Among yesterday’s front pages was a data visualisation which, at first glance, was one of the most effective I’ve ever seen: the Independent had made an infographic showing yesterday’s £6bn budget cuts in context - as a fraction of a debt mountain.
Then I looked closer - and something’s very, very wrong.
Can you tell what it […]
More stories have surfaced this week on free energy (hat tip: Ben Goldacre - twice in a week!). Free energy is a fairly simple idea: a machine that gives out more energy than is put in to it: a perpetual motion machine.
Several UK newspapers - including “quality” titles - have given these things coverage, despite the fact that they break the first law of thermodynamics - that in a closed system, overall energy remains the same (energy is conserved). As such, there’s often a nice element of science bashing in these things - ‘how do you explain that one science? eh? eh?’. Dr Goldacre explains the scientific reasons behind this latest free energy gizmo being rubbish. Personally, I didn’t totally follow (something to do with AC current, I think). But no matter.
There is a really, really, easy way to work out if these devices are genuine. A test would work something like this. Journalist asks himself:
a. Has this been unveiled in a massive ceremony from a major world power?
b. Has the inventor been approached by representatives from Governments and corporations all over the world?
c. Has the inventor faced numerous attempts on his/her life from hired assassins of oil-rich countries?
If the answer to all of the above questions is “no”, then your story is, I’m afraid, bollocks.
A “free energy” machine would instantly, dramatically and dangerously revolutionise world politics at a stroke
Why? A machine that produces more energy than it uses is a power generator, and one far superior to anything we have at the moment (leaving aside the whole physics-breaking thing). It would generate unlimited, secure power. Geopolitics are absolutely dominated by energy politics: the EU’s frosty relations with Russia would be far worse were we not reliant on their willingness to sell oil. Crude oil prices lead every business news broadcast. Millions believe certain conflicts in the middle east were related to oil. Energy provision certainly makes the middle east the strategic asset it is.
A “free energy” machine would instantly, dramatically and dangerously revolutionise world politics at a stroke: and many countries would lose out - especially if they didn’t have access to the technology. The subsequent arms race would make the cold war look like a backyard scrap.
It wouldn’t be bad news of course: global warming could be easily solved, energy security would be largely guaranteed, and some lucky new scientists would get to discover a whole new rulebook for the universe. Any firm with any kind of patent on the thing would also become agonisingly wealthy.
Personally, I think the future of civilisation probably extends beyond the sci/tech pages (great though they are). I think perhaps it might just be a front page splash - perhaps even with a little extra content inside the paper. If you’re confident enough in the facts to publish that kind of story, you really shouldn’t bother printing such dross at all.
There you have it: rubbish science story debunked with absolutely no knowledge of science needed. Lucky, eh?
Finally, I could hardly publish such a whizzy-machines post without at least showing you one of the things. Here’s Steorn’s effort, courtesy of the Daily Mail:
More4 news runs nightly at 8pm for half an hour, on (shock horror) more4. Today they ran a feature on contradictory health advice in papers - the Indy today saying being fat is good for you versus last week’s obesity epidemic stuff. Laughably, this was presented as science’s failing, rather than the media’s. But yes.
They got a poor guy in from Sense about Science, and then inflated and deflated him (camerawork, obviously) at different points, while running a serious interview. The overall effect was completely, utterly, godawful. It wasn’t funny as the interview content was serious, and also completely undermined one’s ability to take the conversation seriously.
In conclusion, rubbish presentation by a usually-reasonable news show. Luckily, I’ll probably have been more-or-less the only person to watch it. The wonders of the digital age, eh?
