TOP 100 SCIENCE SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate LONDON (AP) -- Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online - stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.... hosted.ap.org |
Islam's arrested development Islam did ancient science brilliantly, but today Muslims lag behind. To catch up, they must demand the freedom to questionThe question: Can Islam be reconciled with science?Material resources are immaterial to the current sorry state of science in Islam. To do science, it is first necessary to accept the key premises underlying science – causality and the absence of divine intervention in physical processes, and a belief in the existence of physical law. Without the scientific method you cannot have science because science is all about objective and rational thinking. Science demands a mindset that incessantly questions and challenges assumptions, not one that relies upon received wisdom. If this condition is not fulfilled, all the money and machines in the world make no difference.Can Islam accept the premises of science? There are some versions of the religion that can, and others that simply cannot.But before proceeding further, let me distinguish between ancient science – which Muslims did brilliantly – and modern science. They are not quite the same but are so often confused together that it is important to make the point. The ancient science of the Greeks, Chinese, Muslims, and Hindus was a rather limited affair that did not put any theological system under undue stress. Scholars observed, drew a few conclusions, and wrote a treatise that only a few could read. It was inconceivable at that time to imagine that the workings of the entire physical world could be understood from just a handful of basic principles. There was almost no link to technology and therefore no impact upon how people actually lived.Not so for modern science. This product of the European Enlightenment is now the essence of a universal human civilisation. Although it was fuelled by the discoveries of ancient science, including Muslim science, the Enlightenment had an impact that was totally different from the stellar works of individual ancient scholars.Modern science defines our world by constantly creating new technologies. It also claims to explain everything from the scale of the atom to the universe, and from times that range from the present to the very birth of the universe. It evokes resistance among traditionalists because it offers an explanation of how humans emerged from the depths of biological evolution to their present form. All this makes it hugely different from ancient science, which is what the Greeks and Muslims – as well as Chinese and Hindus – had done so splendidly in their respective times. So if a civilisation did great ancient science, this does not automatically mean that it is equally qualified for doing modern science.To return to the issue of the compatibility of science with Islam: at one level the for-and-against arguments resemble those for Christianity. Islam has had its share of pro-science reformers, such as the 19th century figure from India, Syed Ahmad Khan and the Iranian Jamaluddin Afghani, who argued that miracles specified in the Qur'an must be understood in broad allegorical terms rather than literally. Following the rationalist (Mutazillite) tradition of 9th century Islam, Muslim rationalists insisted on an interpretation that was in conformity with the observed truths of science. This meant doing away with cherished beliefs, also held by Christians, of the great flood and Adam's descent from heaven, etc. It was a risky proposition at that time but it was far safer than it is today when the mood has shifted away from empirical inquiry.On the other hand, fundamentalist versions of all religions, including Islam, are philosophically averse to the notion of material forces running the world. They insist that the divine hand constantly intervenes, and so individual wellbeing requires constant supplications to the powers "up above". This belief system ascribes earthquakes, as well as drought and floods, to divine wrath. On this basis, it would be fair to say that Saudi Islam, or the various Wahhabi-Salafi-Deobandi versions, reject material causality and hence the very basis of modern science.Shia Islam, on the other hand, while politically assertive and insurrectionist, is less inclined towards pre-modern beliefs. Ayatollah Khomeini was quite content to keep science and Islam in separate domains. He once remarked that there is no such thing as Islamic mathematics. Nor did he take a position against Darwinism. In fact, Iran is one of the rare Muslim countries where the theory of evolution is taught. Today it is a front-runner in stem-cell research – something which President George Bush and his neo-conservative administration had sought to ban from the United States.But there is another side of the coin: Khomeini also developed the doctrine known as "guardianship of the clergy" (vilayat-e-faqih) which gives mullahs much wider powers than they had generally exercised in the past. Instead of being simple religious leaders, in post-revolutionary Iran they became political leaders as well. This echoed the broader Islamic fusion of the spiritual and the temporal, something that science is acutely uncomfortable with.To conclude: scientific progress in Muslim countries requires greater personal and intellectual freedom. Without this there can be no thinking, ideas, innovations, discoveries, or progress. The real challenge is not better equipment or faster internet connectivity. Instead, to move ahead in science, Muslims need freedom from dogmatic beliefs and a culture that questions rather than obeys.ReligionIslamPakistanPervez Hoodbhoyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
The Copenhagen conference means life or death for the Maldives | Mark Lynas Limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5C is still just about possible, but it's a target unlikely to survive the weekIf you live in the Maldives, "1.5 to stay alive" is more than just a catchy slogan. The reality is that temperature rises above 1.5C will destroy this island nation from all sides: rising sea levels will swamp the tiny atolls, warmer water will kill its beautiful coral reefs, and an acidic ocean will literally dissolve the islands one by one.The Maldives is not alone: other atoll countries, like the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Kiribati are in the same boat. Other vulnerable states, particularly those in Africa which are prone to drought and harvest failures, and nations in Central America and Asia which could suffer stronger hurricanes and more extreme weather, also know that 1.5C is the key line for them. At the UN climate talks in Copenhagen, more than 100 countries are determined to hold the line on 1.5C.The problem is that time is rapidly running out. Senior climate scientists have been holding side events in the main conference centre, explaining what different temperature rises mean, and how emissions trajectories need to change to avoid them. When I asked Dr Richard Betts, head of climate impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre, what would need to happen to restrain the temperature rise to 1.5C, his response was surprising: "The world would need to peak its carbon emissions by last Wednesday," he said.Was Betts being facetious? Slightly — but he was also underlining a deadly serious point. "Well obviously we can't be that precise," he clarified. "But the truth is that according to some of our latest modelling work, to have a 50-50 chance of staying below 1.5C, we need to be peaking emissions round about now – this month or so." And if we don't, the chances of restraining temperatures to this relatively modest level quickly begin to diminish. If emissions go on rising for another decade, he told me, the window of opportunity for having a 50-50 chance of keeping emissions even below 2C also begins to close.The debate about whether humanity should aim for 1.5C or 2C is one of the most heated here at Copenhagen. Europe has been committed to 2C for a long time, and at the most recent G20 summit other big nations — including the US — also signed up. In the current draft of the text being considered by negotiators here, both 1.5C and 2C appear in square brackets, showing that they are still being debated. Few seasoned delegates expect the 1.5C to survive the week.For the last decade the US has been the primary bad guy — but now India and China seem to be assuming that mantle. India strongly opposes any mention in the negotiating text about when global emissions should peak, because it fears that any such commitment would eventually force it to have to take on a mandatory carbon emissions target itself: anathema to a developing country which plans to burn an increasing quantity of coal over future decades.India and China have for the first time offered numerical targets — but these refer only to emissions intensity (carbon released per unit of GDP) rather than absolute amounts of carbon. So China's intensity cut of 45% will likely lead to a CO2 rise of 100% over the next decade alone. Nor is America's offer much better: just 3% below 1990 levels by 2020 is worse than the target the Clinton-Gore administration signed up to 15 years ago at the Kyoto protocol meeting.Not everyone's targets are inadequate. The Maldives (which I am currently advising) have pledged to be the world's first carbon neutral country, achieving this by 2019. Costa Rica will be the second, by 2021. But if you add together all the targets offered by the main players, the eventual temperature rise will take us well over 3C: between 3.5 and 3.9C, according to the latest analyses. That's still better than business as usual, which gives a likely temperature outcome of 4.8C. But it is hardly a safe climate either.In just five days' time, the world will know which way it is headed – not because of any advances in climate science, but because heads of state gathering in Copenhagen will have made their decisions. A temperature rise of 1.5 is still just about possible, but not for much longer. On this, the fate of the Maldives, and many other countries like it, rests.• Mark Lynas is author of Six Degrees: Our future on a hotter planet, and adviser on climate change to the Maldives. He is also presenting a nightly live webcast from Copenhagen with the director of the Age of Stupid and founder of the 10:10 campaign, Franny Armstrong.Copenhagen climate change conference 2009Climate changeCarbon emissionsSea levelMaldivesClimate changeMark Lynasguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming Beijing had its coldest morning in almost 40 years and its biggest snowfall since 1951. Britain is suffering through its longest cold snap since 1981. And freezing weather is gripping the Deep South, including Florida's orange groves and beaches.... hosted.ap.org |
Hydro scheme awarded major prize A scheme to generate power in the Brecon Beacons is one of three winners of a £1m prize for saving carbon emissions. news.bbc.co.uk |