 clipped from www.lead-america.orgAt the age of seven, a young boy At 22, he lost his job as a store By 35, At 41, his four-year-old son died. At 51, he was elected president of The man in question: Abraham Lincoln. |
 |
clipped from www.aafp.org
|
|
| clipped from www.swarthmore.edu |
|
clipped from www.nature.org
|
|
I love these programmes made by Johnathan Miller. I recorded the whole series on my Archos but the set below is web friendly.
Link to 6 videos
Jonathan Miller's history of atheism Part 1,2 & 3
A Spin-off from Jonathan Miller's 'A Brief History of Disbelief', including interviews about atheism with Colin Mcginn & Steven Weinberg
A spin-off from the 'A Brief History of Disbelief': Jonathan Miller is conversation with Arthur Miller and Richard Dawkins, about atheism....
A spin-off from the 'A Brief History of Disbelief': Jonathan Miller is conversation with Denys Turner & Daniel Dennet
by Terry Sanderson
Engaging with religious liberals will not help to undermine extremists; it will only enable and protect them.
There's an argument in religious circles that goes: in order to undermine the fanatics we have to encourage the liberal elements of religion. If you want to stop suicide bombers, you have to encourage the more moderate voices in Islam to speak up. The same argument surfaces regularly in Christian circles - yes, there are fundamentalists out there doing horrible things, but you can't judge all Christians by the activities of the minority at the extremes, it goes. Why not support the good guys who are doing their best and being ever so nice?
It's a seductive argument and I used to subscribe to it myself. But I've changed my mind.
As president of the National Secular Society I am are constantly approached by religious groups wanting to engage us in their pursuit of "interfaith dialogue". They want, they say, to "break down barriers", and who doesn't?
But once involved in these groups, it soon becomes clear that they are all from the liberal tradition. One set of moderates talking to another. The people who really need to engage - the jihadis and the literalists - are off practising the sectarian warfare they are so fond of. Let's talk? No, let's abuse human rights, persecute infidels and preach hate.
I've come to realise that the delusions of the liberals are not qualitatively different from those entertained by the Pat Robertsons or Abu Hamzas of this world.
The danger that these apparently harmless liberals pose is that of enabling the fanatics, who happily use them as human shields. Just as the terrorists of the Middle East will hide out in schools and hospitals to avoid being targeted by enemy bombs, so the ideological terrorists hide behind the liberals and the good-natured in order to spread their doctrine of intimidation and terror.
The poor, bleating liberals who are constantly complaining that their faith is not only misunderstood by its non-adherents, but also perverted by the fanatics who share it. There they stand, having spent a lifetime reinforcing in their heads the childhood brainwashing that they will never overcome, and making excuses for the same beliefs that motivate bombers and theocrats, misogynists and homophobes. This hinders the rest of us getting a clear run at the villains.
The liberals pave the way, open the doors and give succour to the very people they say bring their faith into disrepute. But it's no good the liberals trying to dissociate themselves from their wilder compatriots in faith. They promote and praise the same holy books that the fanatics use as justification for their murderous activities. "But the terrorists and the bigots are not true Christians/Muslims" say the liberals, while the bigots and the terrorists say exactly the same thing about them.
Or, as Sam Harris said in a recent essay:
"The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists, men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals 'who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally' deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society."
I am now accustomed to being accused of practising "fundamentalist secularism" and "atheist extremism" by religious reactionaries, but now the terms are being eagerly embraced by liberals. But a moment's thought would tell the liberals that democratic secularism is their best friend. Not only does it protect those of no belief from being persecuted by over-mighty and ruthless religious regimes, but it offers protection to the smaller religious groups who have become used to being stamped on by their holier-than-thou big brothers (try being a Christian in Saudi Arabia, for instance).
Liberals in religious traditions may not have evil intentions towards their fellow men, but they provide cover for their fellow believers who do.
reposted from: CIF
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments
Watch a full repeat of the 70 minute programme here or 8 x 10 minute clips here.
Forums > Climate Change in the Media > The Great Global Warming Swindle
A fine example of tabloid TV journalism, consisting largely of tightly-edited soundbites and very little extended analysis.
Sure - many of the issues that it featured were, in themselves, respectable pieces of science, at least as far as identifying past drivers of climate are concerned. But the fact that cosmic ray levels may have influenced terrestrial climate over the past 545 million years doesn't mean that anthropogenic CO2 isn't doing so today.
And in all the discussion of the correlations between global temperature and atmospheric carbon throughout the glacial-interglacial periods, absolutely no mention was made of the Milankovitch cycles. While variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt do explain many past climatic variations (and the fact that atmospheric carbon levels trailed rather than led temperature changes), they do not explain currently-observed warming trends.
Likewise, much was made of John Christy's work indicating that satellite and radiosonde measurements of tropospheric temperatures were incompatible with carbon-driven warming. However, there was absolutely no mention of the fact that most of this discrepancy has now been dismissed as an artefact caused by measurment inaccuracies.
But the crowning irony of the programme was to suggest that current concerns about global warming are driven by scientists' venal desire to obtain more research funding by promulgating environmental scare stories. It asks us to believe that national governments are more willing to fund "pro-global warming" research than Exxon-Mobil is to underwrite studies showing the opposite. A brief glance at the past relationship between the tobacco industry and research on smoking and health should lay that particular conspiracy theory firmly to rest.
All in all, a wonderful piece of sophistry that simply cries out to be subjected to a detailed and merciless refutation.
For some very interesting background profiles, and discussion, on people featured in the programme, see the latest posting on http://www.climatedenial.org/ .
Answers to some of the FAQs that the programme raises can be found on the Met Office website http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/2.html.
from fred on 10th Mar 07, 21:24:51An excellent rebuttal of many of GGWS's points is contained in http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
by Sir John Houghton, FRS CBE. According to Wikipedia, he is the co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) working group, the lead editor of first three IPCC reports, and was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.
Don't know if the reference to his rebuttal article has been inserted as a hyperlink - if not, can someone with more technical savvy than me hyperlink it please.
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
Maybe this one worked. Hope so.
The problem with programmes like this one is that 10-minutes after it has been shown I get my stepfather on the phone asking questions about it. Unfortunately he tends to believe the last thing told to him and as ever in my opinion they didn't do enough to show the agenda being pushed there...
I did notice the letter in the Sunday Observer refuting the claims in the show signed by various luminaries including Myles Allen from ClimatePredicton.net. I'm pleased to see them tackling it.
Cheers,
Gobion
Frankly... I didn't like how they stopped showing the records at about 1980. I also think it's fairly obvious that the director knew what he wanted footage of. It's easy to tell that a lot of "if"s and "buts" and "maybe"s have been simply cut out. Oh, and I'm fairly certain (and will look for a better source in a moment) that humans emit more C02 than volcanoes.
As someone who feels they understand the basic drivers of climate, it did make me stop and think that I am taking a lot for granted. Having said that, the program was full of annoying contradictions. I'll go and read the rebuttals that people have posted links to, to make sure I have the full picture.
Here's an interesting article that came up on Digg, the gist of which indicates that the graphs shown in the program were far from unbiased against global warming. Interestingly, I've had a friend repeatedly claim that all who oppose the program are conspirators in some kind of "plot". I can understand the need to be cautious, but some of this conspiracy theory is bordering upon hysteria, not to mention paranoia.
Likewise there has been an interesting discussion about the programme here. A lot of strong opinions from both sides of the fence on this and some good articles linked in the comments.
I think my main concern with the climate change issue being so divisive is that this isn't an ideological issue - it's a purely scientific issue, not a political one, not a cultural one... and yet we have people acting as if this is some conflict of science versus society. This issue shouldn't be another creationism vs evolution debate - there are no scriptures that say that the earth was created in 6 days and on the 7th God gave man an SUV and saw that it was good.
In principle, I can respect a climate sceptic provided that the result of their scepticism is to go out and do peer-reviewed studies to try and produce more accurate data. That's what the scientific method is all about... but these people, influenced by their socio-political bias, who promote a kind of "climate denial", claiming it is some culture conspiracy, are causing a great deal of harm to the public's perception of what, to me, is a very simple issue:
There is a correlation between carbon emissions produced by human activities and rising global temperatures. While the precice levels of influence and the specific ways that these changes will manifest are varied, complex and in some cases uncertain, the fact of the matter is that we would be incredibly foolish as a society to risk ruining the environment we have with practices that can be avoided by implementing alternative measures. It's really straight-forward and the fewer of these programs that complicate that issue we have the better, imho.
 The researchers say more should be done to help people be active |
The Oxford University study calculated physical inactivity was directly responsible for 3% of all deaths and illness in 2002.
Writing in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, the researchers said more needed to be done to help people be more active.
Heart experts said GPs could offer advice on how to start exercising.
The risks of not being active enough are well known, but only a third of men and a quarter of women are meeting government targets.
These say adults should take 30 minutes of moderate exercise five times a week, while children and young people should take 60 minutes.
Heart disease
The researchers calculated the amount of disease and early death attributable to physical inactivity, using information from the World Health Organization.
Things like social dances for older people make a big difference 
Dr Steven Allender, University of Oxford
They focussed on coronary artery heart disease, stroke, breast and bowel cancers and diabetes, calculating the total number of deaths, illness, and disability associated with them in 2002.
They then used a calculation called the population attributable factor, which works out the proportion of disease which can be attributable to a particular risk factor - in this case inactivity - and applied this to the UK data.
Altogether, 287,206 people died from diseases associated with a lack of exercise in 2003/4, of which more than 35,000 were directly attributable to physical inactivity.
