The Arctic: Mirror of Life

As Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist leaders unite in a silent "prayer for the planet" aboard a cruise ship amid icebergs on the west coast of Greenland, we have the perennial cuddly polar bear warning that "two-thirds of the world's polar bears will be gone by the middle of the century." [BBC]

No "might" or "could." No "models predict." Categorically, it will happen. This "grim news" is intended as a "call to action," so there can be no room for doubt or objective examination of facts — only emotive threats. The Center for Biological Diversity, which has petitioned the US to list the polar bear as an endangered species and, therefore, to take steps to protect its environment, is explicit: "Our hope lies in a rapid response, including both deep and immediate carbon dioxide reductions and a full-court press on other greenhouse pollutants."

Let us briefly remind ourselves of the facts:

1. The new NOAA study† makes the following prediction:

"Based on the selection of a subset models that closely simulate observed regional ice concentrations for 1979–1999, we find considerable evidence for loss of sea ice area of greater than 40% by 2050 in summer for the marginal seas of the Arctic basin... With less confidence, we find that the Bering, Okhotsk and Barents Seas have a similar 40% loss of sea ice area by 2050 in winter."

2. The US Geological Survey claiming that this predicted loss of summer Arctic ice means no bears will be able to live there within fifty years is based on estimated vital rates whose precision was "low" and a study that "was short in duration relative to the life history of polar bears."

3. Actual study of polar bear populations has revealed that only two of the bear's populations are decreasing — and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, while in areas where air temperatures have risen, populations are growing.

4. Polar bears evidently managed to survive five centuries of warm weather during the relatively recent Medieval Warm Period (~800-1300 AD).

Even if the ice were to melt and even if this were to result in fewer polar bears, one is still left asking to what extent anything we have done has exacerbated this situation and whether anything we now do could alter this eventual outcome. At least the religious leaders appear to have shown a little more wisdom and humility than the environmentalists and politicians — limiting their prayer to "A recognition that we have spoiled the earth and we now need to rectify this by changing our lifestyles," and stopping short of asking God to reverse the thaw for fear that "Such a request might have invited comparisons with the legendary vain attempt by 11th century English King Canute to stop the rising tide." [As if anyone would think to make that comparison!]

† The NOAA, you may recall, is the body responsible for skewing the global temperature data to give the appearance of half a degree warming since 1960.

Renovation Ethics & Finances

"We're saying that we should offer very generous stamp duty reductions, rebates, if your home is passed on in the best possible condition. And I think if you do that it becomes less of an ethical decision and more of an investment, a financial decision...

The principle focus is on energy and we can achieve massive reductions with very little investment. And from the home owner's point of view that does lead pretty quickly to energy savings, bill savings, but in order to make that happen, because most people aren't, you know, the savings aren't so big that it's going to drive people to make these changes unless they're driven by ethical concerns which is why you need to have this stamp duty rebate."

Now, maybe I'm missing something in what Zac Goldsmith said on The Andrew Marr Show about the Quality of Life Policy Group's proposals — which won't actually be published until Thursday, despite the widespread coverage in today's papers — but I can't see how it is either an ethical or a financial decision for the Government to offer me the carrot of being able to pay less stamp duty on my property when I sell it, given that it is not me that will be paying stamp duty on my property, but whoever buys the house from me.

Now, cuts in council tax and VAT for those who make "green" domestic renovations, as reported elsewhere by the BBC, sounds like more of an incentive. But can anyone help explain the thinking behind the stamp duty proposal?

Embrace the Islamists

According to preliminary results in Morocco's parliamentary elections, the conservative Istiqlal (Independence) party appears to have unexpectedly beaten the Islamist Justice and Development Party (PJD). Many had feared that the PJD would win and will no doubt be relieved by this result. Yet, as an article in Time noted just a week ago, "The PJD is among the most transparent political parties in the country."

We might do well not to assume that all political parties coming out of Islamism are as extreme as Hamas in the Palestinian territories, who have refused to renounce violence. For scholars maintain that just about every other mainstream Islamist party that has participated in democratic elections, including Turkey's AK Party, Jordan's Islamic Action Front and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, has demonstrated a strong commitment to democracy and civil rights. We should heed the lesson of the Algerian debacle when, in 1991, the secular military stepped in after the Islamic Salvation Front won 47% of the vote in the country's first free legislative elections, resulting in a brutal civil war that raged for more than a decade.

