Lies on Climate Change

Professor *** Hall (I have removed his name, because I don't want google searches for his name leading people here) from the Chemical Engineering department delivered a talk yesterday for the ME Grad student seminar. His talk was supposed to be on biomass fuel conversion - which is his area of expertise.

What is not his area of expertise is the science of Climate Change. But that did not stop him from delivering a few slides straight from the Rush Limbaugh pocketbook .

Firstly, there was this horrendous claim that the world has been cooling for the last few years. Not warming. Cooling. His view was that all plots about global warming in the media were "MODELS" and not actual temperature data. The hockeystick curve is a "model".

This is incorrect. The hockeystick curve does not come from a model. Is is actual temperature and CO2 data based on ice cores, alga concentration, CO2 concentration in trapped air, tree ring width measurements and several other techniques (primarily because those stupid pterodactyls on ancient earth were not considerate enough to measure temperatures and record them). While it would be wrong to just believe one reconstruction, when several totally independent actual (not simulated) reconstructions tell the same story, it would make more sense to believe them. And that's what the smart climatologists have done. We've got several hockey-stick curves tracking temperatures for a very long period.. And they all tell the same story.

And then he went on to make an amateur flaw, in the spirit of "The ocean is salty. The rivers feed the ocean, so they must be salty". He went ahead and stated that human emissions are a small percentage of the actual co2 concentration on the planet. They're so small that they can't change anything.

But he fails to notice that human emissions are ANNUAL. They're a time derivative. The earth's co2 concentration is a concentration. Of course it is meaningless to talk about percentages. It's the compounding effect of using these for a very very long time (100 years). There's a thorough debunking of this argument here.

And when asked why climate change skeptics were not able to publish in reputed journals, he answered that all climate change is in political documents (such as Science, Nature and New Scientist, I added.). His discussion of climate change seemed to resemble the flat earth society website. Here is a very good sentence from that website:

Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"

A: Well, it looks that way up close. In our local frame of reference, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys.

Almost all his claims on climate change are incorrect. I felt like yelling out "You Lie!" during his speech. But I did not.

If many different methods agree

.. then they must probably be right. Here's the famous Hockeystick curve (published by Mann et al in '99). The curve is based on historical projections of temperature based on several different methods (tree rings, etc..).

Discussions for the day

It's getting tiring to think of monikers for the daily blog posts that I am now making. So let's stick to 'today's discussions' and 'discussions for the day' and subtle variations thereof?

I was unable to post to the blog yesterday; I was busy with career fairs and meetings and stuff like that there. But today promises to be more free.

Firstly, let me talk about something that I found quite interesting yesterday. Anecdotal first impressions of the Nano. The first few 'lucky' owners of the Nano were interviewed about their car. The interviews were fairly standard fare. But the interesting part was, when asked for the mileage of the vehicle, the mean estimate seemed to be around 23kpl, with only one estimate being below 20 kmpl.

This is in tune with Tata's estimates.

22kmpl translates to 50mpg, which would beat the socks off the current Toyota Prius (or the Chevy Volt, if GM were honest about the Volt's mileage). Goes to show how important being small is. Not that the hedonistic west will ever listen.

Assorted Links for the day

Let's start the day out on some climate-change related causality. There's this article in the times of India which quotes a breakthrough study which claims that the antarctic ice cap was created by decreasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere some 34M years ago. More evidence that CO2 helps warm the planet. Another article to throw at the face of the so called 'climate change skeptics' - not that they know how to read...

Here's an article on various socio-economic indicators in the USA. Note how the median household wage falls in the bush terms, but goes up in the Clinton terms? Looks like this is giving some ammunition to the progressive side of the asile - considering that the per-capita income went up in the bush years, but the median household income did not. What does that mean? The rich have become richer, while the poor have not.

Of course, let me add my standard disclaimer. Americans are plenty rich anyway, and I think that they must reduce their average household income if they want to reduce their ecological footprint - that's the most sure-shot way to do it. But this must happen across the board, not just the poorest of the poor.

India's Child labor dilemma. Ought Indians be stopped from employing young children as domestic help, or will these kids just die of hunger if their employment halts? Is there something to be said for regulating the child labor market. Ought sweatshops be cheered? (Al-la-Nicholas Kristof).

Norman Borlaug is Dead

RIP, Prof. Borlaug.

Prof. Borlaug is probably one of the reasons that a lot of India's billion have not yet starved to death. I think he probably has saved more people than any other single human being ever on this planet. He was also instrumental in 'proving' Malthus wrong. And that's quite something.

As an Indian and an Aggie, I hold Dr. Borlaug with a special respect.

Here's an emotional article from the ToI about Prof. Borlaug.

One of the more outstanding critics of the green revolution has been Dr. Vandana Shiva. Here's a piece by her, which should help one understand her viewpoint. (Incidentally, Prof. Borlaug did finally admit that there was some truth to her stand..)

I intend to look up pieces on India's green revolution and discuss them here. Because there's several arguments which contend that the green revolution wasn't a good thing. I just want to examine how well founded they actually are.

Here's a detailed obituary in the NY Times on Prof. Borlaug. Praise from the New Scientist here. And some disconcerting words about UG99 and its imminent foray into India in the coming few years.

September 12th

Eco-environmentalism in India. The success story (so far) of the save-silent valley movement, summarized in this documentary. The same environment vs progress debate in India - and I feel this is one of the successes of Indian democracy. (As opposed to China - and its three gorges project).

Silent valley seems to be in good shape now - what with buffers being created by the left leaning UDF government. Keeping fingers crossed about the future.

September 11 2009

Here's an interesting take on Nuclear Power from the examiner. This article alleges that emissions from various steps of making uranium fuel ready to generate power make nuclear power a far cry from being clean. This article asserts that some amount of electricity will be used in refining the ore - and some amount of diesel.

Also thrown in are arguments about other kinds of pollution including toxic non CO2 emissions - such as sulphuric acid and carcinogenic particulates.

While this article raises reasonable questions about nuclear power, I don't think any issues have been settled by the arguments within. A quantitative comparison of emissions is necessary - and this I don't see here. How much CO2 is emitted by producing a megawatt hour of electricity using uranium? This information can't be so hard to come by. And here it is. Will have to be read slowly and critically - considering that the gentleman writing this has an axe to grid - he is associated with the fusion energy program at Wisconsin-Madison.

Here's an article on a wholly different subject altogether. Education of women in India. And why doing something as simple and common-sensical as building toilets in schools could stop women from dropping out of schools. I don't think any woman in the west (or any man in the west for that matter) would attend a school without adequate sanitary facilities. It is plain scary to imagine that there's schools in India without bathrooms, actually.

----------

Here's an interesting one: ending hunger. There's this city in Brazil which had awful socio-economic indicators back in the early '90s. And now, it's doing pretty damn well. You could say it almost ended hunger. Nice to note noted Indian activist, Dr. Vandana Shiva taking an interest in this model. Perhaps with some lobbying, she can coax some city governments in India (a medium sized city like Pune comes to mind) to take such action.

Links for today - September 10th

Rather than share links on facebook, I shall do so here. This is because this blog is archival, I have more space to rant, opine and pontificate.

Firstly, we start off by a fairly solid piece by Professor Noam Chomsky, who proves once again that he is one of the last remaining voices of conscience in the rich world today. It's a fairly lengthy piece - and I will read it occasionally for a break. Better than seeing some nut's super-wall.

There's also a bunch of articles by Malc. Gladwell - a smart guy. They're apparently being compiled into a book, but they're available for free on the internets. (HT: Tyler Cowen).

Another article from the New Scientist on the Nocebo Effect.

Interesting article in NYTimes about a person who has moved back to India from the US - and how he is unable to tolerate life in general in the Indian city. Nostalgia?

I was listening to Obama's speech on healthcare yesterday - and I think he can do it. If he could coax the American people to vote for him due to his gifted oratory, then why can't he get some legislation passed by mere rhetorical flourish - especially, when everybody agrees about almost everything in the legislation?

And this one about median household income in the US. Note the horizontalness in the bush era. And this one is the plot of (median income / per capita income) with time in the US. Note how it falls - indicating that money is going into the richest pockets.

I'm off Facebook

I've decided to lay off Facebook on weekdays, because I just don't care if someone is doing well in some inane mafia wars game. I hate farmville. I really don't care if people send me a hug, what with me being happily married and all.

