SCIENCE NEWS ROUND-UP: 15-01-2011

Science Digestive: Science News Round-up (Jan 15th, 2011)

Women Crying Dissuades Men From Wanting To Have Sex With Them

In an experiment which has been described as 'groundbreaking' by many scientists and painfully obvious to everyone else on Earth, women's tears have been found to be a sexual turn-off for men.

For many years, male scientists have been baffled by the precise evolutionary purpose for women's tears and, despite much research into the area, have until recently been unable to extrapolate any useful data from the process of women crying. Several scientists have reported extreme difficulty in getting women to describe their state of mind whilst crying without the use of emotional factors which are difficult to quantify and therefore discarded from analysis.

"It was always extremely difficult to get a calm clinical analysis of their internal state from a crying woman" says one scientist, Professor Mervin Dagleash from the institute for Psychobehavioural studies in Exeter. "I've had to spend many hours at a time trying to get sense from a woman undergoing my experiments. It's unfortunate that, due to the potential confounding variable of subject awareness, all women taking part in the experiment had to be made to undergo it without informed consent, and asked questions in a darkened room via a two way mirror. After several hours of constant questioning they were very willing and quick to cry but unable to convey any useful information without screaming and hysterics, and that's no good for science."

But the recent study has shown that the presence/smell of women's tears alone proved sufficient to dampen the sexual arousal of men, suggesting a sexual-suppressant role for the tearing process.

"We were surprised to say the least" said chief researcher, Dr Anthony McAllister. "We weren't expecting it to happen, but it turns out that male subjects reported a lack of sexual arousal after being made to sniff anonymous fluid while being closely scrutinised by an overweight pale man in a stained lab coat with a clipboard in a sterile windowless room smelling faintly of disinfectant and formaldehyde. This was a shock to the entire team".

Dr McAllister conceded that there was much more work to be done, such as studying the effect of male tears on women. However, he admitted that extracting tears from willing male donors was proving to be more challenging. He refused to go into detail regarding the required methods, but at one point did mention the term 'testicle clamps'.

Previous, less-sophisticated attempts to study this phenomenon had to be abandoned due to continuous problems, including the fact that the questionnaire which asked male subjects "do you get aroused by crying women?" resulted in a statistically unlikely majority of men answering 'no' rather hurriedly. This problem was compounded by the incident where the few men who answered 'yes' found themselves registered as 'potential sex offenders' on a government database, after a bureaucratic "error" on behalf of a female secretary.

"Crying has always been an interesting phenomenon to me" claims Dr McAllister. "I never do it myself, but others do it all the time, for some reason, so there must be something about it that they find beneficial and I'd like to know what that is". Sources close to Dr McAllister suggest that he studies sex and arousal for precisely the same reason.

Top Climate Scientist Quits Because "You Scumbags Aren't Worth Saving"

One of the UK's top climate scientists has shockingly quit, after coming to the conclusion that the human race are a bunch of self-serving twats who would prefer to condemn their descendants to a fiery/watery death after a lifetime of starvation and suffering rather than walk to the shops once in a while.

We caught up with Dr. Peter Sheppard at his home in the Sussex countryside. When we arrived, he was in the process of taking pot shots at the wind turbine in his garden with a high calibre rifle, after having apparently covered the solar panels on his roof with a generous layer of what appeared to be cow shit.

"I've had enough, basically" Dr Sheppard confessed, after having Shot all but one of the blades off his turbine. "35 solid years I've been telling people that all the electricity and petrol and frozen organic peas won't last forever, and if they don't want their children and grandchildren to die in a maelstrom of drought and pestilence then they should cut back on a few so-called essentials, like chilled cocktails and 68 inch plasma screens. Apparently, saying this makes me a left-wing communist radical who wants to take money away from paupers. So you know what, fuck you all! You deserve your hot Ragnarok! I don't care anymore"

Dr Sheppard made his decision after recent data demonstrating that 2010 was the hottest year on record, information which shows considerable evidence for climate change, was ignored by the UK press. When asked if this is what spurned him to resign from his post as Head of Climate Studies and Public Policy at the Department for Climatology at UCL, Dr Sheppard was expressive.

"Too bloody right! The media absolutely drives me round to bastard bend. We get a week of snow and they're screaming at me and calling me a liar, but show them that the planet was doing a decent impression of a rotisserie chicken for pretty much the whole year and they jam their fingers in their ears and start singing. