Aesthetics of Electronic Media - 1. What is Beauty?

The last three posts in this blog have been very critical of the incredulity of the media. They make this blog seem hypercritical and almost cynical. There is therefore a need to change one's approach before the blog gets labeled and categorised. Hence this entry, the first of a series on an important issue - the aesthetics of electronic media.

What is beauty?

This is the main question discussed under the subject of aesthetics. Aesthetics is a discipline under philosophy, along with logic, metaphysics, ethics and epistemology. And so the mode of inquiry and pedagogy that we will adopt during this course is philosophical. Of raising questions and counter questions, of looking at available evidences, of discussion and discourse and not necessarily reaching final conclusions…

What is beauty?

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Yet if we take out the eye from the most aesthetically sensitive person and compare it under a microscope with the eyes of the most insensitive person, we may not be able to see anything different. When we say that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, what we mean is that it is in the mind, in the consciousness that perceives rather than in the perceived.

To say that beauty is just a feeling is to express it too loosely. People quite often say that beauty is subjective and not objective. Yet it is not completely subjective. Because all of us would agree that Madhuri Dixit is beautiful. And what is it that determines this sense of beauty?

Scientists have pointed out that we find beauty in the averaged features of the opposite sex. That is, if we superimpose a series of photographic images of a large number of faces from any ethnic community, the result is a beautiful face – for that ethnic community. Yet we can’t assert that the most beautiful is the most average.

The study is definitely an indication that there are some evolutionary forces at work here. Our perception of beauty in the opposite sex – male or female has an evolutionary role. Beauty is one of the cues in selecting the mate. Besides natural selection which eliminates the unfit (and therefore should be rightly called natural elimination), there is a process of selection called sexual selection. When you are selecting the mate, you are also selecting which genes will go into the next generation. The beautiful plumages of many birds have thus evolved due to sexual selection.

Thus the sense of beauty might aid evolution. But then, our sense of beauty does not stop short at the selection of a mate. It extends to many of our cultural artifacts. The existence of art forms cannot easily be explained by the theory of sexual selection.

What then, is beauty?

If it is in the mind, taking a look at psychology may help us gain some insight. Art can be interpreted as an attempt at sublimation of the sexual instinct. And indeed many artists are sexually frustrated. The visual and auditory displays are the most common means to attract the opposite sex. And the art of Konark and other temples as well as the graphitti seen in toilets, lifts and other intimate and enclosed spaces are perhaps sublimation of the sexual instinct.

But then surely, old artists like Hussain or Gujral are not still sexually oriented! It is said that Bernard Shaw started writing after he was sixty. If art was sublimation of sexual instinct he should have started when he was in his teens and he should have produced the best of works before he was into his thirties. Thus the notion of art as sublimation of sexual energy has very limited application.

The fact remains that the sense of beauty has evolved in us and therefore must have some evolutionary advantages. The chimpanzees do not appreciate Pablo Picasso (in fact, even amongst human beings, very few do) and gorillas do not take pleasure in listening to Beethoven. (There are some reports on plants growing better if you play them some Mozart. Since the results have been questioned, let us not take them too seriously yet.)

So there has to be something internal to us that makes us appreciate beauty. Something quite new in evolution, something which even our closest cousins do not possess.

But we also know that a taste for music or painting is acquired. Just like taste for food. Like food, we consume art. And our preferences are acquired. A Malayalee going into Bengal may find the flavour of mustard oil repulsive. A north Indian going into Kerala may wonder how people can eat food prepared in coconut oil.

In fact, most cultures have ritualisms related to the first solid food offered to a child at the age of six months or so. In this ritual aunts and uncles and other relatives make the child taste a variety of foods from that culture. The taste for food is developed by repeated exposure. The taste for drinking of beer or Feni are other typical examples to demonstrate the point.

Similarly, the taste in art is developed by repeated exposure. Thus somebody who is exposed to hard rock for the first time may close his/her ears. But later on, the same person may be seen to groove with it. If you go to an opera for the first time, you might want to run away. But in the course of time you may learn to appreciate the art form.

In short, we have to reformulate our earlier assertion that there is something inside us which makes us appreciate art. Instead we could say that there is something in us that helps us to learn to appreciate art.

Many people feel that they cannot appreciate the paintings of Pablo Picasso since they cannot understand it. In fact, understanding is not important for appreciation. What for instance, is there to understand in a piece played on flute by Chaurasia? It is just a series of sounds. It doesn’t make any sense - like the words of a song do. Yet why do we appreciate instrumental music, while refusing to accept “modern” or better yet, “abstract” art?

And then again, even if you understand the meaning of a song, you may not like the song if the tune is not good. Thus there is no real connection between understanding and appreciation.

In learning to appreciate and in developing a taste, there is a transformation in the aesthetic sensibility. One should make the phrase aesthetic sensibility, a little clearer.

When one goes to a flourmill one sees a common balance, which can weigh 50-60 kilos at a time. At the grocers one sees a balance, which weighs 2 to 5 kg. And at the goldsmith’s one notices a balance, which is sensitive enough to make distinctions of a less than a gram. All these are common balances, but they have different sensitivities measured in terms of sensibility. In the same way, we find that different people have different aesthetic sensibilities.

A common man in the street will distinguish 7 notes in an octave – the sapta swaras. But a person trained in music will distinguish 12 tones in an octave, including the sharps and the flats – counting both the black and white keys within the octave in a harmonium or a piano. But a virtuoso in Indian classical music recognises 22 srutis. Thus the sensibility improves with training.

The improvement in the perception and production of nuances and details would come about only by dabbling in the art form. Exposure by itself may not be successful in creating a better sensibility since it is rather passive. Better sensibility is achieved only by more active sadhana or riaz.

Electronic media offers you a video channel to express yourself in the visual arts. It gives you the freedom to experiment with the literary (narration/dialogue) and auditory arts (music) through the two audio channels. (One must also remember that it is possible to super text on the video.) Thus we must explore the aesthetics of paintings, music and literature to see how they come together in television technology. I will attempt precisely this in the next few entries of this blog.

As for now, let us merely stress that it is not possible to improve the aesthetic sensibility by attending a few classes. As professionals in the electronic media we must expose ourselves continuously to good paintings, music and literature to develop good tastes. And if possible, dabble in each of them so that we are well prepared to appreciate the finer nuances of the art of electronic media. This could turn out to be a life-long homework filled with aesthetic pleasure.

Sex Ratio & Female Foeticide: A Counter Point

After the census of 2001 in India, there has been a flurry of articles on sex ratio. Most newspaper readers there now know that the number of women per thousand men, have been falling and think that there is something awfully wrong. The falling sex ratio, radio and TV tell us, is because of abortion of female fetuses and they feel that sex determination tests should perhaps be banned.

This view raised by activists, is supported by demographers and scholars of repute. And a credulous and uncritical media has taken up promoting this view point. Yet a humble counter point needs to be raised. Because the whole argument seems motivated and self-assured if not irrational. And like bad news travels faster than good news, irrational viewpoints are adopted more easily. Vietnam and China are now being accused of practicing female foeticide. Looking at the changing sex ratio in Indonesia, there is a possibility that the country would be next in the firing line. Hence the need to raise this counterpoint on an international platform.

Firsly, if the missing 20 million girls (in India) were really selectively got rid of, as some people think, it would mean that about 40 to 60 million people in the country - the parents, the doctors, the nurses - have been directly or indirectly involved with it. In other words, on an average, 50 out of thousand people that you see in India would be party to female foeticide. This is indeed very difficult to believe.

Secondly, what is the reason for some districts in India showing the opposite trend of more females than males? If foeticide were responsible for the skewed sex ratio, one would be forced to argue that in the underpopulated tribal districts of India, people are practicing male foeticide! Media should then be asked to run a different campaign for these districts. Come on, now. Let us be reasonable.


One cannot deny that foeticide takes place in the country. Indeed, one should expect that nearly 50% of the abortions would involve female foetuses. But then, most of the abortions take place because of the mistake of unprotected sex. Female foeticide where the fetus is killed because it is female, is not the same as termination of unwanted pregnancies and is altogether different in its implications.

One does not also wish to disagree on the issue of female infanticide, negligence of the girl child, dowry deaths and other atrocities against women. But one could definitely suggest that all these are not really necessary or sufficient causes for the magnitude of fall in sex ratio.

The argument of female foeticide derives its conviction from stray case studies, social ethos and rituals. The only authentic data that we have is that the women per thousand men have been becoming lesser in the last few decades. The reasons given and the attribution of causes to this phenomenon are quite questionable since they belong to the realm of inferences and conjectures.

Are Skewed Sex Ratios Natural?

There has to be some reason other than female foeticide for the state of affairs because the decline in the sex ratio started much before sex determination tests became widely available in India.

Besides, it is not only in human beings that skewed sex ratios exist. Deer populations, which lead a pure vegetarian and simple lives far away from the qualified doctors show skewed sex ratio. And amphibians who would hesitate to go into sex determination clinics, also show skewed sex ratios.

It is well established now that a small change in ambient temperature can increase or decrease the number of females in some amphibian populations. It has also been seen that the density of population has an impact on sex ratio of mammals like deer. Thus it would seem that external conditions do have an impact on sex ratio even in higher animals.

You may insist that we are not animals and are only criminals, if you wish. You could quote that, as per general understanding, in humans, sex is genetically determined. And that, therefore, environmental factors have no control on sex ratio. But then, from hospital statistics it has been noted that the chances of conceiving girl children increases with ill health and stress to the mother. So it appears that there is more than what meets the eye.

There is definitely, a need to explore alternative explanations for the observed data of falling sex ratios.

One could start with basic questions: why males and females? What made a species to diverge into male and female sexes in the first place?

Simple budding and parthenogenesis (in which there is no need for a second sex, the male) were left behind in the evolution of complexity because of a simple reason. If you have the genes from both your father and mother, and if some of the genes of one or the other were defective, you could still manage. You might not even show the defect. So in the fight for survival, sexual reproduction has a distinct advantage over asexual modes.

Sexual reproduction also means some amount of mixing of the gene pools in every generation. So it makes the process of change and evolution of the species faster. But then, sexual dimorphism of the species into male and female, involves a huge amount of wasted energy, which goes into the creation of the redundancy of two sets of genes. So there was a need to choose between the two modes of reproduction. In fact, there are some species that adopt sexual reproduction only when the going gets tough. The choice for us, however, was made far too long back. And we are not that flexible any more, to chose to reproduce asexually, in a natural manner.

Once the sexes separate into distinct categories, the strategies of survival also bifurcate. The male has millions of sperms to spare every day. So a son has greater potential to spread one’s genes. The genes of the female are far too few to spare. With only one set of chromosomes per month, a daughter has much lesser genetic potential.

This is the basic difference between the survival of the genes of males and females of the species. And it has a major role to play in our sexual behaviour and ethics of our society.. The preference for male children is not merely due to our cultural imperatives. It has biological roots and is seen in even cultures where a son is not required to perform the last rites.

Just because one prefers sons do not mean that daughter has to be killed off. (In fact, when we look at the preference for grand children, we see that daughter’s children are more valued than son’s children. According to scientists, this also has a reason: you can be sure that your daughter’s children are hers but you can’t be that sure with your son’s children. According to the game theory approach to genetics, the investment would commiserate with the risk. And that is why emotional investment in daughters’ children is usually more than that in the son’s children – across cultures.) We need to look elsewhere for an explanation for the falling sex ratio.

Could Skewed Sex Ratios be Useful?

Sex of the child is determined by the sperm, which may have the X or the Y chromosome. Theoretically there would be equal number of sperms with Y and with X chromosomes. Yet, the outcome varies. This is because of the relative importance of males and females at different times. To understand this better let us do a classical thought experiment in Population Biology.

Consider two islands. In one island there are 100 males and one female. In the other, there are 100 females and one male. Fifty years from now, what could be the difference in their populations?

Obviously, the island with more females would have a lot of children and perhaps the population in the other, may even be wiped out.

The thought experiment teaches us that the value of the female increases when we need more children. When the socio-economic environment provides niches where more human beings can survive, ie. when there is a possibility of sustaining an increase in population, we will have to turn to women. In an overpopulated society, on the other hand, women lose their status, and become the second sex. They become less important.

For the sheer existence of the species, females are more important. Males are superficial and serve mainly as sperm donors. (There are many species where males die after copulation. The case of insects and spiders where the female eats up the male after copulation is an extreme one. The death of the male after the big bang is seen even amongst the marsupials.) The primary function of males is in mixing the genetic pool and aiding evolution. The role of support during child bearing and rearing, seen among humans and some other species, evolved later, to improve the chances of survival of the offspring.

The missing arm of the chromosome in the male genetic kit leads to a situation of more precarious existence of the male in humans. Male foetuses tend to abort more easily, the male child has to be taken to the clinic more, and as adults they fall prey to stress related diseases more easily. (Social activists however, tend to use the clinical data from paediatric clinics to prove negligence of the female child!)

If females are more important to the species, why are so many males around?

Larger number of males in an overpopulated scenario, has evolutionary advantage. The females now have a larger set of genes from which they could choose. This is called sexual selection (quite different from natural selection which is really a process of elimination rather than selection). This implies that a large number of males would be left without progeny.

Sexual selection leads to evolution of characteristics determined by the females of the species. The evolution of elaborate plumage, singing skills etc. in birds, are typical examples. We should, however, remember that sexual selection operates in human beings also. In an overpopulated system, instead of merely trying to increase the numbers, the species will try to improve the quality of population.

In human societies, there is also the influence of social selection. Look at the matrimonial columns of newspaper in India. Parents and relatives seem to play a major role in determining who will mate with whom, at times even overriding the choice by female. This gives the society some elbow-room to influence further evolution of our species. And again, the way in which nature provides us better choice is simple: higher number of males to chose from.

Sex ratio: Reason to rejoice?

One must also ask how a species can adjust its sex ratio.

Since females are more useful to ward off extinction of the species, when the mother is stressed, the signals sent by the hormonal status, selectively affects the sperms carrying X and Y chromosomes, leading to larger number of females. This is a part of the adaptive strategies of nature.

To explain the hospital records of births there is a hypothesis which says that the chances of conceiving male children are higher when the health of the mother is good. Thus perhaps, the greater number of males in India is an indication of better health of the mothers (and not because of the inherent criminality of our culture). We should also not be surprised by the drastic fall in sex ratio in the states like Punjab and Haryana which gave India the green revolution. Where else would you have the plentitude to support all the (rather superficial) males?

Thus the greater number of males in India gives us two reasons to rejoice. It is an indication of improving health of the women in the country. What should make us happier is that it will also make India a hotbed of human evolution (as per the values held by women and the society at large).

An interesting outcome from the skewed sex ratios of Punjab and Haryana is the Punjabisation of UK and Canada as well as Haryanisation of Bengal. If your son can’t get a girl, what else does can you do but look elsewhere? The gene pool is indeed spreading. And the percentage of genetic disorders will decrease. Important outcomes from a skewed sex ratio.

Sex Ratio as a Money spinner

If you still want to hold on to the misconceptions and misplaced concerns about the sex ratio in India, one could definitely understand the reasons. There is going to be money in this business. One could only wish that the money is spent in controlling the population rather than in campaigns against an insipid technology like sex determination.

Instead of barking up the wrong tree, the activists should focus on creating new ecological and economic niches where human beings can encroach and flourish. As we argued earlier, the filling of such new niches with population is the major priority for females. So under such situations, the female population would get its due importance and the sex ratio would automatically adjust itself.

But this would be difficult and perhaps undesirable, since the country is already overpopulated. The other method is to control and, if possible, reduce the population (while retaining the ecological and economic niches). This would also improve the status of women and sex ratio. In fact gender inequality could even swing the other way if population falls below certain levels.

In any case, it is clear that newspaper advertisements, TV and Radio spots etc. intended to improve the image of the girl child cannot, by themselves, significantly improve the condition of women or the sex ratio. Because the real issue is the density of population and what the ecology and economy can provide to support it. One does wish that the government wakes up to some scientific realities rather than be guided by emotional activists in this matter.

In short, sex ratio amongst humans, like in deer, is dependent on the density of population. Any alternative hypothesis should also explain why the sex ratio in some districts, lets say in the tribal belts of Madhya Pradesh and Chhathisgharh, (where the density of population is much less than those of Punjab and Haryana,) is much better. In fact it is skewed the other way: more females than males.

The availability of medical facilities is not a valid explanation for this phenomenon. Because that also depends on the density of population. Moreover, sex ratio was skewed even before the technology to test the sex of the foetus was available.

So like corruption, female foeticide cannot be wiped out by passing a legislation. Try to attack the root cause instead. By reducing population we would improve the status of women, reduce the biological and sociological discrimination against women. Including female foeticide.

Selected References:
The evolution of sex Science 281: pp 1979. 25th Sept 1998
P Mohanty- Heymadi et al., Temperature dependent sex determination in the salt water crocodile, Crocodylus porosus, Current Science 76 (5): 695-696 (1999)
(Eggs incuabted at 33 degrees C gave more Females, 34 degrees gave more males)
Deer destiny determined by density Nature 399 : 407 (1999)
Population density affects sex ratio variation Nature 399 : 459 (1999)
(Trivers-Willard hypothesis: In polygamous societies, mothers in good condition should produce more sons whereas mothers in poor condition produce daughters.)
http://www.sexratio.com/

The Hole in the Ozone Hole Story

The comic book serial, Asterix and Oblelix, presents an ancient Gaulish village where people are brave enough to resist the onslaught of the Roman Empire, but are frightened that the sky may fall down on their head. The global village that we live in now, has an almost similar fear: the ozone hole in the Polar Regions will keep increasing and the ultraviolet rays will damage vegetation, increase the incidence of cataract and mutate our skin cells to make them cancerous and we will die of skin cancer. The pale face, the white race, will suffer the most. The black and the browns will resist the effects of ultraviolet better because they have melatonin pigment in their skins.

The implication of the story that is presented by the media is that the people who live in the tropics are responsible. These people who live in hot climes are stinky and therefore use body sprays. They want to drink cold water and keep their food from rotting and therefore use refrigerators. They use air-conditioners to keep themselves cool. And in the process they liberate what the media fondly calls CFCs – Chlorofluorocarbons. It is these CFCs that are responsible for the ozone hole. In other words, these browns and blacks – they will ultimately take over the earth after killing off the white skinned people with skin cancer.

This doomsday prediction and the implied blame are based on some seemingly scientific facts. Let us take a look at the facts and separate them from the mediated myths.

The CFCs are mostly liberated in the tropical areas, less in temperate zones and almost none at poles. And yet, the hole is at the poles. What is the mechanism by which the CFCs from the sea level in tropical areas are selectively funneled to the Polar Regions and then taken up through a few kilometers of troposphere so that they can selectively destroy the ozone in the stratosphere and make a hole there?

In Malayalam, my mother tongue, there is a saying which means that if you accidentally fall down, make sure that you roll around a bit so that the onlookers think that you fell down purposely. When media people and the self styled experts are asked this question, they do exactly that. They will tell you that there is a highly mathematical model, which we, ordinary mortals, can never hope to understand and that it explains how this happens. If you say that you are still interested and would like to take a look at the mathematical model, you will suddenly become invisible. They will look through you and pretend that you do not exist.

There is another way to become invisible. Ask this question: how do we know that the ozone hole did not exist before human beings started using CFCs?

CFCs as a refrigerant was first proposed in the early part of the 20^th century. They were marketed extensively by the middle of the 20^th century. Though there were suspicions that the ozone layer may not have the same thickness at all times, the ozone hole was first observed in the mid 1980s. Before that there were no scientific observations. It is possible that the ozone hole was present in the 19^th century, two million years ago when the bipeds, which go by the name of Homo sapiens, were not walking on the planet.

Now here is another inconvenient question that you might ask – since you are already invisible, it won’t harm you any more to ask it. Why does the ozone hole shrink and expand?

During the last two decades of observations, the ozone hole does not seem to keep pace with the production and use of CFCs. It shrinks and expands in a way, which is quite disconcerting to the proponents of the CFCs-cause-ozone-hole theory.

Though the questions are quite inconvenient to the proponents, the theory that CFCs are responsible for ozone hole is quite convenient to business. The replacement is costlier.

The situation is quite similar to the ban on di-iodoquine (di-iodo-hydroxyquinoline which was marketed as Mexaform), a low cost treatment for amoebiasis. As soon as Metronidazole, which could be marketed at a much higher price, became available, di-iodoquine became a horrible drug. The reason – when taken at very high doses for a very long period, it may damage the optic nerve. It does not matter that people in the tropics, where the disease is rampant, do not take the drug for such long periods or for such long duration – not when there is money to be made.

But let us go back to the ozone hole story and ask some more questions that the invisible people on earth should learn to ask. It is ultraviolet that creates ozone in the stratosphere, right? Yes, ultraviolet dissociates molecular oxygen into two atoms which are highly reactive and they immediately combine with the nearby oxygen molecule to form ozone. Ah, so we are saying that if the ozone layer gets depleted in the stratosphere, ultraviolet will go through 7 kilometers of troposphere, somehow avoiding all the oxygen molecules – nearly 20 percent of the atmosphere is oxygen – just to cause skin cancer and cataract?

Since it defies the concept of light traveling in straight lines, there should be a theory which explains the photons being like a football kicked around to avoid the legs and heads of 11 players to reach the goal. Please can you explain that theory?

By now you are not only invisible, but also inaudible to the self-styled experts and the proponents of the CFC-ozone hole-ultraviolet-skin cancer theory in the media. So they will not even pretend to roll around. But then, you are not dead – though you are curious, you are not a cat. So here is another question: if CFCs are not causing the ozone hole, what is the reason for the ozone hole?

The Sun spews out not only photons in the visible, infrared and ultraviolet ranges, but also a large number of charged particles. These charged particles cannot enter the earth’s atmosphere at the tropical areas since earth has a magnetic field which deflects the charged particles. But they can enter the poles where they create the splendour of the arorae. The arorae are phenomena produced by the interaction of the charged particles with the earth’s atmosphere. The atmospheric atoms are excited – meaning that the electrons are pushed into higher orbits – and when they come back to their ground state, they liberate light which we see as the arorae.

Now - besides exciting the atmospheric atoms, the charged particles also ionize them – remove the electrons. Ionized atoms are more reactive. Since nearly 80 percent of the atmosphere is nitrogen and nearly 20 percent is oxygen, they combine to form nitrous oxides. Nitrous oxides are known to react with ozone. Ozone depletion in the “hole” could be because of that.

Large columns of nitrous oxides have been detected in the upper atmosphere at the poles.

Since the input of charged particles from the sun increases and decreases depending on the sun’s activity, the ozone hole thus produced also increases and decreases.

The notion of non-anthropogenic Nitrous oxides depleting ozone may not be quite convenient to the experts. But it has more explanatory power and answers questions that the CFCs-cause-ozone-hole-theory cannot.

The ultimate question is - which one do you like better? One which has too many holes or one that sounds reasonable?

Global Warning- A Convenient Falsehood?

I have been trying to understand Global Warming for the last twenty years. To remove some of my confusions about the issue, I have been asking some questions in different platforms and writing to “experts”. And I come across a deafening silence. So much so that I have started feeling that it is yet another media created hype, sustained by politicians. Like the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, it might end up being a farce.

My problem, as a person who has been studying science, is the unscientific manner in which conclusions are drawn.

Firstly, nobody attempts to answer the question about what caused global warming and cooling before human beings came on earth?

One has to separate the factors that influence the temperature of the earth. Keeping all other factors constant and changing only one at a time, we can find precise relationships, in a scientific manner.

Yes, I am aware of Milankovitch and the correlation between the precession of the earth (a kind of wobbling of the earth’s axis) and global warming/cooling cycles. But why should precession increase or decrease temperature? What is the causal relationship between precession and temperature?

Moreover, it is not an exact relationship. There are periods of heating and cooling which even precession does not seem to explain. What, for instance, caused the Little Ice Age(s) which happened in recorded history? It would appear that there are some other, external causes for heating and cooling, and that precession helps only to amplify the effect felt on the earth.

Whatever the causes, we should first be able to say that they do not exert any influence in the present increasing temperatures, before we go hunting for other causes, before we claim that it is “anthropogenic” – a highly sexist term, some would say.

Secondly, it has been seen that the temperature and Carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere go up and down together - even before human beings evolved. What caused these increases and decreases in Carbon Dioxide before fossil fuel burning? Again, the experts do not want to tell me, an ordinary mortal, perhaps out of fear that they will strain my brain.

Co-incidence or correlation does not necessarily mean that one is causing the other. Ambrose Bierce tells us this aphorism/story in which this guy sees a rabbit running and after the rabbit is a fox. He sees this scenario a few times and concludes that rabbits cause foxes! I am sure he had a reason to write the story at that time, as there is for my re-telling the story now.

Perhaps there is a third factor, which is causing both the increase in Carbon dioxide and the temperature. Have we removed the possibility before jumping to conclusions?

Thirdly, the Greenhouse Effect is the only principle that is being used for attributing the cause of increased temperature to Carbon dioxide. But please consider the three propositions:

Carbon dioxide is a highly dissolvable gas
Most of the earth’s surface is covered by water
If you open a soda which is warm, it will liberate carbon dioxide whereas a cold soda bottle will retain the Carbon dioxide dissolved in it.

From these three simple observations, one could conclude that the increase in temperature caused the increased liberation of dissolved Carbon dioxide from lakes and oceans leading to the increased amount of the gas in the atmosphere of the earth in the past.

Perhaps the increase in Carbon dioxide of the present day is because of the global warming, rather than the other way around. Why are we being blind to this possibility?

Fourthly, the Sun is the most important source of heat for the earth. And we know that there is some amount of variation in the activity of the sun. There are a large number of papers in journals like Science and Nature that relate the sun’s activity and the temperature of the earth. But in true scientific spirit, such data is held as a possibility, but not necessarily true, while the theory of fossil fuel burning causing the global warming is held as undeniably true. Why?

Having got no answers for the last 20 years, I have begun to think that global warming is not really a scientific issue, but a political issue. It is a part of the political platform for the next election in the US. Gore, a politician, is the most vocal proponent of the theory of Global-Warming-because-of-Carbon dioxide.

The “experts” in the climate change are all appointed by the Governments and they have a tendency to disregard contrary scientific opinions, without even attempting to refute or answer them – very reminiscent of the “intelligence” of pre-Iraq-war days. The whole idea seems to be bulldozed into the public view for a political reason. It would be convenient to rein in India and China, perhaps?

Or is it the notion of sin? We human beings are sinners who will cause the destruction of the earth? God will punish us by frying us alive?

I am not too sure whether it is political or religious, but definitely not really scientific.

Fifth is the issue of the predictions about the effects - rise in the sea level. (Pralaya- another mythological imagery, quite useful in propaganda).

When I fly over the west coast of India, I see parallel lines of paddy fields and coconut trees. I thought it was strange and good enough for a story on Turning Point, a popular science TV magazine in India. So I dug up the story. It seems that 18,000 years ago, the sea was about 100 kilometers from the present shore. It started rising up and this went on till 4,000 years ago. By this time, the sea was about 20 kilometers into the land from the present sea shore. Then it started receding and about 3,000 years ago, it came back and assumed its present position.

These are broad strokes, actually. Neither the climbing nor the receding of the sea were really linear within this period also. So when the sea recedes, it leaves behind sand, behind which clay deposits form. On the sandy part, coconut thrives and on the clay paddy is cultivated now.

What caused these ups and downs in the sea level?

Sixth. Humans evolved on the planet one or two million years ago. At least some of them had mastered fire and agriculture about 10,000 years ago. Why did they wait till the sea levels rose to the maximum before they started their ancient “civilizations”? Many anthropologists are saying that climate change was the reason for ancient civilizations. Is increasing sea level good for creating a global civilization today?

I did not do the story for Turning point since I could not get a clear answer.


Seven. Consider also that all this fossil fuel is really a result of living processes, which are primarily carbon based. The carbon that is trapped under the earth by billions of years of life processes is now not available to the Carbon cycle. Perhaps it is good to liberate it back into the Carbon cycle to re-energise the life processes on the earth?


These are some of my confusions and I wish some expert will help me to remove them. Being a science communicator for a few years and a trainer of science communicators now, I have the audacity to question scientists and self-styled or state-appointed experts. This is my original sin for which even some of my professors were angry when I was young. But I am compelled to continue raising the questions till I understand and my confusions are removed. Sorry.

Compounding my confusion is my anxiety about the “conviction” that some people have about the anthropogenic global warming. And they are taking steps to counter the reason for their convictions. Reminds me of the conviction that Tony Blair and George Bush had about the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. In spite of the few lone voices saying that the true reason for the invasion is oil, the media did not find it good enough to balance the convictions with some reasonable doubt about the “intelligence”.

In a true Marxist fashion, people are now about to change the world without really understanding how it functions. The convictions based on the recommendations of the “expert panel” have lead people to suggest that Thailand should stop rice cultivation since paddy fields are wetlands that emit methane, a green house gas. If all wetlands including all the paddy fields disappear from the earth because of the “conviction”, it will perhaps be a bigger disaster than Iraq.

And it appears that while deforestation of the temperate zones is okay, one should not cut trees in the tropical areas, since trees in tropical areas are better carbon sinks. In other words, the developed countries are allowed to harvest their forests while the developing countries should be restrained. How very convenient!

In India, we are fond of laughing at “committees” for their collective stupidity, though they are intended for making decisions based on their collective wisdom. But the word “expert panel” does not yet evoke the same sense, even if it actually brings out the collective ignorance.

Ever since Newton (who did not like to be criticized), scientists have indulged in making their work difficult to be understood by common man. Philosophers like Hegel and Sartre also used this trick. A friend of mine who wanted to publish a scholarly work was asked by his publisher whether he could make it a little more difficult to read. A certain amount of obscurantism is useful, if you want to be taken seriously as an expert. I would like to call this Brahminisation of science, an attempt to make knowledge less easily available to the “common” man. Though it is useful to the survival of people like me who “translate” such works, it leads to un-necessary confusions. The reports by the “expert panel” are quite commendable from this perspective.

No true scientist will ever say that the earth will warm up. They would rather say that the earth may warm up. It is the media that converts the “may” into “will”. As a science journalist, I am guilty of this practice. And as a trainer of science journalists, I have emphasised that one should be careful in changing the scientific “may” into the common parlance of “will”.

No self-respecting scientist of the twenty first century will make predictions on such a complex phenomenon as climate. Meteorologists will forecast – not predict. Predictions are for astrologers and soothsayers. And, of course, for the irresponsible part of the media, waiting to sensationalise the least.

Concepts like the non-linearity of most natural phenomena, oscillating steady state etc. have already permeated most scientific disciplines. So when forecasts are made based on models, scientists will have to pray to God that no butterfly flaps its wings, creating an un-expected turn of events. But there is no such hesitation in the minds of the enthusiasts and activists of global-warming-due-to-anthropogenic-causes.

Ever since humans invented god(s) to escape from the feeling of fear and ignorance, they have placed themselves just below gods and fairies. The collective illusion of grandeur is expressed very well in the theory of the anthropogenic cause of global warming. If we remind them that there have been at least five mass extinctions on the earth without any help from humans and that the last mass extinction wiped out about 96 percent of the living families, they may attribute it to God. But what is happening now is all due to us!

Once a sexually frustrated fly raped an elephant. After the frenzy was over, the fly felt ashamed and asked the elephant: “Did it hurt?”…

If insects had a neocortex (which is still developing as in the case of humans), they would also claim that all that is happening to the world is because of them. After all, they have more biomass than Homo sapiens.

There are some that hold that though this may be a falsehood, it is very convenient – it will wake people up to the need for reducing conspicuous consumption. Homo sapiens – poor saps! While some go around in private jets to lecture on Global Warming, some others would gladly and voluntarily go back to bullock carts with the belief that they are saving the next generation.

The credulity, lack of critical spirit and undue trust in experts and authority is more harmful to humanity than the damage that the puny human race can do the apparently highly resilient planet Earth, so full of living creatures in spite of five major mass extinctions.

Remember the experiment in which people were asked to administer electric shocks to human subjects? They were willing to administer very high voltages to other human beings just because they had the trust in the authority of the people who were doing the experiment. The experimenters were really looking to see how inhuman people can become when they trust authority blindly. Why, the torturers in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay are only as guilty as you are!

So whenever anybody talks about Global warming next time and says that human beings are responsible, ask these questions -
What caused global warming and cooling before humans evolved on the planet?
What caused increases and decreases in Carbon dioxide before fossil fuel burning?
What caused increases and decreases in sea level before human beings evolved?
What caused increases and decreases in sea level before fossil fuel burning?

And be prepared to meet with sullen silence. Or derisive laughter. At least that is what I have received in the last 20 years for asking inconvenient questions.

Recently, my friend Savyasachi Jain forwarded a story from BBC NEWS: It says "No Sun link to Climate Change".

Interestingly, the researchers admit that there was a link between climate and sun's activity, but that the Sun's output has declined over the last two decades and yet the temperatures on earth have risen. The research that BBC is quoting is supposed to settle the debate on the cause of climate change.

I do not know how the solar scientists will react to this. Because they have been saying that the sun's activity has been increasing from the 1940's. The "Modern Maximum" is supposed to peak around 2011. Take a look at the New Scientist article - Sun more active than for a millennium

IPCC and the present experts are looking at the solar irradiance. It does not change much. Estimates vary from 0.1% to 0.2%. I would also agree that it is not enough to explain global warming.

They are not, conveniently, looking at the output of particles from the sun. That can vary upto 60%.

The bow shock when these particles come into contact with the Earth’s magnetic field, the heating up of the upper atmosphere when they enter the poles and create the arorae, the swelling up of the ionosphere etc. are not considered at all.

The kinetic theory of gases says that the temperature is related to the kinetics of the molecules. Imagine the increases in temperature when the solar particles coming in with a speed of 400 kilometers per second come into contact with the atmospheric molecules.

If you look at the solar cycles 21 starting in 1976, cycle 22 starting in 1986 and cycle 23 starting in 1996 (http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cyclcomp.html ) it may appear that the sun is becoming less active. The thicker lines attract the eyes and we tend to jump to conclusions quite easily. But if you look at the average monthly sunspot number, given in dotted lines, you will find that they reach similar highs. What is not given in the graphs are the daily variations. When we average the numbers, even within a month, we lose sight of the real highs and the lows.

Sunspot number, averaged or not, is not a good measure of the sun's activity or its impact on climate change. If the solar wind does not lash against the earth and if it merely goes into the interplanetary space, how can it have any impact? A better measure is perhaps the Carbon 14 production. The ice in the polar areas has trapped it for millions of years and there is a good enough (negative) correlation between the isotope production and solar activity.

But to tell you the truth, I am not really happy this proxy measurement also. Carbon 14 (or Beryllium 10) production depends not only on the variation in solar wind (and the consequent variation in the geomagnetism) but also the amount of cosmic rays. The assumption seems to be that the cosmic rays come as a steady stream, to be swept away by the intensity of solar wind and hence less Carbon 14 production when there is high solar activity. But I should expect that the intensity of cosmic rays themselves is quasiperiodic. In other words, if there were no solar wind for millions of years, I should still expect to find some variation in the production of Carbon 14.

Unfortunately there are no easier methods to examine the impact of the particle inputs from the sun. But even then, it is a good enough indication of the connection.

I am quite amused to see that "cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present". The effect of cosmic rays on the earth's climate is but minor, compared to that of the sun's particles. Yet they are willing to admit that it "may" have an impact. It agrees better with their belief system - the albedo effect of the clouds in trapping radiation. These guys are trapped in the scientific thought of the 1940's and 50's.

Endnote:

BBC correspondents act as the mouth pieces of "experts" and people in positions of authority. They do not investigate enough. The slogan "Putting News First" implies that they are allowed to put propaganda second. The war mongering that they have done in this century is a testimony to the truth of the corollary. Till recently, when they spoke about the international community, it meant Britain and the US of A. Now when they use the term it might include Australia and Germany.

A decade ago, I used to tell my students to watch BBC for the fairness and balance. But now I use it as a very good example of how propaganda can be done subtly, with all the verve of fairness and balance.