Scepticism squashed?

The BBC report that: A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures...

...latest study, released early on Monday (GMT), concludes that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 1.5C (2.7F) over the past 250 years.

...In a piece authored for the New York Times, Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."...

Full story and access to lot of data, analysis, comment and debate via the BBC report here. Arguably it is because Prof Muller et al had a moderate, practical, pragmatic scepticism that he reasoned that a change of mind was justified by the evidence. Long may moderate, practical, pragmatic scepticism reign.

Climate: no change

Climate change is rated as a very serious problem. So why has action not been correspondingly urgent? Here's a screencast I've made exploring this question in terms of: visibility; historical precedent; immediacy; complexity; blame; personal impacts.

Cameron's Christianity Codswallop

David Cameron's pronouncements yesterday on Christianity are confused and send out mixed messages. He trumpets that we are a Christian country, when for many practical purposes we are not (see here) - Cameron himself said he was only a vaguely practicing Christian and over half the country said they were non-religious in the latest social attitudes survey! He calls for the revival of traditional Christian values but says he is full of doubts on major theological issues (see here). He's hardly setting a Christian standard is he, so what is he playing at?

His stated idea is that the return of Christian values would help us fight our 'moral collapse'. He's wrong to think that Christianity and the Bible or any other religion and its texts are the basis of our morality. Human beings developed a sense of what is right and wrong long before any formal relgions existed and very likely for evolutionary reasons.

Instead of pronouncing on Christianity his focus should be on effective, practical action to tackle the poor moral standards so evident in politics, policing, banking and financial services, in the media, and in the Christian Church itself. I'm fed up with expenses scandals, police corruption, greedy bankers and business-people, 'mafia-like' newspaper organisations, sexism, homophobia, child abuse scandals...and the advocacy of materialism we've long had from all political colours.

He should be looking at the privileged, influential position of Christianity in the UK and planning to make us a better secular society. He should think through whether the Bible is actually a consistent guide to anything at all. Richard Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that '...the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unkown to each other, spanning nine centuries...unfortunately it is this same weird volume that religious zealots hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for living.'

David Cameron should recognise that actually his doubt is a good thing. Doubt means you are thinking. It means you are asking questions, not accepting the status quo - seeking change for the better. Doubt helps us break away from unjustifiable traditions. With no evidence for the existence of God - quite the contrary in fact - and no convincing arguments either, why believe? If there is a God why is there so much undeserved suffering in the world eg those homeless, cold, hungry, thirsty, lonely, subject to war, terrorism and crime, in hospital...? As Woody Allen said God 'is an underachiever' !

The 400th anniversary of the King James Bible that prompted David Cameron's comments has its significance of course. This book is a major, if not the major work of English literature. Atheist Richard Dawkins sums this up nicely in The God Delusion, '...the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture. The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them.'.

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16231223

*http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/952

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16224394

*http://www.bristol247.com/2011/12/12/your-say-on-what-grounds-can-we-claim-to-be-a-christian-country-68525/

'Conspiracy theories finally laid to rest' by report on leaked climate change emails

Scientists involved in last year's "climategate" leaked emails controversy, which added to scepticism about the science of global warming, were not open enough with their data and unhelpful with requests for information, an independent review of the affair found yesterday.

They and their institution, the University of East Anglia (UEA), did not embrace the "spirit of openness" enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act, according to a long-awaited report into their conduct carried out by a panel of senior academics.

However, the review found that the researchers concerned, led by the Director of UEA's world-renowned Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Professor Phil Jones, could not be faulted for their "rigour and honesty as scientists", and there was no evidence that they had behaved in a way that might undermine the conclusions of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

(from The Independent)

Government 'action' on biodiversity?

A sixth mass extinction of species is underway according to those scientists who study this field. Even Bjorn Lomborg said in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist that the current/recent extinction rate is high (his figure = 0.014 % of species per year, compared to the background/natural extinction rate of 0.0001% per year ie even a 'sceptic' says it is 140 times greater). Large numbers of scientists put the extinction rate at ten or even a hundred times Lomborg's figure, which is why they talk of a sixth mass extinction: being underway; being very rapid compared to previous mass extinctions (see image, click to enlarge); being caused largely by human activities, especially since industrialisation.

Given this, how are our government reacting? What are they doing/planning to do? Not that much - certainly not enough! You can scour over this speech by the new Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman but you wont find much about action on biodiversity apart from acknowledging interdependence and generalities on wanting to make things better (the emphasis is in fact distinctly on other matters, like money). Lets hope that this is just down to it being early days for the new government. Spelman's department, defra, said this very recently about UK biodiversity assessments /measurements,

Of the 34 component measures within the indicators, over the long-term 10 have shown deterioration, 9 have shown improvement, 2 have shown little or no overall change, 12 had insufficient data for an assessment, and 1 is provided for contextual information and is therefore not assessed.

Not good. Note that by over the long term they appear to mean from the 1970s on! Figures comparing current biodiversity with pre-Second World War, pre- First World War or even pre-industrial levels would be very interesting, though the further back in time we go the harder it is to get reliable data. I'm not that impressed by the current way we gather, treat and use data either.

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/biyp/

http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/files/2010/05/1905biodiversity.pdf

Doubt, questioning, evidence, reason...progress

As someone who very strongly believes in questioning, doubt, scepticism, naturalism and reasoning I was very interested to receive the email below* from the British Humanist Association (http://www.humanism.org.uk/home). I responded to the 'doorstep questions' in their manifesto as follows:

DOORSTEP QUESTIONS

1. Should government departments treat humanist, secular and religious organisations equally in policy making, funding decisions and consultations?

Yes

2. Should religious organisations be contracted to deliver public services?

No

3. What do you think the government's policy should be on faith schools?

No publicly-funded school should be run by a religious organisation. Schools should teach about religions, comparing examples which originated in each continent, but should not deliver religious instruction in any form or encourage adherence to any particular religious belief.

Privately-funded schools run by religious organisations should reflect the inclusive nature of British society and become part of the Local authority admissions system. This non-discriminatory approach should be extended to staff who must not be discriminated against in faith schools due to their own faith either in seeking employment or during employment.

4. What do you think about exemptions for religious organisations from aspects of antidiscrimination and equality legislation?

There should be no religious exemptions from equality and anti-discrimination legislation

5. Would you vote to retain or remove bishops from the House of Lords?

Remove!!

6. How would you vote on abortion / assisted dying for the terminally ill?

In favour of both

7. Will you defend the Human Rights Act?

Yes

8. Do you think dialogue work that doesn't include non-religious people (e.g. 'interfaith' work) is desirable?

No - dialogue should include non-religious people.

9. Do you think that religious leaders should have privileged access to policy and decision makers?

No!!

10. Do you think that publicly funded faith schools should be allowed to discriminate in their admissions and employment?

No

________________________________________________

*I am delighted to enclose the British Humanist Association’s (BHA) General Election Manifesto. The BHA is the national charity representing the interests of the large and growing population of ethically concerned non-religious people living in the UK. It exists to support and represent people who seek to live good and responsible lives without religious or superstitious beliefs.

The numbers of such people are undoubtedly growing and current figures (from the British Social Attitudes survey of January 2010) suggest that 43% of the population is happy to self-identify as non-religious, with the numbers of those not practising or affiliated to a religion much higher.

The BHA is deeply committed to human rights, equality, democracy, and an end to irrelevant discrimination, and has a long history of active engagement in work for an open and inclusive society. In such a society, people of all beliefs would have equal treatment before the law, and the rights of those with all beliefs to hold and live by them would be reasonably accommodated within a legal framework setting minimum common legal standards.

The Manifesto set out the BHA’s vision on a number of core areas of work, from human rights to faith schools to free speech. These are all important issues for the millions of non-religious people in the UK.

We have included a number of questions in the Manifesto for your consideration and we would appreciate it if you could take a few moments to consider the questions and email us your answers to pepper@humanism.org.uk. We will use collate the answers for information and may pass them on to another organisation who is mapping the views of PPC’s on various issues.

Yours sincerely,
Andrew Copson
Chief Executive
BHA