homophobia – both overt, as expressed in questionnaires on social policy and beliefs, and implicit, as revealed in word-completion tasks. In the latter, students wrote down the first three words that came to mind, for example for the prompt "k i _ _". The study tracked the increase in the amount of aggressive words elicited after subliminally priming subjects with the word "gay" for 35 milliseconds. Across all the studies, participants with supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, while participants from authoritarian homes revealed the most discrepancy between explicit and implicit attraction. "In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals. But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying," explains Weinstein. These individuals risk losing the love and approval of their parents if they admit to same sex attractions, so many people deny or repress that part of themselves, she said. In addition, participants who reported themselves to be more heterosexual than their performance on the reaction time task indicated were most likely to react with hostility to gay others, the studies showed. That incongruence between implicit and explicit measures of sexual orientation predicted a variety of homophobic behaviors, including self-reported anti-gay attitudes, implicit hostility towards gays, endorsement of anti-gay policies, and discriminatory bias such as the assignment of harsher punishments for homosexuals, the authors conclude. "This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" says Ryan. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection." The study had several limitations, the authors write. All participants were college students, so it may be helpful in future research to test these effects in younger adolescents still living at home and in older adults who have had more time to establish lives independent of their parents and to look at attitudes as they change over time. Other contributors to the paper include Cody DeHaan and Nicole Legate from the University of Rochester, Andrew Przybylski from the University of Essex, and William Ryan from the University of California in Santa Barbara. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
