TOP 100 SCIENCE SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Douglas Carswell: How the facts on global warming have changed | Leo Hickman The Tory blogger on what caused his climate change epiphany – after two decades of believing that humans were to blameA couple of weeks ago there was a lively online exchange between Douglas Carswell, the MP for Harwich and Clacton and fast-rising voice within the Conservative party, and Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.Ward had responded to a post on Carswell's blog – recently judged to be among the top 10 Tory blogs – in which the MP had commented about a poll in the Times which had found that "most people do not believe that human activity is responsible for climate change".Carswell had added: "All those government awareness programmes don't seem to be working? Objective science and the flow of knowledge about it on the internet can prove inconvenient for ministers, eh?"Ward wrote back, saying: "Can I express my shock to find a member of parliament so publicly parading his ignorance of climate change. I can assure you that while the UK public may be confused about the causes of climate change, scientists are not."What caught my eye, though, was the final paragraph of Carswell's post in response to Ward's comments, when he said:When I was a member of Friends of the Earth, I did believe human CO2 emissions were responsible for global warming. It's just that the facts seem to have changed. And so I've changed my mind.Two questions sprang to mind. First, when and why did Carswell relinquish his membership with Friends of the Earth? Second, what were these facts that had led him to change his mind?So I called Carswell and asked him to expand on these intriguing points. He began by explaining when he joined Friends of the Earth…[Note: This interview took place the day before the University of East Anglia hacked emails story broke. Apologies for not writing this up earlier, but reporting on that story has taken up much of my week.]Me: When were you a member of Friends of the Earth? Carswell: In my teens. Probably 1988-89. I joined Friends of the Earth and had a poster on my wall which showed the dangers of global warming. If I remember correctly, it was an illustration of greenhouse gases. It was at the time that this was becoming … Me: … This was just when Margaret Thatcher was beginning to talk about it. Carswell: I wasn't really politically involved then so I'll take your word for it. I didn't really think about political things at that stage. We then moved on to what – after two decades of accepting that mankind was largely to blame – had caused him to change his mind about the causes of climate change, and when that epiphany had occurred. He explained that he had seen an interview with Ian Plimer, author of Heaven And Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science, in the Spectator this summer which had led him to buy the book. His mind was changed, he said, when he reached the final page. (Intriguingly, this carbon dating of his epiphany doesn't exactly tally with this ConservativeHome blog post from January 2008 in which he seems to be already expressing his major doubts after reading Unstoppable Global Warming, by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery).This is a transcript of our conversation that followed:Me: Is it the science you don't like the whiff of, or is it the whiff of the proposed solutions that you object to? Carswell: I don't fear the solutions and where it's necessary that tax and state measures are needed then we shouldn't shy from that. It's the science. There are so many things that are wrong and are becoming increasingly wrong with the planet. There are so many things that we could be doing. Deforestation is a huge issue. I visited these forests when I was back in Uganda [the country where Carswell spent his childhood] a few weeks ago. This is a big issue with big implications on diversity of species, on energy: people are chopping down trees for charcoal and eventually this will push their fuel prices up because there will be a shortage of this once abundant source of fuel for cooking. It's going to have big implication on development and the environment. Me: But deforestation has been a big focus for the Copenhagen negotiations. Carswell: Think of the billions of pounds being spent to tackle carbon emissions. If we spent a fraction of that amount we could use those resources to prevent over-fishing straight away. It would allow a complete moratorium of fishing in certain waters until they recovered for a fraction of the amount we're spending on carbon reductions. Me: By paying off the fishermen to, say, stop fishing for five years? Carswell: Exactly. I'm not really advocating that, but a scheme like that, bearing in mind that the most productive time for the North Sea was immediately after the second world war. You could let the governments in third world countries, in effect, buy and take charge of large tracts of forest and prevent them being chopped down. Me: So, a year ago, before you read Plimer's book, did you think: 'Yes, we really do need to roll up our sleeves and sort out climate change and that is a priority', or even at that point, when you believed in the impact of the emissions, did you believe that climate change wasn't a priority issue, as billed by most of the world's politicians? Carswell: I thought it was all a priority. I grew up in a country where one was very aware of the destruction of the environment. Animals were becoming endangered. Forests were being chopped down. You could see the need for conservation in 1970s Africa. You could see that development and conservation went hand in hand – if you got one right you would get the other right. I've always been very aware of what is now called a 'green agenda'. What Plimer's book has done in my mind is reshuffle the priorities. I think we could do a huge amount for a lot less for actual tangible results. I fear it could turn people off the whole environmental agenda if we don't get this right. Me: By definition, that puts you in direct opposition with the Tory front bench. Do you think there's increasing retreat among Conservatives now on this issue [climate change]? Carswell: I think one of the most successful things we ever did as a country to tackle the environment was the ban on CFCs. It was a real problem that needed international cooperation and we dealt with it. It would be unthinkable if we were still putting CFCs into the atmosphere. There are times when you need international co-operation and solutions. Me: The message from scientists about climate change is far more vociferous than it was with CFCs. Carswell: Respectfully, you will have read Plimer and be aware that he questions the objectivity of some people because they receive grants in order to do research in certain areas. He challenges the idea that there is consensus. People talk about the scientists in the IPCC. Well, Plimer goes through in some detail the backgrounds on some those scientists. Me: Are you saying that this is a conspiracy? Carswell: No. If you provide funding for certain research in certain areas you will get a lot of research in certain areas. But I don't think there's a consensus. Plimer's quite interesting on this because he talks about some of the claims about consensus and the blanket assertions that all climate scientists agree and it is just not the case. Quite often scientists are very careful in what they say, but politicians and PR people then project on to what is said the arguments, ideas and solutions that they want to hear. What lobbyists say and what climate scientists are saying are not always the same thing. Me: But that's been an accusation placed at the sceptics' door; that it's a projection of what they want to hear, that they don't want to hear the truth about climate change? Carswell: Don't get me wrong. Having, until very recently, believed in the consensus, the conventional wisdom on these things and, having assumed that this is a given since my late teens, I'm hugely respectful of people who sincerely believe it. But I have read a contrarian scientist who presented different evidence that, perhaps, the conventional thinking on this needs to be adjusted in light of arguments put forward by Plimer and others. I'm respectful of people who think as I did until a few months ago, but nonetheless the facts have changed and I for one have changed my mind. Me: That's quite a brave and bold decision to have taken. You've moved all your chips on one side of the board where lots and lots of people have gathered to the other on the strength of one person's book. Carswell: I like to think that if I'd been an MP at the time that the Origin of the Species had been published I would have had the independent-mindedness to have read it and come to a view on my own rather than join the hullabaloo that followed to crucify Darwin. Science is about objective truth. It's not a question of being brave, but of being independently minded. Me: But hard questions have been asked of the climate science for 20-30 years and thousands of peer-reviewed papers have asked all sorts of questions. Hockey stick graphs and the like have been repeatedly challenged and analysed. Carswell: There will be ferocious debate, but I think the important thing to recognise is there is not the consensus that is often portrayed as existing. I'm not a scientist and therefore cannot possibly claim to know all the facts on both sides. But I am someone who has a say in public policy and public policy is based on science and having read one scientist challenge the assumption I have long held I think what Plimer says merits much wider investigation. Some of that will be a questioning analysis of what's he's written and, fine, you need dialectic in science, but you also need dialectic in public policy formation as well. Me: So come next June, and the Tories are back in power and forming a cabinet and selecting ministers, will your views on climate change, which do not square with David Cameron's, cause a mismatch? Carswell: I'm a backbencher and will not hold executive power whoever wins the next election. Me: You don't have an ambition to? Carswell: No, I'm a member of the legislature. I've been elected as a member of parliament. Me: You would refuse an offer to be a minister, or whatever it might be? Carswell: It's more important that I do my job as a member of the legislature ahead of anything else. My job is to hold the government to account to restore faith in politics and in our hideous Westminster system and where the public have almost zero ability to choose who their politicians actually are. I think we need to restore the legislature and I think we need to make sure there are people in it who hold the government to account regardless of party. Me: So, from the backbenches, will you challenge Cameron on his climate change proposals? Carswell: Yes. I blog and I will continue to raise questions. It's quite possible for me as a member of the party not to sign up 100% to absolutely every part of the party policy. That's why I'm on the backbenches. Me: Will you actively lobby against it, or will you just write the occasional blog? Carswell: Let's see where we go with this. I suspect what will happen is people will become more aware of the fact that the public is being expected to pay ever more for public policy solutions on climate change and I think the consensus about this will begin to shift and I suspect it's beginning to happen already actually. I recently listened to a debate on Radio 4 and the counter arguments were being put. I think there's going to come a correction in the market for ideas and I suspect that in a few years' time there will be more doubts about man-made climate change. Me: Among the scientists? Or among the populace? Carswell: Among the scientists. I don't think there's consensus at the moment. There's a section in Plimer's book where he looks at this idea that there's a consensus and he presents details about the scientific community that show there is quite clearly not a consensus. In any sphere where you need to make public policy based on science, you need to recognise there is debate in the scientific community and there needs to be some kind of corresponding discussion in the public policy sphere. Me: Do you have a sense in the Conservative party that there is now a shifting of views on this issue? After, say, a few years in power, will this drift away as a priority issue? Carswell: My view in the party is overwhelmingly the minority view. I couldn't pretend otherwise. The consensus in the party is very different to where I am, but my duty is to speak up for the truth as I see it. All the people on the other side are arguing from the best of intentions. They have the right motives. People want to do things to ensure we don't continue to damage the environment, but it's how we do that and what our priorities are that I think we need to debate. Climate change scepticismClimate changeClimate changeCarbon emissionsDeforestationFishingGreen politicsConservativesLeo Hickmanguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Fathers face postnatal depression too | Richard Adams My new son has turned my life upside down – but for some men becoming a parent can lead to mental illnessSince my son was born at the end of last year I've had many, many opportunities to realise how lucky I've been. Not only is he an utter joy to be around but he's also a happy, healthy, bouncing little boy who eats pretty much everything and sleeps easily. Even the arrival of teeth has, so far, been relatively untraumatic – nothing worse than a couple of days discomfort and some teething gel.I know I've been lucky because I know how easily things could have been different. Friends with kids exchange horror stories about the colicky babies who can't sleep for longer than two hours at a time, for months on end. The ones who will scream for hours every night after being put to bed. The babies who can't or won't eat without elaborate preparation or persuasion. Every baby is different, for reasons that have nothing to do with parental aptitude.And even without those complications, a healthy and happy baby is still hard work. Sleep deprivation means the first three months or more after birth are spent in a zombie's fog of stumbling misery for both parents. Minor events turn into major crises – just leaving the house, with or without the baby, takes on the status of an heroic expedition. Finding time to have a shower or even eat becomes surprisingly difficult. I can't begin to imagine the additional stress of going through all of that while at the same time recovering from childbirth – and possibly a major operation, if a c-section was involved – and in many cases having to learn to deal with breastfeeding as well as everything else.We know, of course, that many women do feel overwhelmed by the experience, and that some are unlucky enough to suffer from severe forms of postnatal (or postpartum) depression, around one in 10 mothers in the UK and the US. What is more rarely discussed is that fathers can suffer from many of the same symptoms and a significant percentage – 4%, in one study – go on to develop depression. That 4% figure comes from a UK population-based study by Dr Paul Ramchandani and colleagues, published in the Lancet in 2005, into paternal depression and childhood development. It concluded: "Our findings indicate that paternal depression has a specific and persisting detrimental effect on their children's early behavioural and emotional development."Exactly what the "detrimental effect" was is made clearer in a subsequent review by Ramchandani, published in the Lancet in August this year:Most psychiatric disorders that affect fathers are associated with an increased risk of behavioural and emotional difficulties in their children, similar in magnitude to that due to maternal psychiatric disorders. Some findings indicate that boys are at greater risk than girls, and that paternal disorders, compared with maternal disorders, might be associated with an increased risk of behavioural rather than emotional problems.It shouldn't be surprising that men can suffer from such disorders too. Looking at the NHS's guidelines for maternal postnatal depression, the list of possible causes includes worry and anxiety about the responsibility of having a new baby; relationship worries; money problems; having no close family or friends around you; and mental health problems in the past. The symptoms include: low mood for prolonged periods of time (a week or more); feeling irritable for a lot of the time; tearfulness; panic attacks or feeling trapped in your life; difficulty concentrating; lack of motivation; lack of interest in yourself and your new baby; feeling lonely; feeling guilty, rejected, or inadequate; feeling overwhelmed; feeling unable to cope; and difficulty sleeping. It's a rare new parent of either sex who wouldn't identify with several of those characteristics. As with depression in general, though, it's when perfectly normal responses to stress and circumstances are amplified and aggravated that illness can develop.It's important to note a couple of things here. One is that the existence of paternal depression does nothing to diminish the fact of maternal postnatal depression, if anything quite the reverse, as I'll explain. The other is that more research needs to be done, although that's hardly a stunning conclusion to arrive at. But there is a point: what is it specific to men or fatherhood that can provoke paternal depression? What research there is suggests it is strongly linked with maternal postnatal depression. A recent article in the New York Times noted:By far the strongest predictor of paternal postpartum depression is having a depressed partner. In one study, fathers whose partners were also depressed were at nearly two and a half times the normal risk for depression. That was a critical finding, for clinicians tend to assume that men can easily step up to the plate and help fill in for a depressed mother. In fact, they too may be stressed and vulnerable to depression.So, the easiest way to prevent paternal depression would be to prevent maternal depression to begin with, while recognising that paternal depression is also a possibility. Yet, in the prenatal and perinatal books and classes I absorbed last year, at some point there would be a brief and tactful section entitled "For the partner", which would usually begin along the lines of: "During pregnancy and after giving birth, many women experience something known as 'baby blues'. This is not unusual. But in a few rare cases ..." followed by a sketch of postnatal depression. Given the prevalence and seriousness of maternal depression, that's inadequate. Looking back, all those classes about childbirth might have been more usefully spent concentrating more on what happens after you both leave the hospital.Since my son was born, I can't think of a single aspect of my life that hasn't been affected by his arrival. That's something that can be difficult to come to terms with. Perhaps in my parents and grandparents' generations, less was expected of fathers in the earliest months of a baby's life – and we all know who got the raw end of that deal. Although we can debate the extent things may have changed, fatherhood is now a different experience. It's right that fathers are involved as much as possible in the lives of their children, from the beginning: another reason why I've been lucky is that the Guardian is an enlightened employer with a sensible attitude to paternity leave.Other parents, especially here in the US, aren't so lucky. Penelope Leach's latest book, Child Care Today, published this year, argues that governments need to recognise the changed role of fathers, and suggests specific ideas for easing the financial pressure to allow families more time together. That's useful advice – although in the lonely hours of 3am, with a crying baby needing to be rocked back to sleep, there's no better advice for any parents than Leach's own introduction: "Whatever you are doing, however you are coping, if you listen to your child and to your own feelings, there will be something you can actually do to put things right or make the best of those that are wrong."Postnatal depressionFamilyParents and parentingDepression in adultsMental healthPsychologyRichard Adamsguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
How a barnacle became toxic to repel its predators One species of barnacle has extraordinarily high levels of bromine in its body, becoming toxic in a bid to repel predators. news.bbc.co.uk |
U.N. Panel’s Glacier Warning Is Criticized as Exaggerated An estimate about the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers from climate change is coming under fire as a gross exaggeration. feeds.nytimes.com |
Are you addicted to sex? For celebrities such as Tiger Woods, checking into a sex addiction clinic seems to be the norm these days when you have been accused of infidelity. But is it a real medical condition – or simply a convenient excuse?A lot of people tend to think sex addiction doesn't actually exist. That's not just ordinary people, those of us who only ever really get to hear about the issue when Âcelebrities such as ÂTiger Woods or ÂRussell Brand check into an exclusive clinic and who therefore can't help Âwondering, when the news miraculously finds its way into the media, how much this is about a genuine problem, and how much about a bit of well-timed and cleverly crafted PR.It's also something a lot of experts in the addiction field tend to think. Too much sex, they say, whether Âphysical or virtual, just doesn't cut it as an Âaddiction. The most radical believe the word "addiction" is merely a label to describe behaviour that does not correspond to society's norms. The purists allow "addiction" to refer only to the ingestion of certain substances, such as alcohol or drugs. Many classify excessive sex as a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder and call it "sexual compulsivity" instead. Others argue that to refer to the phenomenon as an addiction undermines an individual's responsibility for their behaviour. Still others reckon it is a myth, a byproduct of cultural and other influences.None of which, of course, has stopped the emergence of a flourishing industry to treat the disorder (if disorder it is). Dr Patrick Carnes, the leading figure in the field and author of half a dozen books on the subject, Âincluding the seminal Out of the Shadows: ÂUnderstanding Sexual Addiction, runs the Gentle Path sexual addiction programme at the Pine Grove Behavioural Centre in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, where the world's wealthiest Âsportsman, Tiger Woods, is reportedly spending six weeks (and £40,000) in a bid to save his marriage and, one Âimagines, his endorsements, after Ârevelations that he may have had Âaffairs with as many as a dozen women.His specially tailored treatment programme apparently includes a vow to remain celibate for the duration of the course, as well as psychiatric Âconsultation, behavioural therapy, trauma work, "relapse prevention counselling" and one-to-one sessions on shame reduction and "setting sexual boundaries". There's also art, exercise and yoga classes, as well as an apocalyptic-sounding "Disclosure Day" when Woods will have to recount to his wife Elin all of his extramarital encounters.Carnes, who has not just won awards but had the American ÂSociety for the Advancement of Sexual Health's annual Carnes Award named after him, plainly believes sexual Âaddiction exists. "Am I a sex addict?" his website asks, invitingly. "Assess your behaviour with our online tests." Questions range from "Is sex almost all you think about?" to "Have you engaged prostitutes and escorts to satisfy your sexual needs?", "Have you attempted to stop your online sexual behaviour?" and "Have you regularly engaged in sadomasochistic behaviour?" Carnes believes that between 3% and 6% of the US population suffer from sex addiction, often to the extent that they have ended up losing career opportunities (27%), partners (40%) and even the will to live (17%).So are you a sex addict? The warning signs, according to Carnes, include: feeling that your behaviour is out of control; knowing there may be severe consequences if you continue; wanting and trying to stop what you're doing but feeling unable to, despite knowing the consequences; needing more and more sex to get the same high; Âspending an increasing amount of time planning, engaging in and recovering from sex; and neglecting other important areas of your life in favour of sex.Paula Hall mostly agrees. A British sexual psychotherapist, she treats up to 70 people for sex addiction every year (almost exclusively heterosexual men; there is precious little data on women with sex addiction, nor on gay people). "The first thing to realise about sex addiction," she says, "is that it's not about having a high sex drive, nor about any particular kind of sexual activity. It's your relationship with sex that's the issue: if you use it Âconsistently as a way of altering your mood, if it becomes the primary coping mechanism for the Âdifficulties you're experiencing in your life. Of course, none of it may matter if you're not breaking the law, or not risking your health. Lots and lots of people turn to sex for comfort. What matters is if it's the only source of comfort you have, and if it has damaging consequences."The people Hall sees for sex Âaddiction come from all walks of life, and their addictions take many forms, from excessive use of pornography to compulsive masturbation through to fetishes, high-risk sex, paid-for sex, internet sex and multiple affairs. But there are certain common denominators. Opportunity plays a big part, she says: "Many people I treat are men who travel a lot. They have the physical and the financial opportunity to pay prostitutes, for example." Many, too, have suffered from some kind of abuse in their childhood that has "caused problems with them modulating and regulating their emotions" (Carnes's research suggests