To the

Commissioner of Security

Bureau of Civil Aviation Security

A" Wing, I st - III rd  floors, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath

New Delhi 110001

India

And to whomever else it may concern, and it must concern many.

Subject: Irrationality, flaws and waste in passenger security checks at Indian airports

Dear Madams and Sirs,

With the greatest possible respect, I would like to share with you four observations on passenger security checks at Indian airports, made after multiple airplane trips within, to and from India. In summary, these are:

1.      Irrational stamping of cabin-baggage tags

2.      Ridiculous, redundant ticket and identification check at airport entrance

3.      Wasteful walkthrough metal detector

4.      Shameful and dangerous assignment of privileges for the few

I believe these observations, outlined below in a structured manner listing the context, specifying the issue, suggesting a solution and associated costs and benefits, are serious enough to merit immediate debate and action.

1.      Irrational stamping of cabin-baggage tags

Context: Airport passengers, when being subjected to security screening of their cabin-baggage, are asked to attach a tag to their articles of cabin-baggage. Cabin-baggage is then passed through a machine which presumably allows security personnel to detect undesired content. If nothing objectionable is found, then a guard stamps the tag. Later, just before passengers enter the aircraft, another guard checks that each piece of cabin-baggage carried by passengers has a tag, and that these tags are stamped.

Issue: This entire stamping and checking of tags is irrational, as the tags are easily attached and removed from a piece of cabin-baggage, without affecting the integrity of the stamp. If Bobby is the one who has managed to sneak a piece of cabin-baggage unchecked through security, he can ask his friend Rob to give him his tag (Rob can throw away his innocent bag, or put it into another bag), or steal it from any one of his thousand co-passengers who are wandering through the shops and cafes of the airport, or pick up one fallen on the floor. Not that Bobby, the scheming perpetrator in our hypothetical example, needs anyone else. He can take an almost empty bag through security, legitimately getting a stamped tag at the end of the rigmarole. Later, he places the other bag, the one containing the prohibited stuff, inside the stamped-tag-carrying-bag, and voila – he his permitted to board the aircraft.

Potential solution: Dispense with the meaningless bag tagging, stamping and checking of tags.

Implementation effort: None.

Potential gain: Savings in time. Savings of manpower. Less discomfort to passengers. A saving of paper. A reduction in waste that needs to be disposed. Cleaner airport terminals. Removing a redundant check also means increasing the focus given to the sensible checks.

2.      Ridiculous, redundant ticket and identification check at airport entrance

Context: At the entrance to airports, stands a security guard who demands of airport passengers that they produce personal identification papers, as well as some sort of printed paper which suggests they have a flight on the day, from that airport. The identification is not checked against any sort of electronic database. The “proof of flight” is often an A4 piece of paper with flight information, not standardized across airlines and travel agents, and is also not subjected to an electronic verification.

Issue: The “proof of flight” paper could be forged by a nine-year-old child with access to a less than state-of-the-art word processor, and a dot-matrix printer. Thus, checking the “proof of flight” is utterly useless. The identification check is not dazzling in its value either, as there is no electronic cross-check made with a “list of those to be apprehended”. Here, of course, we assume that the security guard, i.e. all security guards at all entrances of all airports, does not have in his head a list of all those who are to be denied air travel at Indian airports.

Potential solution: Dispense with the “identification papers” and “proof of flight” requirement at airport entrances entirely. Note that both bona fides are checked later, in any case. Note that this is the practice at many, if not all, European airports. Alternately, ask airlines for a roster of passengers, and cross check the identification papers of the passenger with this roster; furthermore, ask security agencies for a list of undesirable passengers, and cross-check identification also with this list.

Implementation effort: The first solution is free of cost. The second solution would involve massive investments in information technology systems, and would have serious privacy implications.

Potential gain: Saving of manpower, saving of time. Removing a redundant check also means increasing the focus given to the sensible checks. Less discomfort to passengers.

3.      Wasteful walkthrough metal detector

Context: Airport passengers, when being subjected to personal security screening, are asked to walk through a rectangular frame, which purportedly detects the presence of metallic objects, emitting a beep when doing so. A few seconds later, the airport passenger is asked to mount a platform where a security guard uses a hand-held metal detector on the passenger, in addition to manually frisking him or her. This second step is performed irrespective of whether the walkthrough metal detector beeped or not.

Issue: Given that the security guard checks the airport passenger with a hand-held metal-detector, and also hand-frisks him or her, the walkthrough metal detector serves absolutely no purpose.

Potential solution: One solution is to simply get rid of the walkthrough metal detectors. Another solution, one which would mirror the practice at almost every airport in Europe, would be to use a combination of the walkthrough metal detector and the manual checking, i.e. when the walkthrough metal detector goes beep, the security guard checks the passenger manually; when the walkthrough metal detector does not go beep, the security guard waves the passenger through, without touching him or her, without waving a second metal-detector at him or her. When choosing this latter option, one has to test that the walkthrough metal detectors are fit for purpose, i.e. actually do detect metal and beep loud enough – but this is an implicit requirement for all equipment at airports, including the engines of aircraft.

Implementation effort: None; except minimal effort to appropriately instruct guards to change behavior, in case the second solution is opted for.

Potential gain: Less discomfort to passengers, less chances of the government or the airport being subjected to sexual harassment suits on account of reduced physical probing of passengers, saving of time, less work for security personnel. That’s if the sensible, second option is chosen. If the first option, then we have reduced noise levels at the airport, and it is less cluttered, and massive electricity savings, over time, when one considers how many metal detectors remain switched on at airports across the world’s seventh largest country.

4.      Shameful and dangerous assignment of privileges for the few

Context: The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security lists, on publicly displayed signs at airports, no less than 22 categories of passengers who are exempted from pre-embarkation security checks. The list starts off with the President of the Republic, hits judges of the Supreme Court, and chief ministers of states et cetera. Number 20 is His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. There is only one person who is listed by name, and not as a consequence of office held. This is Number 22, Mr. Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Ms. Sonia Gandhi, daughter-in-law of a former Prime Minister of India, who, in turn, was the daughter of a former Prime Minister of India. The sign goes on to state, apparently unaware of the irony, “….except the categories specified above….all other categories….are to be subjected to pre-embarkation security checks without making any exception in any particular case”.

Issue: The 22 categories result in an undisclosed number of individuals who are entitled to refuse security checks. This is an obvious security loophole, given that one would be hard-pressed to expect security personnel to be aware of all chief ministers, governors and chief justices of 35 states and union territories, not to mention the visiting ministers of all African and South American countries. Apart from the security aspect, in no other free country would one find such a sign that sets a few above the many. This sign is yet another clear indication that India is still in chains.

Potential solution: Either change the Constitution of India which embarrassingly insists on securing to its citizens “equality of status” and “dignity of the individual”, or ask the sons-in-law and great-grandsons of prime ministers and party officials et cetera to patiently stand in a queue like the rest of us unwashed masses – whichever is the easier option, of course.

Implementation effort: Let us assume that we will leave the Constitution alone. Then, on the one hand, it merely involves putting up a sign which says, “These rules are meant to ensure our common security, and are applicable to all. Please do not embarrass us, and the billion-plus denizens of this unhappy country, by demanding an exception”. On the other hand, it is a seminal shift in thinking from a slave-society to that of free men, and might need a lot of marketing spend to raise awareness, among public servants, and among servants of the public.

Potential gain: The world’s largest democracy has one less thing to be ashamed of, and confidence in airport security increases.

Of course, it is possible that the four practices I seek to change here have ramifications and uses which I have not been able to fathom. In that case, I shall look forward to your response disputing my facts or ridiculing flaws in my logic. If, however, I am spot on, then I expect that it is your duty to act.

With democratic greetings,

PROMOTING HUMAN DIGNITY IN INDIA

Abstract: India, representing one of the world’s major civilizations, appears to be largely indifferent to human dignity and the life of the individual. This paper suggests that while abject poverty is perhaps a major cause of this, another factor is a historical and cultural background inimical to the dignity of the individual. The paper then examines four non-economic measures to improve human dignity.

Global relevance of Indian problems

India is one of the world’s largest countries, and one of its fastest-growing economies. Her denizens are faced with a multitude of forces working against their interests. These problems of India must capture the attention of the world, not only because India represents distinct cultures not found anywhere else, but also because it is home to more than a sixth of all mankind [1]. We who live in the world of the extended supply chain and international commerce know that this figure must be augmented by many who exist without India’s borders, even if we slight the international cultural impact of India, such as derived from, for example, writing, films and spiritualism. A positive change here would be for mankind's good.

The struggle for limited resources

India is one of the world’s poorest countries. If we consider the World Bank’s gross national income (GNI) per capita metric, then, in 2010, India ranked 128 out of 177 countries, with data unavailable for a further 38 countries [2]. Within India, a full 68.7% of the country’s billion-plus population lives (2010 figure) on less than two dollars a day (purchasing power parity) [3]. This appalling poverty is perfectly visible in both cities and villages; it is contrasted with signs of affluence, suggesting stark income inequality.

India is also overcrowded. India (in 2011) had 382 persons per square kilometer. The corresponding figure for the United States (albeit the 2013 estimate) is 34 – that is less than ten times less than the number for India [4]. We have it on Mark Twain’s authority that India is a terribly hot country for much of the year [5], and air-conditioning is a luxury for the few. Add to all this the prevalence of infectious diseases, limited access to modern sanitation, the low rates of adult literacy, poor transport and communications infrastructure, and a very corrupt state [6] – essentially all the typical problems of the Third World, and one has the makings of a modern hell. In such a hell, it follows that human dignity and life are not priced at a premium.

A historical context adverse to the dignity and rights of man

There is more to the Indian hell than poverty, heat, mosquitoes and crowded buses. It is exacerbated by three main factors. Before we expand upon this theme, it must be stated that these three factors are also responsible for much good, and, as is often the case in the affairs of men, have been a mixed blessing for India. 

Caste

One of the distinguishing aspects of Indo-European culture is the breeding of races, through the system of caste. The system may have been corrupted over the past millennia of upheaval but it is still alive and not entirely toothless today, as may be seen in matrimonial solicitations and contemporary politics. Simplified, it demands that some humans are worth more than others, and some are not quite human. Dehumanization is the first step towards terrible crimes, and the Weimar Republic, after it had ceased being a republic de facto, offers us a recent example. Giving up caste would mean repudiating a central aspect of Indian culture. However, perhaps it may be made nominal or, at least, harmless, quite like the aristocracy in the European republics of today.

Foreign invasions and religious strife

Over millennia, India has been visited by invaders, who were quite often successful. Herodotus informs us that India, of all vassal states, provided the greatest tribute to the Persian imperium [7]. The Greeks attacked India, and then there were the Islamic marauders from the west. All left their mark, but the Islamic visitors settled down in India and became Indians, bringing with them their architecture, language, food, customs and, most significantly, religion. It is almost a thousand years since Islam first came to India, but Huntingdon’s clash of civilizations [8], in miniature, takes place with sickening regularity and human toll in India, wherein Hindus and Muslims attack each other, in the main. Like caste, religion offers an easy way to divide and classify people, especially because adherents of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism in India tend to be easy to identify as such, through attire, hairstyle and accessories. It is a tested formula: identify a group of people on some easily apparent basis, attribute to them monolithic and negative traits, inveigh against the entire group in general terms using exaggerated stereotypes – and the individuals vanish, they are no longer human beings. The answer is not to ban religion, or to await the coming of a new, more tolerant God, but to open up the religion–violence nexus to public debate.

Colonialism and its legacy

The rumor of Indian wealth persisted even after the Persians, Hellenes and Muslims. The Portuguese, the Dutch, the British, the Danes and the French all came to India, over the last few hundred years, to trade and colonize. Of them, the British eventually won, and India became the most prized possession of the British Empire [9]. The British Raj was responsible for making the English language, and British customs, a prerequisite to the individual’s advancement. A social hierarchy was established with the British at the top, and the wealthier landowners and princes far from the bottom. Yet again, India had a social scheme which encouraged exploitation and ill-treatment of those towards the unlucky side of the spectrum. The Raj has now ended, but the mindsets of servility and arrogance persist. The only ostensibly humble servants of the people must be forced out of the Kafkaesque castle they operate from [10]. Politicians must be forced to travel in public buses, or whatever means of transport their modest, official incomes support, whenever they wish to move themselves between feasts. They must be subject to the same inconveniences in the name of security that the masses must deal with, and learn how to themselves turn door-handles when they waddle between rooms in the houses of power. Officers of the state must be courteous towards the citizens they feign serving. There must be no need to grovel for a driving license. Or in order to obtain information as to which counter of which office might provide the recondite form one needs to fill out to initiate the first stage of applying for some official document that is a pre-requisite for applying for a driving license.

Four levers of positive change

The question of human dignity is intimately related to that of individual freedoms and the exercise of the human faculty of analytical thinking. In our complex world, we are often bombarded by information and opinions. The onus is upon us to identify issues of importance, sift through the onslaught, and ensure that we are not being asked to tolerate the suspension of freedoms, ours or those of others, on the basis of flimsy evidence, straw-man argumentation, ad hominem attacks, a fallacious argument from authority, emotional flag-waving or any other device traditionally employed by the demagogue. Whilst much of India’s ills may be attributed to the fundamental problem of destitution, there is more to the matter, as we have explored earlier. Economic advancement, as demonstrated in part by growth in India’s Gross Domestic Product, and investment in infrastructure will solve part of this problem. We now examine four other means of attacking the lamentable lack of value placed on human life and dignity in India.

       1. New ritual of basic human interaction

If one wanders the streets of India’s metropolises, and observes how most people engage with strangers, one shall find it difficult to accuse Indians of being over-courteous and excessively friendly when dealing with strangers. One assumes that most people across the world treat their immediate family and close friends well – it is when they must deal with a stranger, or with someone from whom they are buying a service or a product, that one gains an insight into how important courtesy, form, civility and friendliness are in a given society. Indians often dispense with a greeting when they meet, jumping straight to the matter at hand. They tend to be dismissive and belligerent towards waiters, doormen, housemaids and drivers. Indeed, any given social or economic hierarchy appears to be regarded by all involved as a moral hierarchy, and this ostensibly moral hierarchy appears to define social interaction, justifying the ill-treatment of all those beneath one, and subservience to all those above one, and also enjoining upon all a diktat to stay within the social or economic structure and to police others, thwarting anyone attempting to break free.

This paper hypothesizes that the introduction of a basic formula for human interaction will improve the shabby manner in which many Indians are treated, and will cause those usually at the receiving end of ill-treatment to be perceived as human beings who are automatically deserving of dignity. This six-point formula consists of the following: 

make eye contact when speaking to the human; 

do not shout at the human; 

greet the human with a culturally-prescribed phrase or gesture; 

use a culturally-prescribed phrase or gesture when ending a conversation with a human; 

employ the culturally-relevant equivalent of please and thanks when requesting and receiving something from a human;

adopt the formal form of the second-person personal pronoun to address the human, if the language provides for it (Hindi, like French, does).

This formula ought to remind us that the other protagonist too is a human being, not very unlike ourselves, and possibly also entitled to be treated with respect. Smiling is optional.

Perhaps it might be an idea to prepare and publicize a set of guides which outline not just the formula described above, but also recommended and expected actions in certain scenarios. For example, “What not to do when you see a wounded woman lying naked on the street”, “What to do when you see a bunch of men attacking another man”, “How to react if you witness an automobile accident”, et cetera.

        2. Promoting the literature of the indigenous languages of India

There is a plethora of languages in India. The Constitution of India, in its eighth schedule, lists twenty two languages [11], all of which presumably enjoy the patronage of the State, and are, in some sense, official. English is not one of them. However, even the casual observer to India cannot help but notice the prevalence and influence of the English language. It is used in government business, in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India and in shop signs. Many Indians adopt English words when speaking an Indian language. Further along the scale, many Indians routinely engage in the linguistic phenomenon known as code-switching [12]. Purists may shudder, and some Indian languages will die out in the coming decades because of disuse, but there is another, more insidious aspect to the apparent inability – clearly demonstrated by any five minutes of any recent Bollywood film – of many Indians to speak any Indian language, without borrowing words from other languages or switching languages in conversation. It is the almost complete lack of a modern literature. This paper hypothesizes that this lack automatically draws those desirous of literary stimulation to foreign-language sources, or to sub-standard local ones. Furthermore, that this lack is an impediment to the healthy development of the young adult, especially if he or she is not adept in a foreign language, leading therefore to a lower estimate of the self, or also of another, if not conversant in a literary tongue. Here, the example of Elieser Ben Yehuda, who single-handedly revived and revitalized Hebrew, and allowed the budding Israeli nation to possess a language of its own [13], serves as a beacon of hope. Today, it is easy to hear a conversation about romantic love in Hebrew, without the speakers being obliged to borrow words from Yiddish, English, Russian or Arabic. Perhaps, someday, we may be able to make a similar assertion about Hindi or Tamil.

            3. Ministry of Human Dignity

There are fifty one ministries in the union government of India [14]. This paper proposes the establishment of a Ministry of Human Dignity, with the mandate to seek consensus on what human dignity means for the Indians, and to work towards protecting and increasing it across all spheres of activity. The Ministry must draft and sponsor bills which amend existing laws which might be detrimental to human dignity, and introduce bills which seek to give more powers to those seeking to increase human dignity. It must examine occupations and contracts to ensure that, at least in the mid-term, no one has a demeaning job, through raising wages, or improving conditions. Disallowing demeaning and spirit-destroying jobs might also help to drive innovation. The Indian Army is another fine legacy of the Raj. One perhaps less fine aspect of the army is that officers routinely use soldiers as personal servitors. This circumstance is a prime example of something that may be reviewed by the Ministry of Human Dignity. However, the way in which the Ministry may perhaps effect most widespread change is through examining popular television shows and movies. Many Bollywood movies are full of casual slights to personal servants. Employees are threatened with physical violence, in an almost off-hand way. Police officers are portrayed as rude monsters who barge into private homes and talk down to those they are supposed to serve. The callousness of India is captured inadvertently by almost every Bollywood film. This must be questioned, and allowed only if it serves the plot. Municipal personnel in India being polite to auto-rickshaw drivers may come across as an incredible novelty at first, but might encourage school-children and businessmen to treat with decency those who depend upon their favor.

            4. Ministry of Fun

Another ground-breaking political innovation shall be the establishment of the Ministry of Fun. Surely, the human spirit needs more than food, shelter and the sight of Indian politicians attempting to engage in an intellectual debate to keep it going. The Ministry of Fun shall endeavor to ensure that the public has access to sources of entertainment, such as music halls, tennis courts and movie theaters; that citizens have access to fashionable clothes, alcohol, massages, sex, dance, libraries, parks, elephant rides, swimming-pools and art-galleries et cetera, in a safe and non-demeaning manner, subject to relevant local legislation, price-controls and majority of said citizens. The Ministry may also commission opinion polls to gauge the happiness of various parts of the citizenry, and seek to act upon its results. Sample questions may include, “How often did you smile last week?”, “How long ago was it that a stranger was friendly towards you?”, “When was the last time you had a coffee, other drink or meal with a couple of friends?”, “Would you like more coverage of our esteemed politicians demonstrating their erudition in Parliament, or more of physically attractive, skimpily-clad men and women on government-controlled television-channels?”, “When was the last time you heard a funny joke?”. Happy, well-balanced citizens are less likely to attack other citizens engaged in the pursuit of happiness.

Conclusion

India is a beautiful and brutal land. She has made immense contributions to the world, in food, music, philosophy, religion, languages, architecture and mathematics, and has been intimately involved with other great civilizations over millennia. However, a transformation from a land where women are routinely treated as chattel, where the desire for violence is often the first response, and where contempt for human beings is commonplace, to a land where human dignity and personal freedoms are valued, would be the most impressive experiment in the history of our species.

References

[1] According to the United States Census Bureau, the total population of the world, projected to 05 January 2013, is 7,057,646,519 (http://www.census.gov/population/popclockworld.html). The population of the modern republic of India (01 July 2013 estimate) is 1,220,800,000 (retrieved from the same website on 05 January 2013). A simple division suggests that 17.3% of all mankind is Indian.

[2] GNI per capita is the gross national income, converted to U.S. dollars using the World Bank Atlas method, divided by the midyear population. GNI is the sum of value added by all resident producers plus any product taxes (less subsidies) not included in the valuation of output plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and property income) from abroad. World Development Indicators, provided by the World Bank (http://databank.worldbank.org), retrieved on 05 January 2013.

[3] Poverty headcount ratio at USD 2 a day (PPP) (% of population) is defined as the percentage of the population living on less than USD 2.00 a day at 2005 international prices. World Development Indicators, provided by the World Bank (http://databank.worldbank.org), retrieved on 05 January 2013.

[4] Retrieved on 05 January 2013 from Wikipedia, based on Indian and US census records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

[5] “In India, “cold weather” is merely a conventional phrase and has come into use through the necessity of having some way to distinguish between weather which will melt a brass door-knob and weather which will only make it mushy.”, from http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2010/04/mark-twain-on-the-weather

[6] India is ranked 94 in order of corruption, with the least corrupt countries occupying rank 1. http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results

[7] “The Indians made up the twentieth province. These are more in number than any nation of which we know, and they paid a greater tribute than any other province, namely three hundred and sixty talents of gold dust.”, so Herodotus the ancient Greek historian. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/herodotus/book_03.html#89_107

[8] “The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.”, “The Clash of Civilizations?”, Samuel P. Huntington, Foreign Affairs, 1993.

[9] “In the first half of the 20th century, having been the "Jewel in the Crown" of the British Empire, India became the first part of that Empire to secure separate nationhood and independence.” http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/archives-highlights/indian-independence/

[10] “The Castle (German: Das Schloss) is a novel by Franz Kafka. (The) protagonist...struggles to gain access to the mysterious authorities of a castle who govern the village for unknown reasons...(The novel) is about alienation, bureaucracy, the seemingly endless frustrations of man's attempts to stand against the system, and the futile and hopeless pursuit of an unobtainable goal.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castle_%28novel%29

 [11] The eighth schedule of the Indian Constitution http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/Const.Pock%202Pg.Rom8Fsss%2836%29.pdf

 [12] “In linguistics, code-switching is switching between two or more languages, or language varieties, in the context of a single conversation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching

 [13] The founder of the new Hebrew language was born 150 years ago in Lithuania on 7th January 1858. “Before Ben Yehuda, Jews could speak Hebrew; after him, they did.”, attributed to Cecil Roth, http://www.beit-ben-yehuda.org/index.php?id=112

[14] This resource has a list of all 51 Indian ministries http://goidirectory.nic.in/union_categories.php?ct=E002

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