I just realized that I was spending way too much idle time on facebook without actually enjoying it. I would reflexively go to the facebook site and see that some nut out there has taken a quiz about how well he/she knows some other nut. My time is more valuable than that.

The only possible advantage with facebook is of course, the constructive discussions I have had with several people. Facebook acts as a conduit for sharing interesting articles and having discussions with smart people regarding the same. And this aspect shall be missed.

But I do think a competent blogger should be able to overcome that issue - by blogging about said articles instead. The blogoshpere is a better place to vent one's opinions - because one's thought process is not cut short by message size limitations (as they are on facebook). One can be as articulate as one desires - and there's plenty of space for rhetorical flourishes.

So, as of today, I have requested the wife to change my FB password log in for me on Sundays. That's the only time I intend to spend on FB. Lil green patch, you'll have to wait.

Cash for clunkers is not Green

You get a rebate of $4500 from the US government if you turn in your old low mileage vehicle for compaction and purchase a new high mileage vehicle. It is being touted by almost everyone as a smart idea. A green initiative.

I have my misgivings about the whole plan.

(1) Since a clunker has a low mileage, the high cost of refueling the thing acts as a disincentive from driving long distances.

(2) Since the new vehicle has high mileage, (and is in all probability much safer than the clunker in question) will that not increase the amount of joy rides? More vacations to Yellowstone from Texas? Since the economic need for car-pooling to work reduces, will people not feel tempted to just go it alone and keep their routines flexible?

(3) And here's the most important issue. If you were using your clunker, you would not be purchasing a new vehicle. Building and transporting a new vehicle constitutes ~ 30% of its lifetime energy costs. So, by tempting people to get rid of their clunkers and replace them with high mileage Prius-types, you are inadvertently creating a spike in greenhouse gas emissions.

I intend to elaborate on point 3 a little while later, with actual figures regarding the energy consumption (carbon footprint, if you will) of manufacture of vehicle.

Cash for clunkers is far from green. It is a stimulus program aimed at rewarding bad behavior, little else. As a matter of fact, the only way legislation can be green is if it mandates steep fuel taxes / energy costs. (I am pessimistic about cap-n-trade.It might have a tough time getting passed in the US senate, what with climate change denial being quite the rage in republican circles these days.).

Frisk 'em all

This was a bad month for the great Indian VIP ego. Things started with an American airline (Continental) frisking Dr. Abdul Kalam, India's most popular president ever (who was not popular enough with the politicians because he had a conscience, so was consigned to just one term, but that's a different story. The post of the president in India is as redundant as the appendix in humans, but that is another different story.). Everyone except Dr. Kalam himself seemed quite outraged about the whole thing. Is it not arrogant on the part of the lowly employees of a commercial airline to frisk a former head of the state of the world's largest democracy? Does Indian Airlines ever frisk Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton? This is clearly American arrogance!

The only reason that Indian Airlines does not frisk former American heads of state on visits to India is that they don't fly Indian Airlines. They do not fly Continental airlines either. Their country considers them important enough to fly them using either in Air Force One or some other state plane. If India does not care enough about her former heads of state and lets them travel like the common man, then the former head of state must be treated like a common man wherever he goes -especially when the person in question goes abroad, where there is little face recognition.

Every airline based in India must frisk any traveling VVIP, if it is also frisking the common man. And the VVIP must sit down and enjoy it. If the VVIP feels outraged and creates a fuss then he must be detained. Indians are reluctant to do so. Most people have this fear of the VVIP, the feeling that they're better than us somehow. It was this servile mentality that got the Indian parliament attacked a few years ago. The parliamentarians felt insulted when their vehicles were checked. If India needs to be taken seriously as a democracy, we must reaffirm our commitment to the notion that all people are equal. Some are not more equal than others.

And let's come to the whining by King Khan, India's most famous actor, who was detained in Newark because his name appeared in a watch list. It happens to everyone, Mr. Khan. You are not alone. Don't whine about it. None of your fundamental rights were violated. America is justifiably worried about people who enter it (especially after 9/11). Increased security is probably the best way to deal with it - it creates only minimal inconvenience and does not kill people in far-away lands (like other methods adopted by the US do). The TSA dude screening you did not know who you were. He did not see your movies. It's possible. You're not that famous here. You're one of us. Deal with it.