The direct cost to the NHS, including inpatient stays, outpatient appointments, drugs, community care, and visits to primary care practitioners amounted to £1.06 billion.
Of this, coronary heart disease accounted for £526 million.
But the researchers said the cost could be even higher as the estimates did not take into account additional costs such as lost productivity or informal care.
Everyday lives
The team led by Dr Steven Allender of the department of public health at Oxford University, said: "We are not arguing that the findings of this paper change the importance given to achieving a reduction in the main risk factors for premature mortality such as smoking.
"We are arguing that the potential impact of changing other risk factors would be further enhanced if they were to include an increase in physical activity.
"There is an economic case for developing policies and interventions that promote physical activity."
Dr Allender added: "Activity needs to be a lot easier for people to fit into their everyday lives.
"For instance, we know a lot of people don't ride their bikes because of concerns over road safety and traffic density.
"At a more local level, things like social dances for older people make a big difference."
Steve Shaffelburg, of the British Heart Foundation, which is launching a campaign next month to encourage people to be more active, said: "This research is yet more evidence showing how important physical activity is for our overall health, and especially for our heart health.
"All adults should aim to take 30 minutes of moderate physical activity on five days a week at least. It can be enjoyable, cheap and easy to fit into everyday life. Brisk walking, swimming and gardening are great examples.
"You are never too old to start being active, but people who are not used to physical activity and not sure of what activity is right for them should discuss it with their GP."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6466019.stm
| From Tuesday, 20 March to Sunday, 25 March Friday is a good day. How to book.  |
| Friday, 23 March 2007 |
60 MATT RIDLEY Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code 2.30 pm • £7.50 • Newman Rooms
In 1953, Francis Crick walked into a pub in Cambridge and announced that he and his colleague James Watson ‘had found the secret of life’. Indeed they had; they had worked out the structure of DNA, discovering its ‘double helix’ form, one which could replicate itself, confirming theories that it carried life’s hereditary information. Matt Ridley’s life of Crick begins with his birth in 1916, his early explosive experiments at primary school and his time developing torpedoes in the Navy. After his genetic code discovery, which won him the Nobel Prize, the scientist’s later work was rarely uncontroversial.
61 TONY JUNIPER, DIANA LIVERMAN, MARK LYNAS and ROBERT MAY How do we Change Climate Change? 4 pm • £7.50 • Marquee, Christ Church
We may dispute exactly how much the temperature will rise this century but anything over 2°C risks catastrophic climate change. Rich countries are responsible for 80% of the man-made increase in CO2 and the poor countries will bear the brunt of impact, although it will affect us all. Whose responsibility is it to act? Do carbon trading schemes work? Should we be planning to double air transport by 2020? How can we produce energy less dangerously? Is blaming China and India an excuse for inaction? What exactly are we going to do and are we willing to pay for it—before it’s too late? Discussing these issues are Tony Juniper, Executive Director of Friends of the Earth and author of How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change a Planet, Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees, and Robert May, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government, 2000-05, chaired by Diana Liverman, Director of the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford.
LENNY SMITH Very Short Introduction Soapbox: Chaos 5.30 pm • free • Blackwell Festival Bookshop, Marquee, Christ Church
Chaos exists in systems all around us. Lenny Smith briefly draws on philosophy, literature, and mathematics to illuminate Chaos Theory, showing the variety of its fascinating applications in the real world—including technology, politics, and even gambling on the stock market.
Sponsored by Oxford University Press
69 NICHOLAS HARBERD Seed to Seed: The Secret Life of Plants 6 pm • £7.50 • Festival Room 2, Christ Church
Nicholas Harberd, one of the world’s leading plant biologists, tells of the changing seasons, taking as his focus one tiny thale-cress plant in an East Anglian churchyard. He describes both what can be seen with the naked eye and the hidden molecular mechanisms that underlie the visible events in the plant’s life. He also tells the story of the last ten years of scientific discovery in his own laboratory, as the team works to understand the genetic control of the growth of thale-cress—the fruit-fly of the plant world. Part field notebook, part sketchbook, part diary, Seed to Seed is a dazzling evocation of the beauty of the natural world and an exhilarating explanation of the secret workings of plants.
151 RICHARD DAWKINS and ROD LIDDLE with JOAN BAKEWELL The God Delusion 8 pm • £8.50 • Marquee, Christ Church
Does religious belief damage the health of a society, or is it necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society? While Europe is becoming increasingly secularized, the rise of religious fundamentalism— whether in the Middle East or Middle America— is dramatically and dangerously dividing opinion around the world. How are states shaped, with or without religion, and is the mixing of religion and politics always lethal? Richard Dawkins, author of the highly successful The God Delusion discusses these issues with writer and broadcaster Rod Liddle, chaired by Joan Bakewell.
http://www.sundaytimes-oxfordliteraryfestival.co.uk/events_23march.htm#060
reposted from: richarddawkins.net
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments
