Stop Climate Change - nextgenerationearth.org

Scientists agree the Earth's climate is being directly affected by human activity, and for many people around the world, these changes are having negative effects. Records show that 11 of the last 12 years were among the 12 warmest on record worldwide.

Above: Greenland's melting ice cap

Be Part of the Solution

Commit to the Next Generation and join the fight against climate change. Join governments, companies, universities and individuals like yourself throughout the world to endorse a clean energy future.

If we act now, we can stop further climate change.

Click here to learn how to be part of a clean energy future.

Climate Change Statement of Principles

Climate change is an urgent problem requiring global action to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Energy use is vital for a modern economy. Burning fossil fuels produces CO2. Thus, confronting climate change depends, in many ways, on adopting new and sustainable energy strategies that can meet growing global energy needs while allowing for the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at safe levels.

Energy efficiency must play an important role in these strategies, but long-term success will require a concerted effort to de-carbonize the global energy system. This means significantly increasing the use of non-fossil-fuel energy sources, significantly raising the energy efficiency of fossil-fuel power plants through advanced technologies, and developing and deploying technologies that trap and store the CO2 produced by the fossil fuels that will remain in use.

Cost-efficient technologies exist today, and others could be developed and deployed, to improve energy efficiency and to help reduce emissions of CO2 and other GHGs in major sectors of the global economy. Research indicates that heading off the very dangerous risks associated with doubling pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations of CO2, while an immense challenge, can be achieved at a reasonable cost. Failing to act now would lead to far higher economic and environmental costs and greater risk of irreversible impacts. To meet this challenge and take advantage of these opportunities:

• The world’s governments should set scientifically informed targets for “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” in accordance with the stated objective of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This should include an ambitious but achievable mid-century, interim target for global CO2 concentrations.

All countries should be party to this accord, which should include specific near- and long-term commitments for action in pursuit of the agreed targets. Commitments for actions by individual countries should reflect differences in levels of economic development and GHG emission patterns and the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.

Clear, efficient mechanisms should be established to place a market price on carbon emissions that is reasonably consistent worldwide and across sectors in order to reward efficiency and emission avoidance, encourage innovation, and maintain a level playing field among possible technological options.

Government policy initiatives should address energy efficiency and de-carbonization in all sectors, allow businesses to choose among a range of options as they strive to minimize GHG emissions and costs, encourage the development and rapid deployment of low-emitting and zero-emitting energy and transportation technologies, and provide incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation and harmful land management practices.

Governments, the private sector, trade unions, and other sectors of civil society should undertake efforts to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change, since climate change will occur even in the context of highly effective mitigation efforts.

• http://nextgenerationearth.org/signatures/add/

• More Ways You Can Help

  

  Here are a few things you can do to help stop anthropogenic climate change, which is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

  Write Your Congressperson

  Many Web sites have pre-written letters you can send to voice your support of legislation that reduces carbon emissions. Here's an example of one.

  Reduce Your Carbon Footprint

  New York Times writer Andrew Postman discovered some easy ways to reduce his carbon output when he put his family on an energy diet.

  Stay Informed

  One of the biggest things you can do is stay informed. Many news outlets such as BBC News have special sections that explain climate change.

  Information is also available on the politics of climate change at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

• Fast Climate Facts

  

  Warmer surface temperatures over just a few months in the Antarctic can splinter an ice shelf and prime it for a major collapse, NASA and university scientists have reported. The process can be expected to become more widespread if Antarctic summer temperatures increase.

  Above: The Larsen B ice shelf, which was about the size of Rhode Island, collapsed over a period of 35 days in 2000.

  Photo credit: NASA

  Scientists agree the Earth's climate is being directly affected by human activity, and for many people around the world, these changes are having negative effects. Records show that 11 of the last 12 years were among the 12 warmest on record worldwide.

  The just-released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policy Makers — the first volume of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report — states that scientists are more than 90% confident that human industrial activity is driving global temperature rises. (add your thoughts on the report at RealClimate.org)

  Carbon dioxide levels today are nearly 30 percent higher than they were prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution, based on records extending back 650,000 years.

  According to NASA, the polar ice cap is melting at the rate of 9 percent per decade. Arctic ice thickness has decreased 40 percent since the 1960s.

  The current pace of sea-level rise is three times the historical rate and appears to be accelerating.

  The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years. The IPCC 4th Assessment Report said that this trend would likely continue.

  Droughts in the Sahel during the 1970s and 1980s were found to be caused by warmer sea surface temperatures, and the current drought in the Amazon is suspected to be a result of rising ocean temperatures.

  Poverty and food insecurity has also been tied to climate variability. A recent publication shows that providing climate information to vulnerable populations can improve — and even save — lives.

• http://nextgenerationearth.org/facts

reposted from: http://nextgenerationearth.org/
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Warm Feelings About Climate - Al Gore

Bring together John Rennie of Scientific American, Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute and Al Gore of, well, Al Gore and you are certain to hear passion on the subject of global warming. And that's exactly what happened last night at Columbia University, where Gore was honored by this magazine for his contributions as Policy Leader of the Year in 2006.

Economist Jeff Sachs took the opportunity to remind the assemblage of students, scientists and dignitaries (including U.N. President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa of Bahrain) that the world has confronted such global crises before. 2007 marks the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol--a global effort to stop the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for refrigeration that eventually escape into the atmosphere and eat a hole in the ozone layer. Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, that hole is healing (albeit slowly).