that as many as 81% of his patients in an advanced stage of recovery said they had been sexually abused as children, while 72% reported other physical abuse and 97% emotional abuse).Increasingly, people are turning to Hall for what they see as an addiction to internet porn. "It's the crack cocaine of sex addiction," she says. "People with no predisposition towards this whatsoever can suddenly find themselves hooked onit. It's to do with the nature of the internet, the way it sucks you in, combined with the extremely high levels of stimulation it makes available. Escalation is a big issue: people find the amount of time they spend online spiralling, or end up in areas they never dreamed of going to." Some move swiftly from watching porn to seeking out real-life sexual encounters.Tina Grigoriou, a chartered counselling psychologist who regularly deals with sex-addiction cases, concurs that such behaviour is generally "a Âmanifestation of people not having the psychological resources to deal with their lives". And the best way to treat it, she believes, is with a classic anti-Âaddiction programme much like that originally developed by Alcoholics Anonymous. "Some people can't cope with being in a group," she says. "But for those who can, the most popular treatment seems to be the 12-step programme." Several of these groups exist, especially in America, including Sexaholics Anonymous, Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous, Sexual Compulsives Anonymous and Sex Addicts Anonymous.Other experts are not so convinced. "There's no doubt that there are Âaccepted problems around appropriate sexual behaviour," says consultant psychiatrist Dr Cosmo Hallstrom. "Some practices are acceptable, others not. Often it's a value judgment. The whole concept of sex addiction comes from the Alcoholics Anonymous world. There were addictions to alcohol, to drugs, then to exercise and to work – and they added sex. That style of treatment is certainly in vogue at the Âmoment, but there are other Âapproaches. Anti-testosterone drugs are of proven benefit, although not very fashionable. Standard cognitive behavioural Âtherapy, the psychological approach looking at underlying Âproblems, can work. So can a psychoanalytical treatment, to see how Âchildhood experiences could be Âaffecting adult behaviour."Some professionals, though, are sceptical about the supposed extent of sex "addiction". Professor Mark Griffiths, a psychologist at Nottingham Trent ÂUniversity specialising in behavioural addiction, says he is sure "any behaviour can be potentially addictive" in the sense that "it becomes the most important thing in people's lives; people compromise their relationships, their jobs, their families because of it; people use it for a high, and to obtain relief". We become addicted to such behaviours, he says, "for constant reward – physiological, psychological, social and financial. Sometimes the reward is that you don't get withdrawal symptoms."But everything, he says, is a question of context. "A healthy enthusiasm adds to a life; an addiction takes away from it. If you're a 23-year-old single guy and you're a workaholic, that's probably a pretty good thing. If you're 38 and married with two kids, it's probably not. The question is: to what degree does this behaviour impact negatively on your life? And while I'm positive that there are people out there for whom sex is the most important thing in their lives, and that genuine sex addicts with very serious problems do exist . . . I think we vastly exaggerate their number."If sex addiction was really the problem Carnes reckons it to be, Griffiths says, "we'd have addiction centres and rehab clinics like we have ones for alcohol and drugs. There'd be one on every street corner. Whereas in Britain there are about five. Six percent of the population . . . that's a lot of people. The problem with Carnes's research is that it's all based on the people who come to see him. Which is a pretty skewed sample."The vast majority of people who check themselves into sex addiction clinics or otherwise seek treatment for what they see as an addiction to sex are, believes Griffiths, simply Â"using the term 'addiction' to justify their behaviour. Psychologists call it functional attribution. It's about Âseeking justification through this idea that we 'really can't help ourselves'."And in the case of high-profile Âcelebrities who are allegedly addicted to sex, "they were simply in a position where they were probably bombarded with advances, and they succumbed. But how many people wouldn't do the same thing if they had the opportunity? It becomes a problem only when you're discovered, when it's in danger of harming your brand image. Look, I probably had way too much sex when I was a student. But it didn't cause any problems with the rest of my life. I don't know anything much about Tiger Woods, but if he hadn't been caught, I doubt he would see himself as a 'sex addict'."And there wouldn't, presumably, be a clinic prepared to take £40,000 off him in exchange for a cure.Additional reporting by Homa KhaleeliHealth & wellbeingHealthRelationshipsCelebrityTiger WoodsSocial trendsSexual healthPsychologyJon Henleyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |