The defense of climate change

Abstract: in many instances, the conversation around the scientific proof of climate change is riddled with logical fallacies. Climate Change appears to have become a closed system, quite like communism or organized religion, and as impervious to dispassionate criticism, a la Koestler

A recent article [1] in Rolling Stone serves as a case in point.

> here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

I wonder what the word "hard" in the phrase "hard numbers" refers to. Perhaps it attempts to convey the impression that the numbers represent unyielding truths. It is fascinating that the author makes no attempt to disclose his sources. If we allow this, surely we may also allow the author to make the assertion: "On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 representing imminent destruction of our ecosystem, and 1 absolutely no anthropogenic climate change, we are now at 9.5". That would be enough, and our author wouldn't need to put together a list of unsubstantiated statistics.

Of course, these statistics may be accurate, but the phenomenon of climate change would be true even without the author writing this article. If the author wishes to disseminate his wisdom and would like to build a chain of evidence, then he must at least make a good -faith attempt to allow a critical reception.

Also, it's not just the unattributed observations of empirical data (of which we remain ignorant - who collected it, under what sort of governance, over which time frame etc.), but also the really large number: 3.7 x 10-99. How, sir, I must ask, did you derive that number?

Are we sure that it's 3.7 and not 3.8? That it is 10 raised to the ninety ninth power, and not the sixtieth? Perhaps the third of July, 2010 is a memorable date for the author.

> it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record."

Ah, the double-quote device. So it's not the author who claims but - ah, we don't know who claims this, apart from that it is a bunch (how many?) of meteorologists. A formal, unanimous statement from a professional guild of meteorologists, backed by data? Or the author's second cousin and his roommate, both of whom have just graduated from meteorology school?

This theme of unattributed quotes and statistics continues, and is briefly interrupted by some hyperbole:

> the hottest downpour in the planet's history.

The entire history of our planet? Really? We have meteorological records that stretch back all the way? Half the way?

But the author appears to be aware that some might question his numbers. He forestalls them:

> How good are these numbers? No one is insisting that they're exact, but few dispute that they're generally right.

Excellent, so our author says they're not exact, and suggests that it would be pedantic and boorish to demand exact numbers, but claims that it is a minority who dispute them. But the scientific method does not really tend to side with the majority view (it courts multiple, independent lines of reasoning, and a theory supported by eighteen sources is probably more credible than one with only three)! The opinion of the masses may be the voice of God, but it does not count towards scientific proof.

The author makes the statement a second time ("The numbers aren't exact, of course,..").

Quote numbers, without sources or reasoning, and later put in the caveat that even these – potentially made up numbers – are not exact. This is one way of constructing a chain of reasoning.

> The 565-gigaton figure was derived from one of the most sophisticated computer-simulation models that have been built by climate scientists around the world over the past few decades. And the number is being further confirmed by the latest climate-simulation models currently being finalized in advance of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The operative words here are "sophisticated" and "latest". No data, no articulation of the methodology, no sources. It is possible that the science is too complicated for the author's audience. But then the author might have saved himself the trouble of all these words and just said, "The situation is bad. Believe me. And you lot won't get the science anyway - it's chock full of sophisticated models".

This is not unlike the priestly caste in organized religions. The select few receive the God's messages and derive their temporal power from it. To the masses is only revealed the truth that won't corrupt them, the simplified version. As Nietzsche puts it somewhere:

“Science makes godlike -- it is all over with priests and gods when man becomes scientific.  Moral:  science is the forbidden as such -- it alone is forbidden.  Science is the first sin, the original sin.  This alone is morality. ‘Thou shalt not know’ -- the rest follows.”

In spite of the author's use of numbers without source and context, he is remarkably certain that we will accept him when he refers to them as "hard numbers". He varies his terminology:

> iron logic of these three numbers

First, the numbers are "hard". Now, they are "iron". What comes next - platinum? Actually, it's a slight variant: "hard math".

But it's not that hard, is it?

All this is not to say that climate change or global warming does not have a scientific basis, but that the quoted article does not reveal what the basis is.

The Wikipedia (English) article on the subject [2] starts with:

“The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.”

That seems pretty conclusive. This statement has four sources associated with it, three of which belong to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC states in its “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report” [3]:

> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level. {WGI 3.9, SPM}

The reference appears cryptic. WGI appears to be Working Group 1, SPM Summary for Policymakers – although this is not contained in the report. One of these documents [5] has plenty of data, but no sources. Specifically, Figure SPM.1 on the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide etc. on page 3 does not have a source listed to it.

According to one UN source [4]:

> The IPCC does not conduct new research. Instead, its mandate is to make policy-relevant assessments of the existing worldwide literature on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change.

So who is actually doing the research? Who is collected the empirical evidence to test our sophisticated models?

A cursory search on the Internet suggests that it is the Met Office in the UK [6]. Reading their sampling restrictions, lack of raw data and policy on sourcing from other institutions, one gets the impression that, whilst even the current state of the date might be adequate to support the general conclusion that the planet is heating, it is by no means presented in a lucid and transparent way.

Climate Change may well be a reality, but the reasoning behind it appears to be esoteric.

[1] Global Warming's Terrifying New Math, Bill McKibben, 2012, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

[3] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

[4] http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Cr1=change&Cr=climate&NewsID=21429

[5] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

[6] http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records

A ludicrous charge and a poorer defence

A former judge of the Supreme Court of India recently published a critique of Indian society [1] in a leading Indian daily. Noble as his intentions may have been, this was couched in rather inelegant terms and did not exactly represent the work of an intellectual giant. A rebuttal [2], published in the Indian edition of the Wall Street Journal, was even less impressive.

Ø “First, when our people go to vote in elections, 90 per cent vote on the basis of caste or community, not the merits of the candidate. That is why Phoolan Devi, a known dacoit-cum-murderer, was elected to Parliament — because she belonged to a backward caste that had a large number of voters in that constituency.”

How does the good Judge know that they chose her on the basis of her caste? Perhaps they deeply considered all political issues, the various candidates on offer and decided to go with her. Or does he claim to read their minds? Or was it because he heard a couple of those who claimed to have voted for Ms. Devi say that they would have voted for her irrespective of her political beliefs and purely on the basis of her caste? But can we be sure that they actually did vote for her? Remember that India, like Germany, has a secret ballot in most indirect elections. And that they are being entirely straightforward now – perhaps they did vote for her political views, but wish now to disassociate themselves from those views.

Ø “Second, 90 per cent Indians believe in astrology, which is pure superstition and humbug. Even a little common sense tells us that the movements of stars and planets have nothing to do with our lives.”

Common sense is scarcely appropriate in discussions involving modern physics. And how can movements of large and shiny objects have nothing to do with our lives? They provoke thought (this is apparent) and exert a gravitational force on the entire universe (this is current scientific thinking, even if not necessarily apparent).

Ø “Yet, TV channels showing astrology have high TRP ratings.”

There might be a leap in logic here. Was this tested using a control group? Perhaps the high ratings are on account of the really attractive girls and boys who do the astrological readings? Or could it be the pleasing background music?

Ø “Such films, to my mind, serve no social purpose, but act instead like a drug or alcohol to send the viewer temporarily from his miserable existence to a beautiful world of tinsel.”

A philosopher has already suggested that there is little to choose between a king who dreams for twelve hours that he is a peasant, and a peasant who dreams for twelve hours that he is a king. That aside, does the good Judge truly take upon himself to deprecate beauty? What next, condemn art because one cannot sit on it, or eat it, or use it to shelter oneself from the rain?

Ø “At one time, India led the world in science and technology”

Now the good Judge allows outmoded patriotism to carry him away. What is India? Do we include Pakistan and Bangladesh and the State of Hyderabad? What about Afghanistan? What does “led the world” mean? The number of patents, the number of Nobel Prizes in mathematics? What of times before then? A pathetic grasping at imagined glories of the past, then.

Ø “According to the report, Mr. Katju said that “the problem with some ‘educated Indians’ was that they still suffered from ‘colonial inferiority complex’” and therefore believe Indian writers are inferior to those who live in London or New York.”

Yes, well, this is one of the main issues that post-colonialism is concerned with.

Ø “During his speech there, he took it upon himself to criticize a wide range of subjects beloved of millions of Indians: from cricket to Sachin Tendulkar to film actor Dev Anand to activist Anna Hazare”

This is shameful. It is a free country, and the Judge is free to express his opinion. If called to speak, speak he ought to! The Wall Street Journal article appears to imply that one may not criticize things beloved of the masses.

Ø “We reached Mr. Katju, 65 years old, by phone Monday to ask whether his 90% estimate was derived from scientific thinking.”

Generally, it can only hearten one to see that the Press does not let an unattributed statistic in an article pass unchallenged. This schoolboy pettiness though, one could have dispensed. Especially when the Press, a few paragraphs earlier, also quotes a statistic without stating the provenance, “approximately 1.08 billion anonymous Indians”.

The general tone of the WSJ article is not very sophisticated and no great love of intellectual diversity and of freedom of expression shines through.

Ø “Such statements are nothing new for a justice who has made his name speaking his mind – over and over again – since taking over as the chairman of the Press Council of India”

Surely, we should applaud the Judge for speaking his mind, and not that of someone else. Or does the author of the WSJ article suggest that the chairman of the Press Council only be allowed to express his opinion once every couple of months?

[1] The 90%; http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-90/934145/0

[2] India, a Nation of More Than 1 Billion ‘Fools’ ; http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/04/09/india-a-nation-of-more-than-1-billion-fools/?mod=wsj_share_facebook

The onus of personal conviction and ethical implications thereof for punishment systems

Contemporary Western society is built upon respect for personal freedoms. The taking of human life, especially, is generally considered outside the reach of the state. However, even the most liberal and tolerant of societies do have armed police forces, militaries equipped with deadly weapons and incarceration establishments - and (almost) all states regularly kill and imprison humans. The use of deadly force against a human, as also illegal detention, is controlled by preventive customs and judicial retribution after the act.

Sartre, in one of his short stories (from the collection, "The Wall") describes a scene in a makeshift prison in wartime Spain. An official comes over to a room containing three prisoners and informs them that they are to be executed at dawn. One of them cries piteously and says that it cannot be true, it must be a mistake. The official checks his list, confirms the name of the young man, and asks, not unkindly, how can it not be true, it is, after all, on the list.

The official here is not evil, as most caricatures of evil men go. He is performing his duty, and according not just to the laws of his time, but also the ethics of ours. He assumes that his "list", typically typewritten, perhaps on official notepaper, and occasionally with the signature of another official, is the result of due diligence. But he cannot possibly know it, with any very high degree of conviction.

Wielders of keys and weapons tend not to be present in courtrooms, or even be aware of the checks and balances in the judicial process. The "convicted" may be a complete stranger, as might be the "victim". The case might be false in some aspects, or even entirely hypothetical. Without being privy to the details of the violation, the circumstances of those involved, and the reasoning offered by the lawyers and judges, the guard outside a prison door takes upon herself or himself a heavy ethical burden.

Now, one of the arguments against the warden or the executioner being too personally involved in their wards is that these professions, like many others in our society, call for specialization. Alternately, they demand non-specialization. It makes little economic sense to have an expensively-educated lawyer spend a winter's night outside of a prison cell, doing a crossword puzzle and listening to the captive sing of loved ones. The other argument holds that the executioner could not possibly kill someone if he or she knew more about the man or woman kneeling by the guillotine, more about what makes a person human, the story of a life, of schools attended and dreams followed. A similarly involved jailor might countenance the escape of a prisoner, except in systems where such collaboration is dealt with brutally.

Both of these arguments fail when we consider the high value put on human life, freedom and justice.

To restate the problem: jailors and assassination squads carry out their society-sanctioned duty of robbing humans of freedoms and life on the basis of externally provided information, which they are not expected to question or understand. It would appear that they prefer the terseness and coldness of a written transfer or execution order to the screams of a tortured person, one desperately claiming the right to live and breathe the outside air. Without believing in the veracity of their orders, or, expressed better, without having cause to believe in their veracity, the servants of the state carry out their dreadful tasks.

Without possessing a reasonable, uninterested, personal conviction of the legal guilt of the prisoner, the jailors and assassins place themselves open to the charge of enslavement and murder. The uniform and pieces of paper in duplicate cannot offer an ethical exoneration.

Till we find a way to enable a high degree of information parity across the length of our punishment systems, let us be more tolerant of those captors and killers who allow themselves to be kinder to their wards than their official handbooks stipulate.

The principle of the citizenry being considered innocent until proven guilty must, therefore, be extended to the legal guilt being proven anew to every new prison warden. Note that we are here only concerned with legal guilt, and not whether the laws themselves treat the human body and mind with respect. We assume they do. Indeed, they must, before this ethical problem can be tackled.