But the path of that issue also provides a lesson in how the world copes with large environmental problems, according to Sachs: first comes recognition, followed by industry denial, public acceptance, technology solutions and finally global diplomacy. In Sach's view we have reached the third stage of this process on climate change--public acceptance--in large part thanks to the efforts of the former Vice President. And big business is lining up to take part in the solution; "the whole idea that his is a business conspiracy, it ain't right," Sachs said. "Business is way ahead of the politicians. They want to make money but they know they're going to have to do it in a carbon-constrained world."

The global diplomacy will take time (don't expect U.S. action before 2009, in Sachs' view) and will require commitments from everyone, including developing countries like India and China. But starting in Bali this December, the global community will meet to begin drafting the successor to the Kyoto Protocol--the first baby step in an effort to combat climate change.

Sachs, of course, was simply the opening act for the rock star of the event: Mr. Gore. In friendly environs, I imagine he gets the same standing ovation every time he speaks now.

Note: he's aged a bit in the 13 years since this photo was taken.

He reiterated some of his "An Inconvenient Truth" spiel on the climate crisis, noting that humanity's relationship to Earth has profoundly changed in the last 100 years. Global population has quadrupled, human technology impacts every aspect of the Earth's ecosystems, and our outlook has shrunk from planning for decades to planning for moments (or just the next quarterly report of a business).

But he also took up Sachs analogy and extended it, noting the London Amendments to the Montreal Protocol that followed three years later and significantly tightened the restrictions on CFCs. A similar process is needed with Kyoto, Gore argued, and not by 2012, when it would expire, but by 2010. "I believe the solution requires a redefinition of this issue as a moral issue," he said, and moral issues do not wait.

A few pre-selected questions were asked (Should we adapt to climate change or try to stop it? What specific actions can people take? And what kind of sacrifices will be required?) but the answers were not very specific (even to the most specific question). And no one asked Mr. Gore if he'd be running for office to try to implement some of this moral crusade practically in the political realm.

Ultimately, the only real solution on offer was political: a global petition for a framework that all countries and all peoples can agree to, available at nextgenerationearth.org. But what about the electricity consumed (and coal burned) when everybody turns on their computer to sign up?

reposted from: SciAmerican
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Intellectual honesty in science: the Marcus Ross case.

This is an example of how scientists can 'compartmentalise' (in Richard Dawkins terminology) their scientific work from their religious and faith positions. Dr. Marcus Ross is an extreme example. Could he be described as being 'dishonest'?

Posted on: February 21, 2007 1:11 PM, by Janet D. Stemwedel

By now, you may have heard (via Pharyngula, or Sandwalk, or the New York Times) about Marcus Ross, who was recently granted a Ph.D. in geosciences by the University of Rhode Island. To earn that degree, he wrote a dissertation (which his dissertation advisor described as "impeccable") about the abundance and spread of marine reptiles called mosasaurs which disappeared about 65 million years ago.

Curiously, the newly-minted Dr. Ross is open about his view that the Earth is at most 10,000 years old.

There have been interesting discussions in the comments on the linked posts about what precisely a Ph.D. signifies (that you have completed coursework and banged out a defensible piece of research, or that you are fit to enter a holy society of scientists?), about whether science is primarily concerned with facts or methodologies, about whether it is possible simultaneously to hold contradictory ideas in your head. Because those discussions are happening elsewhere, I don't want to replicate them here.

Rather, I'd like to examine whether it would be possible for someone like Marcus Ross -- a self-professed Young Earth Creationist (YEC) -- to write a doctoral dissertation in geosciences that is both "impeccable" in the scientific case it presents and intellectually honest.

I take it that the main worry about Dr. Ross's dissertation is that what he wrote was some distance from his actual views. Larry Moran writes:

Ross did not discuss his YEC beliefs in his thesis, Instead, he wrote his thesis as though he believed in an Earth that was billions of years old and as though species evolved and went extinct over periods of millions of years. In other words, Ross did not tell the truth about his true "scientific" beliefs when he wrote his thesis. I assume that he also didn't discuss his true beliefs during the Ph.D. oral exam when his examining committee questioned him on his thesis work, including his interpretation and its implications. ...

The Ross case gets complicated because he did not do what any honest scientist should do and defend his "scientific" opinion in public. There's nothing in his thesis about Young Earth Creationism. However, his real views were well known because he had been consorting with Young Earth Creationists for some time. ...

In this situation we have an example of someone who carefully hid his true belief from the thesis committee, or at least went out of his way to give them an excuse to avoid facing up to the main problem. This is deceptive and antithetical to how science is supposed to operate ... It opens a whole other can of worms. While most of us would agree that openly advocating a young Earth in your thesis would be grounds for failure, we couldn't fail someone who effectively lied about his "scientific" opinion. We put our faith in honesty and scientific integrity whenever possible. It's the default assumption.

If Ross wrote a dissertation that asserts something that he then disavowed elsewhere (and in such a short interval of time that clearly he must not have believed it when he asserted it in the dissertation or in his defense of it), that looks like lying. One might wonder how big a leap it is to go from, "These critters lived in these places until they went extinct about 65 million years ago (although actually they can't have lived that long ago since the Earth was created much more recently than that)" to "Here's the data from the isotope-dating of the fossils I found in these locations (although actually I didn't find any fossils so I just made the data up)." My suspicion is that Ross would not cross the line of actually making up data; what is the principled difference between crossing that line and making assertions that one does not believe?

One possibility is that Ross saw his dissertation as an exercise in presenting the inferences one could draw from the available data using the recognized methods of geoscience. In other words, here's what we would conclude if all the assumptions about the age of the earth, deposition of fossils, isotope dating methods, etc., were true. Given Ross's YEC, he presumably has reason to think at least some of these scientific assumptions are false. (They are religious reasons, not scientific reasons. If there were scientific reasons to doubt these assumptions, it seems like examining those could only lead to a stronger body of knowledge in geosciences, and that Ross could have made such an examination the focus of his doctoral research.)

