« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Homosexuals and Global Warming

For years, homosexuality had been, right or wrong, treated as a mental illness or psychological disorder.  That is not what this is about.

Although history is replete with references to homosexual behaviors and acts, it is apparent it appears across all cultures.  Some ancient cultures even “condoned” these practices.  Yet, within the Judeo-Christian and other contexts, it became branded a form of sexual deviancy.  And this is predicated upon biological reality.  Namely, the biological and evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation and perpetuation of the species.  Hence, in the evolutionary sense, any sexual act whose purpose is not procreation is a deviancy and this becomes codified over time in religious, legal and medical thought.

And thus, for many years, homosexuality was defined and treated as such by the medical community and, later, the psychological community.  In 1892, a group of psychologists came together to form the APA and they later developed a standardized listing of mental disorders.  In the first two editions- called the Diagnostic and Statistical Mannual, or DSM for short- homosexuality is listed as a mental disorder as it had been by the medical community in the past.  In 1973, primarily in response to political pressure and protests from gay activist groups, the APA, in their third edition of DSM, dropped homosexuality as a mental disorder and renamed it “ego dystonic homosexuality.”  From hence forth, it would be a mental disorder only if the individual was subjectively uncomfortable with their homosexuality.  This was done after an expert panel, or subcommittee of the APA, reviewed the scientific and medical literature from a variety of sources and, by vote, concluded that this is now so!  Finally, in the fourth edition, yet another panel of experts, again by vote, decided to drop even the “ego dystonic” part.

Inclusion of anything in DSM is important because there are diagnostic codes for medical billing and insurance purposes.  But most importantly, it forms the professional opinions of the practitioners.  If it is not in DSM, then to the psychological community, it is not worthy of therapeutic intervention merely because a panel decided so.  In essence, DSM is the Bible to the psychological and medical community.  For those professionals who may happen to view homosexuality as a mental disorder, they are treated as pariahs.  Should they treat an individual for their “homosexuality,” it will not be condoned by the APA because they decided it is not a disorder.

But here is the kicker:  despite what the APA declares, homosexual acts and behaviors still do not fulfill the biological and evolutionary purposes of sex- procreation.

While there is certainly a need for peer review within science, consensus merely serves to instill some order.  However, because there is “consensus,” it does not necessarily equate to unequivocal truth and scientific fact.  The problem with these expert panels is that wrong, or inaccurate, or incomplete conclusions, once agreed upon, become scientific dogma.  Once the experts decide the truth through consensus, those who argue the opposite are ostracized and driven underground.  This is the paradigm by which the scientific community works- their proclamation becomes the dogma du jour.

Compare the APA consensus on homosexuality with the scientific consensus of another definitive panel of experts- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  In 2000 and 2007, basically relying upon computer modeling, they concluded that the earth was warming and that there was a 90% chance this warming was caused by the actions of man and his production of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.  That is the scientific dogma today.  And why?  Because a panel of experts declared this to be so and those who disagree are ostracized and driven underground.  They are accused of having a political agenda.  They are attacked on a personal level and the skeptics are called names like “flat earthers” or “troglodytes.”  They are lumped into the general category of being “anti-science” and therefore “pro-religion.”  That works well in Dan Brown novels, but is a detraction here.

Recently NASA asserted that 2008 was the warmest year on record on a worldwide basis.  This comes as little consolation to the fine folks in Buffalo or the Northern Plains or the entirety of Europe.  The fact is that in mankind’s history on earth, accurate temperature readings using scientific instruments occupies a very small percentage of that time.  There is evidence in paleontology which suggests temperature ranges in the past, but no one was there with a thermometer to gauge those temperatures.  In fact, this sort of contradicts the conclusions of the IPCC.  If, for example, tropical plant fossils are found in northern latitudes, wouldn’t this indicate that at one time northern latitudes were warmer?  Where were coal burning plants and SUVs back then?  Ironically, NASA also stated that the temperatures on both Mars and Jupiter are also increasing.  Are our scientific missions missing the coal burning plants and SUVs on those planets?  Additionally, a large portion of their findings are based upon computer modeling and those models are only as good as the information fed into the computers.  Those models failed to account for solar activity or the earth’s ability to self-regulate carbon dioxide.  Also, great attention is paid to carbon dioxide, which accounts for a very small percentage of the atmosphere, but methane gas is found in greater abundance and man’s contributions to methane are negligible.  More methane is produced annually by algae and cow farts than all the carbon dioxide produced by the worldwide energy sector.

The number of scientists questioning the consensus- not only the science, but the predicted consequences- is growing and includes many of those same scientists who participated in the IPCC studies.  As expected, they are being ostracized and the butt of personal attacks while their credentials are being attacked.  Most importantly, because man-made global warming is the scientific consensus- by IPCC vote- research dollars directed at studies by the “heretics” is wasted money to the powers that be who hold the purse strings.  Because the whole process is essentially corrupted by politics, just as the APA decision to remove homosexuality as a form of sexual deviancy was politically motivated, it renders the “consensus” suspect at best and one of the greatest hoaxes of modern history perpetrated on an ignorant and unsuspecting, unquestioning public.  Do we risk our economy for the sake of IPCC “consensus” endorsed by a former Vice President?

Get Alerts