If you have the flu now

... it's probably the swine flu. Go ahead. Get checked.

Looks like the pandemic has spread its tentacles into India. Here's to hoping that this will be nothing like 1918.

Why do Indian Professors in the US work on Weapons?

Anybody who is living right now should have realized that

(a) War is miserable - especially for people that are being bombed.
(b) A significant proportion of current wartime death is being brought about by America's military misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and now (alas) Pakistan.

Professors are supposed to be smart. They should be the first to understand this point. Especially professors who began their learning career elsewhere - say at some IIT in India. This is because (a) they are smarter than the average human being (by mere virtue of them being professors) (b) They are not subjected to the patriotic propaganda that Americans have been subject to.

So there's essentially two possibilities.

One. Maybe there is not anything unethical with killing millions of innocent people in war (I kid you not, the Iraq death toll alone exceeds a million) in order to achieve ill-defined goals. Maybe I've been wrong all along. Maybe there's something to be said for the Limbaugh-Bolton-Cheney worldview which I have not been able to fathom. Maybe these smart professors know something that I don't.

Two. Maybe the professors are doing what is best for their career, treating money from the military as they would money from other sources. Their families won't feed themselves after all. Since the money only implicitly tainted, most people won't know the difference. And since this taint is that implicit, it's nothing that going to a church/temple/mosque won't solve.

I don't have anything against the poor joining the military in the US. They're doing this because they are convinced that they're doing the right thing for god and country. They are doing this because they are convinced that the other side is evil. Military recruits in the US (much like anywhere else) are overwhelmingly lower middle class. They are doing this for opportunity - and also because they been subjected to propaganda from the get-go. I'm not judging these people who are convinced they're doing the right thing. They are brave enough to put their lives on the line for a cause they believe in. They are more victim than oppressor. I am also willing to give professors who were educated entirely in the US the benefit of the doubt.

But professors who underwent a significant amount of education beyond the US borders are a different story. They have a choice to take a conscientious stand. Some refuse to work on military projects. A tip of my hat to them. But some sell their souls and participate in the mass goring of people elsewhere. And in my book, they rank lower than GS employees.

Emissions, Development and Gandhian Engineering

Poverty and inequity are probably India's largest current bug-a-boos. With a massive poor or lower middle class approximately thrice the size of the next most populous country (USA), development is quite a challenge for India. India's development (along with China's development) will indeed be the story of this century. All around the world, a massive population will likely wake up this century - and will seek to use the planet's resources in making itself more prosperous.

Another telling battle this century will be a battle against nature's tendency to heat up the planet in response to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. It is widely accepted in the scientific community it is probably in humanity's best interests to spew out as little CO2 as possible.

Energy is the cornerstone of modern civilization. The cheapest available energy these days is fossil fuel based. The combustion of fossil fuels releases the carbon sequestered by plants millions of years ago under the ground as low temperature radiation trapping CO2. This cheap access to fossil fuel based energy has let today's rich accumulate their wealth.

The party's over now. Ignorance was bliss. But now we can ignore no more. Unrestrained CO2 emissions will result in runaway global warming, with the ever increasing danger of droughts, fiercer and more frequent hurricanes, erratic monsoons and horrendous sea level rises. The ice reservoirs that are the arctic and antarctic are melting at a rate unknown to human civilization, lifting sea levels around the planet.

So, here we have two of humanity's largest problems. Poverty and Climate change. Poverty requires that the developing world develop - increase its GDP - and in the process increase its carbon foot-print. And this inevitable increase in the standard of living of the poor has serious environmental repercussions. The biggest problems of this century have contradictory solutions, a cursory observation might suggest.

No politician in their right mind will ever deny that the poor nations have a right to lift their billions from poverty. [But comments regarding the over-population of the poor world are inevitably made. It is a strongly held view in the west that overpopulation is the root of all evil in the third world (India in particular). This is downright wrong - but probably the best that uninformed unadventurous minds can come up with, But we'll get into that in another post.] But the poor nations get blamed anyway - like Hillary Clinton's (whose own carbon footprint is probably larger than that of a few villages in India) recent stand that India ought to do more to cut its own paltry carbon consumption.

These seemingly contradictory goals of development and abating climate change can be achieved by an extremely parsimonious form of engineering that is being called 'Gandhian Engineering'. While it is inevitable that India and Africa (and other under-developed regions) will try to get a taste of the good life, whoever said that it should be extremely inefficient, like it is in the US? Can, using really smart engineering, India increase its standard of living without increasing its per-capita GDP to levels comparable?

Given the tremendous pressure on India's natural resources due to large population densities, a tremendous focus on miserliness (called 'value for money') and efficiency of resource utilization exists. Such pressure on resources exists nowhere else on this planet (perhaps with the exception of Japan).

A case in point, of course, is the Tata Nano. If the bottom billion of this planet were driving cars, would the environmentalist in you rather have them driving around in Hummers or Nanos? The tata Nano has the smallest carbon footprint amongst all vehicles in the market now. Even though the Prius gets a comparable mileage, but it takes a significant amount of energy to build and transport.

Do you think that every room will be air-conditioned in a developed India? I suspect that bathrooms, corridors and kitchens will be left out - and perhaps even living rooms. Do you think Indians will ever build those palatial monstrosities that pass for houses in Houston or Dallas? Nope. My money is on reasonably spacious apartments.

All in all this will mean that India's GDP (PPP) will not be comparable to America's $40k per person - or even Japan's $30k per person. If the emissions are to ever be controlled, the onus will be on the west to do the cutting(possibly by reducing its per capita income, ultimately, possibly through 'cap and trade?'). And since a lowering the standard of living will not be an option - guess what the west will have to adopt. Gandhian engineering!

On GS-type market manipulation.

In most American States, prostitution is illegal. But investment banking (of the Goldman Sachs' variety) is not, which is ironic. Because prostitution these days is not a danger to anyone (what with condoms and all to stem the spread of aids). But GS style I-Banking is different.

Since GS does not make anything, lots of its activities are zero sum activities. Since their entire business model is based on not adding any tangible value to anything, all their profits, at some level, do come out of the losses of others. Whenever they make money, it usually means that some other poor dude is losing money elsewhere - and not getting anything for it. At least with prostitutes, they get momentary pleasure. With GS, everyone involved gets ripped off - except GS investors and GS employees.

Of course, one must think twice before one blames a company for doing something that is fully legal. Splicing and selling securities. If there is money to be had, and you know how to get at it within the framework of today's restrictions - they would be wholly irrational if they did not do it. So, the blame must not lie with GS' employees or with its management - who have just exploted a loophole in the law. Just like one must not blame the prostitute for selling sex. She's got a family to feed - as does a GS employee. The GS employee feed his/her family with Caviar - wheras the prostitute does so with bread - but the picture is the same. I have no beef with GS employees (except that I view them with utter condescention - because they had a choice to do something meaningful with their lives, but they chose to do something utterly meaningless and damaging to others). I do not view prostitutes with condescention, of course. They, on the other hand really have no choice. I don't think they like performing demeaning sexual acts with anyone with a thick wallet. But they have to.

My issue is with the nexus between the policy makers and GS. American public policy, it looks like, is more in tune with keeping GS alive by bailing out everyone that ower it money (AIG's $13B bailout comes to mind) than looking out for American taxpayer interests. If the US taxpayer had not bailed out AIG, it looks like GS would have perished. That would have been lovely. Perhaps its employees could do something useful with their lives instead.

Climate Change

That the climate is changing because of Carbon Dioxide emissions due to human activity is a fairly well accepted fact. There's a mountain of evidence in the scientific literature corroborating this - and very little questioning it. This article will not question this scientific consensus, because the author believes that Climatologists would probably know more about this situation than politicians and Cable TV pontificators.

Given that the planet is probably warming because of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, what is the best course of action a developed country can adopt? What steps ought be taken to mitigate this situation? What steps would be fair?

The earth has been warming and cooling over its entire history. There's always been ice ages; there's been extremely warm periods. The planet's climate is cyclic, nay, chaotic. Climate change has been triggered by a variety of events in the past - such as massive volcanoes, solar activity, life and so on. The new increase in temperature is nothing new. The earth is used to it. Planet earth will not collapse. If the goal of the environmentalist is to save life on earth, then the environmentalist needs to fret not. The planet will be just fine. Life will do just fine.