Is it an obligation for a scientist who has concerns about the goodness of an assumption on which people in his field rest their inferences to voice that concern? Is it an obligation for that scientist to gather data to test that hypothesis, or to work out an alternative hypothesis that is better supported by the data? Or is it OK to keep your doubts to your self and just use the inferential machinery everyone else is using?

A shorter way of asking the same question: Does intellectual honesty in science just cover the way you use the inferential structure and the inputs (i.e., data) from which you draw your inferences? Or does it require disclosure of which assumptions you really accept when drawing your inferences and which you are inclined to think are mistaken?

Does intellectual honesty require that you disclose as well the fact that you don't actually accept this inferential structure as a good way to build knowledge?

reposted from: Scienceblogs - and see this page for comments
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Io - Jupiter moon

Io is a colorful place. The closest large moon of Jupiter, Io has the most volcanic activity of any moon in the solar system with its surface being completely buried in volcanic lava every few thousand years. The black and red material corresponds to the most recent volcanic eruptions and is probably no more than a few years old. This image by the automated spacecraft Galileo highlights the side of Io that always faces away from Jupiter. In this image, colors have been adjusted to enhance contrast, but are based on real composite infrared, green and violet-light images.

Image credit: NASA/JPL

reposted from: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_764.html
my highlights / emphasis / comments

sciencehorizons - Shaping the Future - Science & Technology in 2025

Resources for you to download:

• Discussion pack - View the instructions as a pdf file...

What is sciencehorizons?
sciencehorizons is a national series of conversations about new technologies, the future and society. It has been set up by the UK government and will run during 2007.

Developments in mobile technology, the internet and healthcare have changed our lives over the last few decades. New applications of science and technology will continue to shape our futures. The government has invited scientists, engineers and other experts to say which areas of science and technology they think will have the biggest impacts in the future. But experts don’t have all the answers. They can’t predict which particular developments will emerge and they can’t say how developments will be used by individuals and society. sciencehorizons is your chance to tell us what you think, and what sort of future you want.

What is this pack for?
The sciencehorizons pack will help you start a group conversation and give us your views. It contains stories about what life might be like in 2025. These are not predictions, they are just possible futures, based on currently emerging science and technology.

What will happen to the results?
The results of the sciencehorizons programme will be presented to the government in Autumn 2007. Your views will help the government understand how people feel about the way developments in science and technology could be used in the future. This will help them make decisions about how to research, regulate and communicate science and technology.

1. Decide who will write down the group’s views on the response form and make sure they are entered online or posted to us.
2. Read one of the stories in your chosen theme.
   
1. Mind and Body
   
2. Home and Community
   
3. Work and Leisure
   
4. People and Planet
3. You can get people to read out the story sheets or pass them round, or you can use the CD-ROM to view all of the information together.
4. Discuss the questions about the story on the response form and write down the group’s views.
5. Read another story, discuss the questions and record the views on the response form. Repeat until you have discussed all four stories in the theme.
6. Discuss whether there is anything you would like to say about the stories in the theme, or the pack more generally, and record your points on the response form.
7. Fill in the group details and give us your contact details if you would like to keep in touch.
   

• Discussion pack - View the Mind and Body Theme as a pdf file...
• Discussion pack - View the Home and Community Theme as a pdf file...
• Discussion pack - View the Work and Leisure Theme as a pdf file...
• Discussion pack - View the People and Planet Theme as a pdf file...
• Discussion pack - View the Questions as a pdf file...

Please discuss the following questions about all four stories and record your answers on the paper or online form:
1. What do you like about the technology in the story, and why? Please list all the things people in the group like.
2. What do you dislike about the technology in the story, and why? Please list all the things people in the group dislike.
3. Of the things you either like or dislike, which is the most important? Try to agree as a group- if you cannot agree, please explain why.
Please discuss the general question:
13. What else would you like to say about the stories in this theme, or about the pack in general?

Requests for sciencehorizons packs are coming in now (over 600 sent out so far), discussions are starting to take place (look at the calendar page for the larger ones), and we are pleased to say thanks to Ilkley U3A for being our first group to enter the results of their discussion online.

There are various ways you can get involved.

sciencehorizons is funded by the DTI’s Sciencewise programme and run by a consortium of Dialogue by Design, Demos, the Graphic Science Unit, BBC Worldwide Interactive Learning and Shared Practice.

Quick Links

• What is sciencehorizons? - sciencehorizons is a national series of conversations about new technologies, the future and society...
• Launch event video -what a sciencehorizons discussion can look like..
• How to get involved - sciencehorizons events will be taking place all over the UK from January to June 2007...
• What will happen to the results? - The results of the sciencehorizons programme will be presented to the government...

Resources for you to download:

• Broadening our horizons - an (more academic!) article putting the project in context.
• Podcast Kathy Sykes talking about public enagagement with science

Calendar of Events: http://www.sciencehorizons.org.uk/calendar.asp

Examples:

Date: Thursday, 8 March 2007

Time: 11.00
Venue: Science Oxford, Science Oxford, 1-5 London Place, Oxford, OX4 1BD
Suitable for: Years 12 and 13 students
Event name: sciencehorizons... shaping our future
Event description: Years 12 & 13 students are invited to take part in a discussion with scientists about what they want for the future and how they feel about the promise of new technologies.
Booking details: Booking essential. Call 01865 728953 or e-mail events@oxtrust.org.uk.

