Number of the Month
September 2014
Trivial pursuit: Brussels rules
Vacuum cleaners were just a pilot sortie. Hair driers and electric kettles are now among other domestic devices under threat from the machinations of the beavering Eurocrats. The ill-informed nincompoops continue not only to pronounce on things that they do not understand but also to turn their ignorance into vexatious legislation.
They are totally unaware of the simple physics that covers the thermal properties of water, something every school pupil should emerge knowing. Water is the most vital substance to life on earth, yet the political and bureaucratic classes that rule our lives feel that is beneath their dignity to try to understand it.
The amount of energy required to dry a particular head of hair is largely predetermined by the mass of water and the latent heat of vaporisation of water, a physical constant (though in practice much of it goes to “waste”, which does not affect the argument as this happens regardless of the power). The amount of energy required to heat a kettle of water to boiling point is wholly predetermined by the starting temperature and the specific heat of water, another physical constant. Reducing the power merely increases the time taken. If you use too little power the water will never boil, since the rate of heat loss is also temperature dependent (try using a candle). Furthermore, there is the fallacy of the incomplete balance sheet to consider: even if energy were saved, the cost for half the year is simply added to the heating bill in the temperate zone.
There are, however, two overriding factors that reduce all this bureaucratic activity to a total farce. First, the threat these petty annoyances are meant to answer is all in the minds of the carbophobic religionists. Second, the proportion of total energy use that these targets represent is immeasurably small. The game is not worth the candle, though that might be what they intend to reduce us to (provided someone can invent the low-carbon candle). It is the sacrifice that matters!
01/09/14
Question time
Posed by Philip Johnston in the Telegraph:
Q. Why merge police forces?
A. Because Bureaucrats like big.
Next question.
09/09/14
Meanwhile, back at the BBC
The BBC’s reaction to those EU diktats on domestic electrical appliances was to wheel out its “expert”, who laid out a trail of red herrings without addressing the fundamental physical aspects. Roger Harrabin is one of the most determined and ruthless global warming propagandists in the world. He it was who devised the secretive committee to affirm the abandonment by the corporation of any neutrality in the climate debate. This was the so-called Twentyeightgate scandal (and how quickly that was brushed under the carpet!). People wondered at the inclusion of the head of comedy, Jon Plowman, in that group, but comedy is a major repository of the propaganda campaign. One of the proud features of BBC history, now abandoned, is its nursing of talent in comedy writing. Now it relies almost totally on so-called “stand-ups”, who are carefully vetted to conform to the mores of the new corporation rulers. These “comedians” infest populist programmes across the radio and TV network: almost every panel game, quiz or anecdotal programme is populated by permutations of the same group of people. With persistent regularity, the chairman of one will turn up as an ordinary member of the next.
The BBC’s two pet scientists are Paul Nurse and Brian Cox. Naturally they are true believers, otherwise they would not be remotely considered. Cox has received numerous high honours, including a professorship, despite having a relatively sparse publication list in his subject, Physics. He owes his fame largely to time spent as a pop musician, which has led to a career as a pop scientist, mainly for the BBC. He has developed a nice line in doublethink, his latest contribution (in the Guardian, naturally) being that science should not be controversial (but instead dictated by an establishment?) conveniently ignoring the fact that science has always progressed through controversy (until recently, however, mostly conducted in a civil manner). Paul Nurse is one of a line of geneticists who have established a stranglehold on the politics of science (see, or example, Robert May, annotated twelve years ago). They are mostly illiterate in the fields of physics and mathematics, but that does not inhibit them from pontificating on these. Nurse’s most recent contribution (in the Guardian, naturally, and on the same day as the previous link) is that anyone who disagrees with him and his ilk should be crushed and buried. This is not the language of a scientist: it is the language of a fanatic (political and/or religious) – just the job or the new-age BBC.
The adherence of the BBC to subservience to the EU is absolute. There is something more than a little malodorous about it. Dubious financial connections with the EU might be deemed quite improper in a public corporation that is generously funded by a compulsory levy on the population, supposed to ensure its independence.
“If in doubt, sow confusion” is the motto.
Even the sainted Booker is confused enough by the BBC to congratulate the EU on its trivia games, quoting the amount of “electricity saved”. Zero quantity of electricity (measured in coulombs) is used in devices (apart from capacitors or batteries), only electrical energy (measured in joules) is utilised; just as no water disappears within a water mill, it just emerges at lower potential. This might all sound like nit-picking, but the casual abuse of definitions and units is the origin of much of the pseudo-science that bedevils the modern world of politics and media. For every electron fed into your house from the mains another is returned (regardless of whether the supply is AC or DC). If it were otherwise, your house would be charged up to a high voltage.
But now or something completely different! You might have thought that the Scottish Referendum would be a topic that could be treated without bias. Think again! The first formal debate, conducted by an independent TV channel, and featuring the nominated campaign leaders, was not shown to the nation and large, but it was coolly and fairly presented. The second debate, produced by the BBC, was a different animal indeed. There was a brief protest in the popular press (e.g. Express and Mail ) but, as the BBC well knows to its own comfort, they soon forget.
As soon as the scene opened there was something odd and unconventional about it. The “neutral” chairman was to off one side, instead of in the traditional central position, and took little part other than announcing the stages of the debate. The gentlemanly (but ineffectual) unionist speaker maintained his position at the allocated lectern, as tradition in well conducted debates dictates. The separatist leader was allowed to go through a repetitive routine in which he left his lectern and strutted to the centre front of the stage whenever he was asked a question. Even while at his lectern, he was allowed to harangue and interrupt his opponent continually. The audience was dominated by a disorderly claque of separatists. It was all a new variation on the familiar BBC stitch-up. The most depressing thing about these crude shenanigans is that they worked, as the subsequent lurch in the opinion polls demonstrated.
10/09/14