In the Middle East and across North Africa, the questions of democracy and of political Islam are inseparable. Therefore, if we wish to see democracy spread, we are going to have to engage with political Islam. Recalling how Abraham Lincoln once said, "The best way to overcome an enemy is to make him your friend," maybe Osama Bin Laden is halfway right when he invites us to "embrace Islam." However, we do not need to convert to his radicalism. Rather, perhaps we need to embrace the Islamist moderates in a democratic hug.

Discuss The Difference on Facebook

Well, having resisted significant pressure from various directions for some time, I have finally bitten the bullet and joined Facebook. I have to say, Iain Dale has a lot to answer for as he was the final straw that encouraged me to take the plunge; he was also the one who encouraged me to follow my instincts and start blogging!

So, if you are already a facebook member, let me extend to you a personal invitation to join the newly launched Facebook group for readers of The Difference. If you are not a member and want to help spread the word, just go ahead and register, then you too will be able to join us :-) You can use the forum to discuss articles you found most thought-provoking in the magazine or what you might like to see in future issues.

For those interested, my personal Facebook photo was taken during my recent visit to Venice.

Time For Change

Just days after Michael Ancram gave us his "simple political creed," suggesting there are three core Conservative values — integrity, national pride and humanity — David Cameron has now summarised the beliefs that drive him: family, responsibility, and opportunity.

He asserts that the political agenda flowing from a belief in those three values "means that the most important driving force of everything you do, the principle and purpose of your politics, is to give people more freedom and control over their lives":

Because freedom is the real benefit of a strong family - it's the security it gives you to get on and get out and get up, with a strong family behind you if you fall.

It's because if you believe in responsibility, you have to give people freedom. You literally cannot be responsible for something unless you have power and control over it.

And it's because opportunity means the freedom to be a doer not a done-for, taking down the barriers so that everybody can make the most of their life.

So that will be the central test for the decisions I make: will it give people more freedom and control over their lives?

That is the overriding aim of the government I will lead...

This will be the choice at the election.

State control from Labour. Freedom with the Conservatives. And we will say to the British people - choose freedom."

Thus, for all the talking up of differences by the media, it is perhaps unsurprising that "the essence of the modern compassionate Conservatism" David believes in is not all that different from that described by Michael in his pamphlet Still a Conservative: "Freedom of the individual lies at the historic heart of Conservatism and sets us apart from those who believe the state knows best." As David maintains, this key principle of freedom applies to every issue and we should not make the mistake of accepting the false choice presented by those on the left who say he shouldn't talk about Europe, crime or lower taxes and by those on the right who say he shouldn't talk about the NHS, the environment or well-being.

N.B. If you are looking for the Ofsted report Time for change?, click here.

Spelman on Ancram

Thank you to everybody who left questions for Caroline Spelman, not least because a team effort on these occasions helps create the air of a lively mind without necessarily putting in lots of hard work.

I'm afraid you're going to have to wait for our November issue to hear what the Party Chairman says about the best strategies for making news headlines in the run up to the election and the assertion that the party has gone lukewarm on the issue of an EU referendum but, to whet your appetites, here's a snippet about her views on Michael Ancram's "simple political creed":

"He gave a personal view on what Conservatives have stood for, and that will be different from somebody else's personal view of what Conservatives have stood for. I don't entirely share his views and I don't agree with his criticism of David Cameron ­ I don't think that David Cameron has damaged the Thatcher legacy.

I have an open door policy for people to come and say what they think should change and what they think we should do differently. These are all ideas that we can capture, but they are things that should be said in private if politicians are going to be responsible about their position within the party and the use of that position to articulate their views."

Time to Inspire

The Conservatives' latest idea for healing Britain's broken society is a "universal scheme" to give every 16-year-old the chance "to mix with others away from home, give them a challenging mission to fulfil and enable them to be stretched in an environment they would never, otherwise, have encountered."

In an attempt to recapture the virtues of National Service, preparing young people for adult life, delivering the values of personal growth and service to others, and bringing Britain together in one shared, classless, patriotic mission, David Cameron is proposing a new sort of National Citizen Service, designed for the 21st Century. The six week programme would include an act of substantial community service, time away on a residential course, and a real challenge such as a week of basic training with the military or preparing a presentation to the board of a new social enterprise.

The only trouble is, if the programme is voluntary, then it sounds little different from what teenagers are already able to access through established platforms such as the Scout movement and the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme. If we are truly to "unlock the full potential of the next generation" then surely such scheme will have to be truly universal — that is, compulsory. Otherwise, the same self-motivated and parentally-supported youngsters will participate as already benefit from what is currently on offer — and the same anti-social yobs will continue being a nuisance in our communities.

Planet Relief Update

Well, what do you know:

BBC switches off climate special

The BBC has scrapped plans for Planet Relief, a TV special on climate change.

The decision comes after executives said it was not the BBC's job to lead opinion on climate change.

Celebrities such as Ricky Gervais were said to be interested in presenting the show, which would have involved viewers in a mass "switch-off" to save energy.

The BBC says it cut the special because audiences prefer factual output on climate change... A BBC spokeswoman said the cancellation was not due to concerns over impartiality."

"This decision was not made in light of the recent debate around impartiality." Sure, and Iraq was full of WMDs and Father Christmas will bring me a new job later this year if I keep being a good boy...

Possible Usefulness of Cybrid Embryos

15:30 Breaking News: As expected, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has given the go-ahead for the creation of human-animal embryos for research. The Government's U-turn follows an HFEA consultation that apparently showed the public were "at ease" with the idea when told it could pave the way for therapies for conditions such as Alzheimer's disease.

Which rather begs the question, as well as being told about some of the theoretical possible benefits, were the public also told about the even more probable risks? For, contrary to the impression given by some of those who argue in favour of creating human-nonhuman cybrids (cytoplasmic hybrids), some of the most relevant questions relating to the ethical discussion arise not from a consideration of human dignity or any religious grounds but rather from a scientific perspective and the actual possible usefulness of these entities.

In this regard, a report by BioCentre, The New Inter-Species Future?, made the following points:

1. Experiment needs confirming

The scientific merit and validity of experiments already undertaken (involving cow-human and rabbit-human hybrid embryos) remain to be confirmed by an independent research group repeating the procedures.

2. Interspecies mitochondrial-nuclear DNA dysfunction

The medical risks of implanting cells that contain a combination of animal and human mitochondrial DNA and human nuclear DNA are considerable, given that there are varying degrees of interspecies incompatibility between mitochondrial and nuclear functions. Furthermore, it should be noted that mitochondrial dysfunction has been discovered to be a key factor in many neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. Since many of the diseases claimed to be treatable by therapeutic cloning are neurodegenerative, using stem cells from human-nonhuman cybrids would be liable to result in profound medical risks. Similarly, the use of such stem cells to treat heart or liver complaints could create a number of difficulties owing to the high level of mitochondrial activity in these organs.

3. Difficulty in interpreting results

Regarding the use of human-nonhuman cybrids for research into diseases, there are so many profound genetic and epigenetic flaws in cloned embryos (even using eggs of the same species), that to use embryos created by interspecies nuclear transfer would be liable to become a study of artefacts. In other words, it would be difficult to interpret the results. The potential of an experiment, to add to the sum of knowledge is only as good as its capacity for interpretation.

4. Risk of creating new diseases

There would also be risks of transmission of animal diseases to humans or the creation of new diseases if any of the cybrid embryos were implanted into a host or not kept in a bio-secure environment.

5. Immunological incompatibility

Finally, it should be noted that it is doubtful whether the cells arising from human-nonhuman cybrids, in which an animal egg is used would become more human with development from the perspective of immunological compatibility and could ever have clinical applications. Because of this, and other factors, it is extremely unlikely that they would be used for transplantation in human patients.

Have Your Say

On Thursday The Difference is interviewing Caroline Spelman, Chairman of the Conservative Party, for the next issue of the magazine and we've decided to a run it as a "10 Hot Potatoes" piece and get her to give a party line on the ten issues we think readers will be most interested in.

If you have an idea for a topic that's current but slightly different to the norm (i.e. not "should we pull out of Iraq", although we'll probably ask that) then do let us know in the comments.