Date: Saturday, 10 March 2007

Time: 11.00am and 1.30pm
Venue: Science Oxford, Science Oxford, 1-5 London Place, Oxford, OX4 1BD
Suitable for: General public
Event name: sciencehorizons... shaping our future
Event description: Come and join scientists and other members of the community to explore what excites and concerns you about these possible futures.
Booking details: The event is free. Booking essential. Call 01865 728953 or e-mail events@oxtrust.org.uk.

Date: Thursday 22nd March 2007

Time: 18.00 - 20.30
Venue: The Institute of Biology, 9 Red Lion Court, London EC4A 3EF
Suitable for: Anyone aged over 18+
Event name: London Branch sciencehorizons Discussion Group
Event description: You are invited to the London Branch Science Horizons discussion group. This is your chance to express your hopes and concerns about possible future technological developments to the government. You will be presented with a series of short stories showing possible future scenarios on the themes of Mind and Body, Home and Community, Work and Leisure, and People and the Planet. We will explore the stories and record our views (anonymously) to questions about our reactions to them.
Booking details: Free but booking is essential. Email londonbranch@dicentra.plus.com

Interactive scenes

Source: http://www.sciencehorizons.org.uk/interactive.asp#

There are 4 themes:

• Mind and Body 2025
• Home and Community 2025
• Work and Leisure 2025
• People and Planet 2025

Click on a theme to view the interactive scenes for that theme.

When you are in a scene use your mouse to 'roll-over' the scene and click on a character to read their story.Each scene contains the stories of two characters and there are two scenes in each theme.

When you have finished one theme don’t forget to discuss the questions and enter the results, and remember to exit the scene and come back to this page to look at the next theme.

Results of small group discussions: http://smallgroups.dialoguebydesign.net/open/sessionlist.asp



reposted from: http://www.sciencehorizons.org.uk
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Branson to launch stem-cell bank

Cord blood contains stem cells

Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson is set to launch a company which will let families bank and store stem cells from their child's umbilical cord.

Some believe the cells may be used in the future to treat conditions such as Parkinson's disease and cancer.

Sir Richard Branson on Virgin's stem-cell bank

A handful of UK companies already offer such a service - but obstetricians and midwives say there is "insufficient evidence" to recommend the practice.

It is thought a few thousand couples have already used stem-cell storage.

The service is sometimes promoted to parents through leaflets provided in GPs surgeries and antenatal clinics and also in pregnancy magazines.

Midwives feel under pressure to engage in an intervention that is not researched or accepted by the profession yet Sue Jacob Q&A: Cord blood banking Send us your comments

Parents can be provided with collection kits which are then taken for processing and storage but some companies send someone to collect the blood.

Virgin says its service is unique because it will offer a charitable element, allowing the NHS to use some of stem cells the company stores.

Sir Richard explained: "We will take an individual's cord blood and we will divide it in two.

"So, part of it will go into a national blood centre that anybody can get access to. And the other half will be put aside for the child."

He said this should help particularly high risk ethnic groups who are prone to conditions that can be treated with stem cells but who may have difficulty finding well-matched cord blood.

NHS services

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said it strongly supported the need for an increase in public banks and international accessibility, which the Virgin Health Bank sets as one of its priorities.

But it said a prime concern remained the process of collection of the cord blood and the health of mother and baby.

An RCOG report published last year advised doctors and midwives not to take part in the blood collection as they needed to focus on the welfare of the mother and baby.

They pointed out that the NHS collects up to 2,000 cord blood samples every year for storage in a public bank that can be used by anyone who needs a cord blood cell transplant.

CORD BLOOD STORAGE One-fifth of stem-cell transplants are done in children and young people with leukaemia The chance of an individual using personal cord blood for a blood cell disorder before the age of 20 is estimated to be between 1/20,000 to 1/37,000 The NHS cord blood bank has about 7,000 donations

Cord blood storage is also carried out in families at high risk of a condition - such as Fanconi anaemia - which could be treated with a transplant.

Sue Jacob, from the Royal College of Midwives, said the majority of maternity units did not have a policy for dealing with the collection of cord blood, putting midwives in a difficult position.

Half of 267 midwives questioned in a survey by the college said they had been getting requests for the procedure.

She added: "Midwives feel under pressure to engage in an intervention that is not researched or accepted by the profession yet."

Belinda Phipps of the National Childbirth Trust said: "We are concerned about this new promotion of cord blood stem cells collection. The evidence does not show benefits for the baby.

"The method recommended and used by many commercial companies to collect stem cells risks interrupting the birth process, especially the third stage of labour, which is a particularly critical time for both mother and baby.

"Should parents wish to use such services they need to have access to all the information in order to fully understand the risks involved and make an informed choice."

UK is accused of failing children

Unicef says the study is the first of its kind for child well-being

The UK has been accused of failing its children, as it comes bottom of a league table for child well-being across 21 industrialised countries.

Unicef looked at 40 indicators from the years 2000-2003 including poverty, family relationships, and health.

One of the report's authors told the BBC that under-investment and a "dog-eat-dog" society were to blame for Britain's poor performance.

The government says its policies have helped to improve child welfare.

Unicef - the United Nations children's organisation - says Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries is the first study of childhood across the world's industrialised nations.

CHILDREN'S VIEWS Parents should spend more time with their kids Megan, 9, Aberdeen What children say would make their life better Send us your comments

In its league table the Netherlands came top, followed by Sweden, Denmark and Finland.

Unicef UK executive director David Bull said all the countries had weaknesses that needed to be addressed.

"By comparing the performance of countries we see what is possible with a commitment to supporting every child to fulfil his or her full potential," he said.