It's the human race that we must worry about. An increase in sea level would sink some of our more densely populated places on the planet. NYC. Mumbai. And the entire of Bangladesh's Ganga delta. A change in precipitation patterns could result in the desertification of currently inhabited areas (Australia is already facing this). The failure of monsoons could spell disaster more more than a billion people. So let's get this clear - the environmentalist impulse is not an altruistic impulse - it is grounded is pure selfishness. The dangers of climate change are real, clear and present. Climate change is worse than models have predicted. The Arctic AND Antarctic are losing ice cover every year. Planet earth is finding it more and more difficult to support 6B humans. We are getting closer and closer to a Malthusian scenario.

If I were a neutral observer hailing from another planet. An observer who did not have a horse in the race - and I heard something like this about Earth.

Of the 6B people on this planet, 1.5B people live relatively luxurious lives - they have cars, centrally air conditioned houses and live up to 75 years each. They have heated indoor swimming pools which are in air conditioned rooms which they use in mid-summer. They waste two or three times of what they eat. They eat other animals that are fed more food than the bottom billion of this planet.

Then there's 3B middle class people who drive cycles and two wheeled motorized vehicles. They have ceiling fans rather than air conditioners. (A few of these have an air conditioner in their bed rooms). They use public transport. They can feed their families quite well - but they do not waste that much food. Their diet contains a lower proportion of meat.

And then there's the bottom billion or so in this planet that has no roof to sleep under; a bathroom called the wide outdoors. Most children can't make it to adulthood. Those who do live under the treat of AIDS and foreign misslies fa

I would immediately make some quick recommendations. Get rid of those things that you can do without - all those things that result in emissions that you really don't need. You know, like those excesses. Do you really need those massive portions in restaurants when you're going to leave half of it on your place. Do you really need to gorge yourself to the brim? Do you really need to drive that ridiculous SUV when you get from one point to another in a Tata NANO - or public transport?

Does the GDP of a country really have to be so large? Why would any country need a GDP (per capita, PPP) of $40K - when the same standard of living could be obtained with a lower GDP of, say $20k (per capita, PPP) . Why all the excess inefficiency? Economic heresy, even the most liberal of the economists would call this. But what are our choices?

I know that this sounds a little too much like some socialist propaganda that most Americans are brainwashed into thinking is evil. So, let me spell it out in language that will not turn off too many Americans (and other victims of western propaganda)

I hate socialism for the same reasons that Americans hate s. I think socialism is little else but an excuse to be lazy and corrupt. That's why things do not work in India (yet). Petty corruption has reduced only after Dr. Singh set India free from license Raj.

Capitalism will spew out garbage (like it has been doing right now in the US and other advanced economies) if all the costs are not accounted for accurately. I look at free markets and capitalism as means to an end rather than an end itself. A tool, if you will, which brings out efficiency - as long as the inputs given to it are correct. Of course, if you do not price the externalities (such as the cost required be carbon neutral, restricting climate change) appropriately, then you end up with Garbage. Garbage in, Garbage out.

And it is my firm conviction that henceforth, all non-green utilities must be required to sequester the carbon. All oil refiners, all coal mining companies - everything - must be responsible for sequestering all their carbon. This will not come cheap - and this cost must be passed on to the end user.

Of course, this will result in higher energy costs. That's the idea. These higher energy costs ought to result in a contraction the economy (I suspect, since I think the current standard of living is unsustainable) - a contraction which will lower the GDP across the world - a contraction that shall help make the planet more sustainable. If the economy really does grow, it will do so by developing cheap and environmentally friendly (carbon neutral) technologies. And with such technologies, it deserves to grow.

Even if the rich world contracts 10% per capita, the developing world (such as India) will need to grow significantly to achieve standard of living parity. So, yes, the developing world must be given the same opportunities as the developed world. The economy must rationalize - making the west more efficient.

But here's the rub. There's no chance in hell that the current democratic system that the developed world enjoys will ever let a politician take any steps that will result in an economic contraction. The polar bears, I'm afraid, will sink. Obama's cap and trade will be designed such that it won't hurt the economy - and therefore, it won't work. You know, the only hope for humanity right now is in Wall Street's hands. The only hope for the survival of humanity as we know it lies in wall street inflating another bubble that sends the planet into a full fledged economic depression - destroying GDPs all around the planet.

Historic Verdict in India

The Delhi high court judges have understood that you should not be punished for choices you don't make. Just like you're not punished for having pimples on your face - or not having pearl white teeth, you will no longer be potentially punished for being gay in India.

The Article 377 (an embarassment that the drafters of the constitution copied from the British laws for India - which even makes "unnatural sex" (oral and anal) between a man and a woman illegal) - has been struck down by the Delhi high court - saying that it was a transgression of fundamental rights. While this is a fundamentally fantastic ruling, I am a little worried about constitution being amended by the judiciary rather than the legistature. But that's a different story.

This is a wonderful ruling, a victory for civil rights over ridiculous, stupid, archaic and bigoted religious fanaticism (purveyed by the Church, Mosque and Temple in India). This is a victory for the people.

As an Indian in the USA, no longer do I need to feel uncomfortable when I see the video of Mahmodoud Ahmedinijad (Iran's dictator who was believed to be legally elected back then) hold that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

International T20s are Meaningless

The world was subjected to a T20 world cup a few weeks ago - hosted in the UK, where most of the followers were sub-continent ex-pats. The tournament saw the elimination of Australia in the preliminary round - and the elimination of the economic giant of the game (India) in the round before the semi-finals.

The problem here is the very nature of T20. It is a game which depends tremendously on luck. All sports depend on luck; cricket possibly more than others. But T20 cricket is at a different level. T20's results are more random; they are more like the results one could obtain by tossing up coins. Let's say that (for argument's sake), in test cricket, 90% of the time, the better team wins (if there is a result in the match). One day cricket, the better team wins around 80% of the time. But with T20, I would conjecture that the better team would win 65% of the time - which makes upsets more likely.

Why is T20 more dependent on luck than test cricket? This is quite easy to answer. Because T20 matches are very small - and very competitive. One bad over by a bowler can mean the difference between a bad score and a good score. One mishit by a well set batsman be the difference between a successful chase and a loss. The results of T20 are very sensitive to random incidents.

Whereas, in test cricket, an expensive over can be compensated for by an economical over down the line. A mishit can be compensated for by the same batsman in the second innings - or by another following batsman, who has relatively less pressure. The longer duration of the game smudges out the randomness - time-averages out the noise, if you will. Test cricket is thus more reliant on strategy and raw talent than T20s. It would also stand to reason that one day cricket would lie somewhere between T20 and Test cricket in the 'dependence on luck'.

International T20s give the victors bragging rights - and send the losers soul-searching. But one would do well to remember that with luck dominating the whole situation.; the emotions of a massive number of people (the entire population of cricket-crazy India, for instance) are played around with with randomness. This is meaningless.

The ICC would do well to abolish the T20 world cup. That's because the IPL provides cricket of similar (if not higher quality) than the world cup. And there's plenty of close finishes - and the tournament is long enough to require consistent performance to succeed (the ensemble average effect?). The Deccan chargers were indeed the best team throughout the tournament this year - and the Kolkota was certainly the worst. The same cannot be said of the mercureal Pakistani team.

I dare say that each of the IPL franchises was at least as good as the 'world champion' Pakistani team. (This makes sense even when one looks at the sample size of the population that each of the IPL franchises is picked from: 1200M/8 = 150M, which is the population of Pakistan!). We can argue that all International cricket is meaningless based on this - and will become even more so as India's economy grows - but I've already done that before.

More on Iran

I've been following the situation in Iran quite closely (as seems to be everyone with a TV / internet connection). The Iran situation is getting coverage all around the world. It is creditable that the plight of a suppressed people is getting such media traction.

There are several articles which argue that the results of the elections (the current bones of contention, if you will) are rigged. There's this article (with the feel of a Journal paper) by people who seem to be academicians at a British University. Then there's the amusing analysis written in a recent edition of the Washington Post which argues that the numbers bear the signature of a rigged election. And then there's this analysis in the New Scientist which uses that old statistical treasure, Binford's Law to argue that the results were generated by a computer.

And for a historical perspective, Alternet has a brutally passionate piece on why claims, not unlike those purveyed by the Mullahs in Iran, that America is the Great Satan - do have a strong basis.

