Green King

Guardian: Science chief: greens hurting climate fight

The scientist credited as being the first to convince Tony Blair of the urgency of the climate crisis has accused green activists of being Luddites who risk setting back the fight against global warming.

In an interview with the Guardian today Sir David King, who stepped down last month after seven years as the government's chief scientific adviser, says any approach that does not focus on technological solutions to climate change - including nuclear power - is one of "utter hopelessness".

Sir David King is right. Nuclear power "is not necessarily an ideal way to make energy, [but] the dangers of climate change are certainly far worse".

(He's dead wrong about badgers, though.)

Round

Fitzroy
Fitz in full Ivor Cutler mode.

I bought my dodgy railway ticket in order to meet Fitz for a pint or six in Birkenhead.

We hadn't seen each other since the unnecessary and draconian smoking ban. Sadly, Fitz had to spend most of the evening standing outside the pub in the rain smoking roll-ups. This despite the fact that every single one of the pub's other customers that evening (i.e. yours truly) had no objection whatsoever to his illegal, evil emissions.

Finally, the penny dropped:

Fitz: I think it must be my round.
Me: In that case, I'll just have a pint.
Fitz: Are you sure I can't persuade you to have a half?

Like son, like father

My dad gave me a lift to the railway station the night I bought my defective railway ticket. As he was reversing out the drive in the dark, Dad made the following observation:

I remember when reversing lights were bright enough for you to actually see where you were going. You used to get two. Then some bright spark in London somewhere decided that two white lights on the back of a car looked like a car coming the other way…

Well they bloody well were a car coming the other way!

So now you know where I get it from.

JNR

Gruts lurker Stense thought it was pretty funny I'd resorted to reading washing-up bowls. Today, I found myself reading a railway ticket. This ticket, in fact:

Ticket

Notice anything odd? Look again. Look at that date: 08-JNR-08.

SINCE WHEN EXACTLY was January abbreviated to JNR? JNR doesn't stand for January. If anything, it stands for Junior. Abbreviating January to JNR (first, third and sixth letters) makes as much sense as abbreviating October to OTE. In other words, it makes no bloody sense whatsoever.

I'll tell you who's behind this. The French. I'll bet there's some sort of silly euro-month standard so that travellers on Eurostar don't get confused, and the French totally insisted on JNR for January (Janvier)—in the same way as they insisted on having that silly e at the end of Concorde. They tend to do an awful lot of that sort of thing, the French.

We Brits are a tolerant bunch, Pierre, but you can push us only so far!

Bowl

Complete list of things in our kitchen at the moment:

  • one Aga cooker (turned off)
  • one kitchen sink (disconnected and lying on floor)
  • a couple of dozen bags of rubble

Work has finally begun in earnest on our new kitchen. Jen and I ripped the old one out on New Year's Day, the electricians were here on Friday, the plasterer and plumber began work today, and the bloke doing the floor arrives on 21st. Then work can begin on the kitchen proper (scheduled for completion late February mid-March).

Last night, it suddenly occurred to us, how are we going to do the washing up without a kitchen to do it in? This afternoon, for the first (and hopefully last) time in my life, I went to buy a washing-up bowl.

As washing-up bowls go, it's pretty natty. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's the nattiest washing-up bowl I've ever owned. It's a fetching blue colour. It goes rather well with my piercing blue eyes.

The new washing-up bowl had a sticker on the side:

Large washing up bowl.
Durable finish.
Scratch resistant and easy to clean.
Dishwasher safe.

Which kind of begs the question, if you own a dishwasher, what on earth would possess you to buy a washing-up bowl?

You don't have a dog and bark yourself.

Moral foundations

Who says the pope has lost touch with reality?

A thoroughly practical solution to a very serious problem, I'm sure we'd all agree.

Meanwhile, in other news, the former Bishop of Oxford (and thoroughly good egg), Lord Harries of Pentregarth, points out:

Best kind of morality, if you ask me, M'Lud: none of that imaginary-friend-in-sky-looking-down-on-you-and-judging-you nonsense. I always thought that particular philosophy was a bit dodgy as the foundation for an entire system of morals.

Lies, damn lies and official forecasts

Observer: Home wind turbines dealt a blow

Home wind turbines are significantly underperforming and in the worst cases generating less than the electricity needed to power a single lightbulb, according to the biggest study of its kind carried out in Britain.

An interim report revealed that homeowners could be being misled by the official figures for wind speeds because they are consistently overestimating how much wind there is - sometimes finding that real speeds are only one third of those forecast. In the worst case scenario, the figures indicate that it would take more than 15 years to generate enough 'clean' energy to compensate for the manufacture of the turbine in the first place.

Inefficient home wind turbines aren't the real story here. In case you missed it, let me repeat the key phrase:

official figures for wind speeds […] are consistently overestimating how much wind there is

In other words, the UK government is overestimating—by up to a factor of three—the amount of wind there actually is.

That's the same UK government that wants to build 7,000 offshore wind turbines which, according to UK Business Secretary John Hutton, are "going to change our coastline, yes for sure".

Can you smell the coffee yet?

See also: Ever felt you've been had?

Regulating quackery

BBC: Regulation plans for homeopathy

A range of complementary therapies such as homeopathy and aromatherapy are to be regulated by a new body.

At face value, it sounds sensible that anyone practicing any sort of therapy—even totally bogus ones like homeopathy and aromatherapy—should be regulated in some way. Certainly herbal remedies (which, unlike homeopathy, involve actual, active ingredients) should be regulated, as should acupuncture (for no other reason than it involves sticking pins into people).

But exactly how impartial and, well, scientific is this new regulating body, the Natural Healthcare Council, going to be? Its very name made me suspicious: natural is one of those specious, pseudo-scientific words beloved of alternative therapy voodooists, such as holistic, complementary, balance, harmony, energy and crystal. My scepticism grew when I read that this is not a government initiative; it's being set up by the Prince of Wales's Foundation for Integrated Health (oops! forgot integrated—that's another of their buzzwords). Our future king is well known for his pseudoscientific credentials (and, credit where it's due, his expensive yet excellent blackcurrant preserve).

But my main misgiving about this move is that setting up a body to regulate quackery lends it an even more scientific air than it already (fraudulently) claims. Hell, it might even improve the placebo effect behind these therapies because there is a pseudo-scientific body regulating it!

You just can't win, can you?

I wonder if I should apply to become a registered rixologist.