'Dog-eat-dog society'

The authors say they used the most up-to-date information to assess "whether children feel loved, cherished, special and supported, within the family and community, and whether the family and community are being supported in this task by public policy and resources".

But they added: "The process of international comparison can never be freed from questions of translation, culture, and custom."

We simply cannot ignore these shocking findings Bob Reitemeier Children's Society Reaction in quotes Relative poverty explained

Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, from York University, one of the report's authors, put the UK's poor ratings down to long term under-investment and a "dog-eat-dog" society.

"In a society which is very unequal, with high levels of poverty, it leads on to what children think about themselves and their lives. That's really what's at the heart of this," he said.

The UK government said its initiatives in areas such as poverty, pregnancy rates, teenage smoking, drinking and risky sexual behaviour had helped improve children's welfare.

Welfare reform minister Jim Murphy said the Unicef study was important, although it used some data which was now out of date.

CHILD WELL-BEING TABLE 1. Netherlands 2. Sweden 3. Denmark 4. Finland 5. Spain 6. Switzerland 7. Norway 8. Italy 9. Republic of Ireland 10. Belgium 11. Germany 12. Canada 13. Greece 14. Poland 15. Czech Republic 16. France 17. Portugal 18. Austria 19. Hungary 20. United States 21. United Kingdom Source: Unicef Key points at-a-glance Methodology behind report

"Hopefully it leads to a wider conversation about what more we can do to eradicate poverty," he said.

Unicef's league table drew on sources including the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the World Health Organization's survey of Health Behaviour in School-age Children (HBSC) aged 11, 13 and 15.

For the UK, the HBSC survey is taken from responses of residents of England only. Unicef also said some PISA indicators for the UK should be treated with caution because of low sample response rates.

The Children's Society launched a website to coincide with the report, www.mylife.uk.com, which allows children to answer a series of surveys about their lives.

Chief executive Bob Reitemeier said: "We simply cannot ignore these shocking findings.

REPORT CATEGORIES Material well-being Family and peer relationships Health and safety Behaviour and risks Own sense of well-being [educational] Own sense of well-being [subjective] Unicef report in full (1.5MB) Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader. Download the reader here

"Unicef's report is a wake-up call to the fact that, despite being a rich country, the UK is failing children and young people in a number of crucial ways."

The Children's Commissioner for England, Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green, said: "We are turning out a generation of young people who are unhappy, unhealthy, engaging in risky behaviour, who have poor relationships with their family and their peers, who have low expectations and don't feel safe."

UK REPORT FINDINGS UK child poverty has doubled since 1979 Children living in homes earning less than half national average wage - 16% Children rating their peers as "kind and helpful" - 43% Families eating a meal together "several times" a week - 66% Children who admit being drunk on two or more occasions - 31%

Colette Marshall, UK director of Save the Children, said it was "shameful" to see the UK at the bottom of the table.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne accused Chancellor Gordon Brown of having "failed this generation of children".

"After 10 years of his welfare and education policies, our children today have the lowest well-being in the developed world," he said.

reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359363.stm
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Action plan for killer asteroids

By Jonathan Fildes Science and technology reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

Nasa is tracking many asteroids

A draft UN treaty to determine what would have to be done if a giant asteroid was on a collision course with Earth is to be drawn up this year.

VIDEO AND AUDIO NEWS - A large asteroid could endanger life on earth

The document would set out global policies including who should be in charge of plans to deflect any object.

It is the brainchild of the Association of Space Explorers, a professional body for astronauts and cosmonauts.

At the moment, Nasa is monitoring 127 near-Earth objects (NEO) that have a possibility of hitting the Earth.

The association has asked a group of scientists, lawyers, diplomats and insurance experts to draw up the recommendations.

The group will have its first meeting in Strasbourg in May this year. It is hoped the final document will be presented to the UN in 2009.

"We believe there needs to be a decision process spelled out and adopted by the United Nations," said Dr Russell Schweickart, one of the Apollo 9 astronauts and founder of the Association of Space Explorers.

Known threat

The threat of an asteroid hitting the Earth is being taken more and more seriously as more and more NEOs are found.

In the US, Congress has charged Nasa with the task of starting a more detailed search for life-threatening space rocks.

"Congress has said that Nasa's efforts to date are not sufficient to the threat," said the US space agency's Dr Steven Chesley.

"They have changed Nasa's targets so that the cataloguing and tracking of asteroids is part of its mandate."

Congress has asked the agency to mount a much more aggressive survey.

At the moment, Nasa tracks all objects greater than 700m (2,300ft) in diameter. The agency's new goal is to track all objects greater than 70m (230ft) in diameter.

To do this, the agency needs to use a new suite of telescopes.

Alternatives include building a new Nasa-owned system or investing in other proposed telescopes such as the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) or the Panoramic Survey Telescope & Rapid Response System (Pan-Starrs).

Pan-Starrs is a wide-field telescope being developed at the University of Hawaii, whilst the LSST is a proposed ground-based instrument being developed by the not-for-profit LSST corporation based in the US.

Nasa estimates that there are about 20,000 potentially threatening asteroids yet to be discovered.

"Out of those thousands, there will be without question many that look like they might hit the Earth with a high enough probability that the public and everyone else will be concerned," said Dr Schweickart.

"This has gone from being an esoteric statistical argument to talking about real events," added Dr David Morrison, an astronomer at the Nasa's Ames Research Center.

Future plans

The UN draft treaty would establish who should be in charge in the event of an asteroid heading towards Earth, who would pay for relief efforts and the policies that should be adopted.

In addition, it would set out possible plans to deflect the object.

