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 |
Breakfast briefing: Dark matters for physicists, but a burst of light for BlackBerry • How could we ignore the news that scientists believe they may have - finally - detected dark matter? We couldn't. The announcement yesterday possibly marks the end of nearly 80 years of searching to find the material which, we're told, keeps the universe glued together. I'm rubbing my hands together in glee at the prospects for a sudden burst of development in physics. Surely teleportation can only be a few years away now.• Canada's BlackBerry-making Research in Motion surprised quite a few people when it announced a surge in profits for the past quarter, on the back of more than 10m handsets sold around the globe. And according to ComScore, the BlackBerry continues to extend its lead in mobile phone web browsing - with the iPhone now creeping up to a point where it has now overtaken Windows Mobile.• Mark Shuttleworth, the open source pioneer who is a driving force behind the popular Linux OS Ubuntu announced yesterday that he was stepping down as CEO of his company, Canonical. He still plans on being heavily involved in the Ubuntu community, but didn't really give a solid explanation on why he's stepping back now. For more insight, check out an interview we did with him last year, and (for comparison) another one from 2002 focusing on his role as a space tourist.You can follow our links and commentary each day through Twitter (@guardiantech, or our personal accounts) or by watching our Delicious feed.BlackBerryMobile phonesiPhoneWindowsMicrosoftOpen sourceSoftwareComputingBobbie Johnsonguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Discovery sheds light on Jesus' boyhood Finds suggest Nazareth was an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses, populated by Jews of modest meansIsraeli archaeologists today unveiled what could be the remains of the first dwelling in Nazareth that can be dated back to the time of Jesus – a find that could shed new light on what the hamlet was like during the period of Jesus's boyhood, according to the New Testament.The dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres. It was evidently populated by Jews of modest means, said archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority.Based on clay and chalk shards found at the site, the dwelling appeared to house a "simple Jewish family", Alexandre said, as workers at the site carefully chipped away at mud with small pickaxes to reveal stone walls.Nazareth holds a cherished place in Christianity. It is the town where Christian tradition says Jesus grew up and where an angel told Mary she would bear the child of God. "This may well have been a place that Jesus and his contemporaries were familiar with," Alexandre said. There was a logical possibility that a young Jesus could have played around the house with his cousins and friends, she added.The discovery so close to Christmas has pleased local Christians."They say if the people do not speak, the stones will speak," said Rev Jack Karam of the nearby Basilica of the Annunciation, the site where Christian tradition says Mary received the angel's word. The discovery was made when builders dug up the courtyard of a former convent to make room for a new Christian centre, yards away from the Basilica.It is not clear how big the dwelling is – the team have uncovered about 900 sq ft of the house, but it may have been for an extended family and could be much larger. Alexandre said her team also found a camouflaged entry way into a grotto, which she believes was used by Jews at the time to hide from Roman soldiers who were battling Jewish rebels for control of the area.The grotto would have hid around six people for a few hours, she said. Alexandre said similar camouflaged grottos were found in other ancient Jewish communities of the lower Galilee such as the nearby Biblical village of Cana, which did witness battle between Jews and Romans.At the site, Alexandre told reporters that archaeologists also found clay and chalk vessels which were likely to have been used by Galilean Jews of the time.The scientists concluded that a Jewish family lived there because of the chalk, which was used by Jews at the time to ensure the purity of the food and water kept inside the vessels.The shards also date back to the time of Jesus, which includes the late Hellenic, early Roman period that ranges from around 100 BC to AD100, Alexandre said.The absence of any remains of glass vessels or imported products suggested the family who lived in the dwelling were "simple", but Alexandre said the remains did not indicate whether they were traders or farmers.The only other artefacts that archeologists have found in the Nazareth area from the time of Jesus are ancient burial caves outside the hamlet, providing a rough idea of the village's population at the time, Alexandre said.Work is now taking place to clear newer ruins built above the dwelling, which will be preserved. The dwelling will become a part of a new international Christian center being constructed close to the site and funded by a French Roman Catholic group, said Marc Hodara of the Chemin Neuf Community overseeing construction.Alexandre said limited space and population density in Nazareth means it is unlikely that archeologists can carry out any further excavations in the area, leaving this dwelling to tell the story of what Jesus's boyhood home may have looked like.Karam said: "For me it [the discovery] is a great gift."ChristianityReligionIsraelArchaeologyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Cases: Healing Physically, Yet Still Not Whole A survivor of Stage 3 prostate cancer made a difficult realization that he needed more time and rest to heal properly. 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 |