Clearly, I do not have any business sounding off on Iran. I am not an Iranian citizen. I am an Indian - and India's political system at least does not have the kind of repression that Iran bears. But I have always sounded off on things that are none of my business. So, of course, I will open by mouth here are talk about what I think. (The entire US of A is doing this - so why should I be left out?).

Firstly, why are the Iranian protests getting so much airtime? Does the fact that American drones are killing more civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan per day count for nothing? Why are we not looking at the plight of the Iraqis, Pakistanis and Afghans here? This is WRONG.

A popular (albeit somewhat sexist and inappropriate) analysis seems to be doing the rounds on Facebook. Apparently the plight of the Iranian people is getting so much airtime because they're using many pretty women as protesters. This analysis might have an iota of truth in it. The fact is that the wronged people here are MIDDLE CLASS. Iran is a fairly well-to-do nation - with a per capita income 4-5 times that of India - and 30% of the US.

The Iranians (who are protesting) are cellphone toting, twitter and Facebook people. Americans (and the rest of the developed word) can therefore identify themselves with the Iranian cause. An Afghan shepherd who has never heard of twitter – they can’t identify with. His life is no value - as has been proven by zero-outrage-inducing drone attacks in Pakistan.

So here’s a lesson for you. If you are an oppressed community – and want the rest of the developed world on your side – somehow, stop being poor. Become middle class. Beg, borrow, steal! And America (and the rest of the world) will be a your champion. If you’re still poor on the other hand, and do not have access to twitter, then watch out! A drone will drop a missile on you sometime.

Update: Time's Joe Klien has a very insightful piece on the Iranian situation. I quote

Iran's government is a conservative, defensive, rational military dictatorship that manages to subdue its working-class majority softly, by distributing oil revenues downward. (On June 23, Ahmadinejad announced that doctors' salaries would be doubled, for example.)

Smelling fishy in Tehran

Mahmoud Ahmedinijad's government is certainly not one of my favourite governments. A pointless, unpragmatic hardliner whose record in Iran is Akin to Lalu's in Bihar (as far as the economy is concerned) - and whose record outside Iran includes denying the holocaust thus lending illegitimacy to the genuine grievance that Palestinians have about Israel usurping their homeland. He, along with the hard-line former American president (Bush) were responsible for ratcheting up fears of yet another war in the middle east.

Since America hates Ahmedinijad, it does look like the American media has a horse in the race. Building up the rally in Iran would tend to give it a ratings boost. So, one does wonder, is the whole situation in Iran manufactured by those with vested interests?

This does not seem to be the case. You can't count 50 million paper ballots in three hours and decide a winner. The election results do not seem to make sense when viewed side by side along with the older election results. The reformers should have got a larger amount of the vote. And the main challenger (Moussavi) should have won in his home town at least - looking at how large his rallies are in Tehran. This probably proves once and for all that democracy in Iran is a sham. And Iranians, the smart and proud people that they are, are likely to revolt - if the ruling government does not have a genuine majority. And that's exactly what they seem to be doing right now.

How will the government react to this? Will they use excessive force and kill a lot of protestors? Are we seeing the beginning of a repressive regime? Or will the Iranians have another revolution that shall result in a more liberal democracy.

It is inevitable that the government shall try to ban services such as twitter and facebook. They might even end up banning blogs and access to the internet. But people are experts at setting up proxy servers. But it remains to be seen how long this rage against the government shall last. Will the Iranian people be able to sustain this rage in the long run?

The west must do what it can to ensure that access to these services goes on. If necessary, wimax routers (which offer wireless internet for a range of upto 50 km or more) can be installed along the borders in Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey (and Pakistan?). This will give Iranians unlimited access to facebook and twitter (at least in a narrow geographic region). Services passing on information must be orgainzied by email. Satellite photography should replace on-the-ground cameras to monitor unrest. This is the 21st century. We must use current technology to avoid the biggest mistakes of last century - the rise of totalitarianism - especially in large, rich and populous countries.

Expressing solidarity with the Iranian people. [ And hence the sudden green-ness]. Here's to the hope that the truth shall prevail - and that the election results are processed more transparently. If Ahmedinijad's victory was indeed so transparent, then why are the powers that be making this process so opaque?