Ideas could include hitting the asteroid with a spacecraft or rocket to deflect its orbit.

Other less destructive proposals include a "gravity tug" that would simply hover over the asteroid and use gravity as a "towline" to change its path.

But any decision to deflect an NEO could come with its own set of conundrums for the UN, as changing its path may simply alter its final target.

"It's important to understand when you start to deflect an asteroid that certain countries are going to have accept an increase in risk to their populations in order to take the risk to zero for everyone," said Dr Schweickart.

It is difficult decisions like this that can only be addressed by the UN, the Association of Space Explorers believes.

And it is under no illusion that the process can be sorted out quickly.

"You have to act when things look like they are going to happen - if you wait until you know for certain, it's too late," said Dr Schweickart.

Experts who will draw up the treaty include Lord Rees, the English Astronomer Royal and head of the Royal Society; the ex-director of science at the European Space Agency, Roger Bonnet; and former UK government advisor Sir Crispin Tickell.

The proposals were outlined at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in San Francisco, US.

reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6370817.stm
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Submitting a Podcast to Think Humanist

How to submit your Thought for the day

If you′d like to offer your own secular TFTD, the rules are quite simple.

Think of an ethical issue and present your case in an interesting and imaginative way.
Your script should be no longer than 400 words, or about 2 minutes in length.
Make it topical or timeless - don′t navel gaze or rant.
Record it as an MP3 file and when you′re happy that it′s as good as you can make it, please use the form below to let us know and we will send you instructions for submitting your TFTD.

We′ll listen to it and if it′s suitable, we′ll let you know before we podcast it.

reposted from: http://www.thinkhumanist.org/podsub.php
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Humanist Ceremonies - Gillian Stewart

Gillian Stewart talks about Humanist Ceremonies - how humanist funerals differ from religious funerals.

Thought For The Day - Transcript - Gillian Stewart - 17th February 2007
I’m not telling you anything new when I say that religion has been around for a long, long time and, historically, one of its roles has been to mark the various rites of passage that humans experience in their lifetimes.

So why now, at this time in our history, do we need a secular alternative? The answer is quite simple really, in this day and age people expect and indeed demand choice. It’s no longer acceptable just to say ‘That’s the way it’s always been done’, because as humans we are constantly striving to find better, more suitable alternatives to pretty much everything in life, and that includes living!

And humanism offers a real way of being in the 21st Century, because it’s basic philosophy is about treating each other and the world we live in with respect – issues that have certainly always been relevant, but I would suggest never more so than at this point in our history. Amazingly there are still a great many people out there who haven’t even heard of humanism, let alone know what it means, so as a celebrant who conducts a variety of non-religious ceremonies I consider myself to be on the front line of offering people a positive experience of humanism.

So what’s so different about a humanist ceremony you might ask? Well many people comment that our ceremonies are extremely enjoyable and this applies to our funerals in particular, which you might find a strange thing to say! I think what is meant by that is that what we offer is a very real and very personal tribute of the person who has died and those close to the deceased find great comfort in that. When conducting a funeral ceremony I always meet with members of the family and hopefully friends of the deceased too. The more people I can speak to, the more honest a picture I can build up of the person who is being remembered, warts and all! Understandably there are often tears, but there can often be laughter too, because I’m focusing on the life of that person, not just their death. Hilary Stanton Zunin once said “The risk of love is loss, and the price of loss is grief”, and of course it is deeply sad when someone that we love has died, but the fact that they lived and enriched the lives of those around them deserves to be celebrated too.

Each and every one of us has a unique part to play in this world, and our ceremonies focus on that uniqueness. And whether I’m welcoming a new life into the world, celebrating the joining of two lives in marriage, or remembering with joy and compassion the life of a loved one, I do so with the utmost respect because we are all the same and basically that’s what humanism means to me…being human. I wonder what it means to you?

Details: Gillian Stewart

My background lies in Nursery Nursing and over the years I have worked at the Queen Mother's Special Care Baby Unit at Yorkhill Hospital in Glasgow, at a Nursery School and Family Centre in Fife, and along with 2 other women run my own successful private Nursery business.
In 1987 our son Roy was born. Unfortunately he had a serious heart and lung condition, which meant that his life was limited. Sadly Roy died when he was just 4 years old and my husband and I were devastated. This loss, along with other painful losses of both my parents, gradually led me towards humanism.
When we suffer such losses it makes us question what life is all about, and I decided that I wanted to use my experiences positively and in a way that would help others. So I started working with the families of children with life-limiting illnesses at Rachel House Children's Hospice in Kinross. It was a truly wonderful experience and I learned so much.
However there finally came a point in my life where I had to think about moving on and when I discovered humanism it felt like the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle had fallen into place, and since becoming a humanist celebrant I have been both challenged and fulfilled in the role of conducting non-religious ceremonies to mark the important events that occur throughout our lives. Whether it's a baby naming, a wedding or a funeral, my aim is to create a personal and memorable experience for everyone involved. www.humanism-scotland.org.uk
Download the transcript of this Thought For Today

20-02-2007 (1.38 MB)
Download Gillian Stewart - Duration: 3:01

Freeze 'condemned Neanderthals'

Small pockets of Neanderthals clung on in the south (Image: Gibraltar Museum)

A sharp freeze could have dealt the killer blow that finished off our evolutionary cousins the Neanderthals, according to a new study.

The ancient humans are thought to have died out in most parts of Europe by about 35,000 years ago.

And now new data from their last known refuge in southern Iberia indicates the final population was probably beaten by a cold spell some 24,000 years ago.

reposted from: BBC
my highlights / emphasis / comments

The research is reported by experts from the Gibraltar Museum and Spain.

They say a climate downturn may have caused a drought, placing pressure on the last surviving Neanderthals by reducing their supplies of fresh water and killing off the animals they hunted.

Sediment cores drilled from the sea bed near the Balearic Islands show the average sea-surface temperature plunged to 8C (46F). Modern-day sea surface temperatures in the same region vary from 14C (57F) to 20C (68F).

In addition, increased amounts of sand were deposited in the sea and the amount of river water running into the sea also plummeted.

Southern refuge

Neanderthals appear in the fossil record about 350,000 years ago and, at their peak, these squat, physically powerful hunters dominated a wide range, spanning Britain and Iberia in the west to Israel in the south and Uzbekistan in the east.

Our own species, Homo sapiens, evolved in Africa, and displaced the Neanderthals after entering Europe about 40,000 years ago.

Neanderthals held on at sites like Carihuela (Image: S Fernandez Jimenez/J Carrion)

During the last Ice Age, the Iberian Peninsula was a refuge where Neanderthals lived on for several thousand years after they had died out elsewhere in Europe.

These creatures (Homo neanderthalensis) had survived in local pockets during previous Ice Ages, bouncing back when conditions improved. But the last one appears to have been characterised by several rapid and severe changes in climate which hit a peak 30,000 years ago.

Southern Iberia appears to have been sheltered from the worst of these. But about 24,000 years ago, conditions did deteriorate there.

This event was the most severe the region had seen for 250,000 years, report Clive Finlayson, from the Gibraltar Museum; Francisco Jimenez-Espejo, from the University of Granada, Spain; and colleagues.

Their findings are published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews.

Rare event

"It looks pretty severe and also quite short," Professor Finlayson told BBC News.

"Things like olive trees and oak trees that are still with us today managed to ride it out. But a very fragmented, stressed population of Neanderthals - and perhaps other elements of the fauna - did not."

The cause of this chill may have been cyclical changes in the Earth's position relative to the Sun - so-called Milankovitch cycles.

How Gibraltar might have looked in Neanderthal times More details

But a rare combination of freezing polar air blowing down the Rhone valley and Saharan air blowing north seems to have helped cool this part of the Mediterranean Sea, contributing to the severe conditions.

Gorham's Cave on Gibraltar shows evidence of occupation by groups of Neanderthals until 24,000 years ago. But thereafter, researchers have found no signs of their presence.

However, in an interesting new development, scientists are also now reporting another site, from south-east Spain, which has yielded evidence for the late survival of Neanderthals.

In a study published in the journal Geobios, Jose Carrion, from the University of Murcia, Spain, and colleagues analysed pollen from soil layers at Carihuela cave to determine how vegetation had changed in the area during the past 15,000 years.

During the course of this work, they also obtained ages for sediment samples from the cave, using radiocarbon dating and uranium-thorium dating.

Sediment layers containing stone tools of a style known to have been made by Neanderthals were found to date from 45,000 years ago until 21,000 years ago.

Caution needed

The radiocarbon dates are "raw", and do not exactly correspond to calendar dates. They cannot therefore be compared directly with those from Gibraltar, which have been calibrated with calendar dates.

Neanderthal bones have also been excavated from these sediment units, including a male skull fragment which could potentially be very recent. But Professor Carrion is extremely reluctant to draw firm conclusions about the site based on the evidence so far.

Pollen records the environment in which Neanderthals lived (Image: S Fernandez Jimenez/J Carrion)

Spanish archaeologists carried out a detailed excavation of Carihuela between 1979 and 1992. But the cave is currently closed due to a dispute between national and regional governments over rights to dig at the cave.

"The human bones have been recovered in different excavation campaigns over 50 years. The relationship between them and the dates I provide must be treated with caution," Professor Carrion told BBC News.

He added that sediments in parts of the cave could have been churned up, mixing old bones in with younger material. He suggested Carihuela should be re-excavated to resolve some of the controversies surrounding the site.

Clive Finlayson suggested the late Neanderthal dates from Carihuela might agree well with those from Gibraltar after they were calibrated.

16 Mind-Blowing Microphotographs of Living Things

If you ever played with a starter microscope set as a kid, you may have felt the amazement of creating a miniature world simply by placing a drab little speck of matter under its objective lens. That same sense of wonder surely drove the winners of the 2006 Olympus BioScapes Digital Imaging Competition, an annual contest for the best microphotographs of living (or once living) things.

Click here to see the photos.

reposted from: SciAm
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Why altruism paid off for our ancestors

Humans may have evolved altruistic traits as a result of a cultural “tax” we paid to each other early in our evolution, a new study suggests.

The research also changes what we knew about the genetic makeup of our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

The origin of human altruism has puzzled evolutionary biologists for many years (see Survival of the nicest).

In every society, humans make personal sacrifices for others with no expectation that it will be reciprocated. For example, we donate to charity, or care for the sick and disabled. This trait is extremely rare in the natural world, unless there is a family relationship or later reciprocation.

One theory to explain how human altruism evolved involves the way we interacted as groups early in our evolution. Towards the end of the Pleistocene period – about 12,000 years ago – humans foraged for food as hunter-gatherers. These groups competed against each other for survival.

Group dynamics

Under these conditions, altruism towards other group-members would improve the overall fitness of the group. If an individual defended the group but was killed, any genes that the individual shared with the overall group would still be passed on.

Many researchers reject this model, however. One reason is that competition between individuals is likely to increase if a group becomes isolated, and any altruistic behaviour would then decrease an individual’s level of fitness compared with other members.

Biologists also assume that hunter-gatherer groups around this time period would have been insufficiently genetically related to favour altruism. In other words, die when defending the group and your genes die with you.

Ancient ways

Now a new study by Samuel Bowles at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, US, breathes new life into the model. Bowles conducted a genetic analysis of contemporary foraging groups, including Australian aboriginals, native Siberian Inuit populations and indigenous tribal groups in Africa.

The genetic variation found within these modern-day groups was analysed and then used to estimate the kind of genetic variation that would have existed in ancestral populations of hunter-gatherer from the Pleistocene and early Holocene (150,000 to 10,000 years ago, combined). “These modern groups live today as most scholars believe our distant ancestors did,” Bowles explains.

He calculated that early human individuals were likely to be substantially more related to each other than previously thought. But Bowles found bigger genetic differences than expected between discrete groups of ancient peoples. These conditions would have favoured altruistic behaviour, says Bowles.

Challenging times

Bowles also worked out that early customs such as food sharing or monogamy could have levelled out the “cost” of altruistic behaviour, in the same way that income taxes redistribute income in society. He assembled genetic, climactic, archaeological, ethnographic and experimental data to examine the cost-benefit relationship of human cooperation in ancient populations.

In his model, members of a group bearing genes for altruistic behaviour pay a "tax" by limiting their reproductive opportunities to benefit from sharing food and information, thereby increasing the average fitness of the group as well as their inter-relatedness. Bands of altruistic humans would then act together to gain resources from other groups at this challenging time in history.

For example, an injury may be one of the costs of defending the group during an intergroup conflict: a broken leg could be fatal for an individual who may starve through being unable to obtain his own food. But food sharing would make it less of a risk for individuals to participate in these conflicts, Bowles says.

One-woman men

The archaeological and ethnographic data he used showed that 13% to 15% of foragers died from wars, which were common between groups. Bowles’s mathematical models suggest that altruism must have been a significant factor in these populations. Although Bowles admits that he has found no evidence for any gene for human altruism, he says that if such a genetic disposition were to exist, group conflict would have played an important role in its development.

Monogamy would also level the playing field within the group, he showed in his statistical analysis. “Monogamy limits the ability of the stronger or more aggressive males to monopolise copulation,” says Bowles. “Humans are very unusual in this way.”

Bowles’s paper is original, says Robert Boyd at the University of California, Los Angeles, US, who wrote an accompanying paper. A model of the evolution of altruism based on group selection is now more plausible, he says. “I am still not completely convinced, but I am much more willing to entertain the hypothesis,” he says.

Journal reference: Science (vol 314, p 1569)

reposted from: New Scientist
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Best scientific advice must be used to understand bird flu risks

The Government risks not being properly prepared if a future outbreak of avian flu were to result in a human influenza pandemic the Royal Society warned today (6 February 2007).

The Royal Society said that the Government has still not taken onboard the recommendations of last year's joint Royal Society and Academy of Medical Science report on preparing for a potential influenza pandemic. According to the report, "Pandemic influenza: science to policy", the Government is not making the best use of independent scientific advice when making critical decisions on issues such as the stockpiling of antiviral drugs.

Dr John McCauley, a member of the Royal Society/ Academy of Medical Science working group on pandemic influenza, said: "Hopefully this particular outbreak has been contained and it is important to stress that the risk of the virus spreading to humans is minimal. However, should a bird flu virus become able to adapt to humans, it could leave us facing a flu pandemic. There have been three pandemics in the last 100 years, one of which killed 40 million people in 1918. It is important that everything possible is done to ensure that doesn't happen"

The Royal Society and Academy of Medical Sciences report recommended that:

• DEFRA should set up a vaccination committee to advise the department on the development of its vaccination strategies across all animal diseases, including avian influenza.
• The virus must be carefully monitored so we can understand how minor changes or mutations to the virus can potentially affect its ability to spread. As the virus mutates its ability to be transmitted between animals, animals and humans or potentially between humans may also increase.
• A leading influenza specialist should be appointed as a high-level adviser to government ensure that its monitoring and response to such outbreaks is based on the best scientific advice
• The Department of Health and the vaccine industry should continue to evaluate the use of whole virus vaccines and monitor the results of ongoing trials of whole virus vaccines against H5N1
• The Department of Health should revisit it its decision to stockpile only one anti-viral Tamiflu in light of emerging scientific evidence that H5N1 can develop resistance to this drug

reposted from: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=5883
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Love thy neighbour - so you can kill the others off

IT HAS been dubbed the Samaritan paradox. Why have we evolved to do altruistic things like giving blood or caring for the sick without expecting them to do the same for us? Bizarrely, it could be because it makes us better at waging war.

Samuel Bowles, an economist at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, studied modern hunter-gatherer groups along with archaeological evidence of early human conflicts and data on climate and other environmental variables from about 150,000 years ago. He concluded that the struggle for survival faced by early humans was so severe that war among groups and the wholesale destruction of localised populations was common (Science, vol 314, p 1569).

Bowles then constructed a mathematical model that pitted groups with genes for altruistic behaviour against groups without. Altruism protects the group against the costs of combat, he says. For example, one of the consequences of an inter-group conflict may be a broken leg - a potentially fatal injury for the person affected, as it would leave them unable to forage. Food sharing would mean they could survive, ultimately making it less risky for the group to go to war.

Biologists have long written off differences in survival between groups as an important driver of evolution, as natural selection works on genes, not groups. But Bowles's model incorporates gene differences, making his idea more plausible, says anthropologist Robert Boyd of the University of California, Los Angeles.

From issue 2582 of New Scientist magazine, 16 December 2006, page 18

reposted from: NewScientist
my highlights / emphasis / comments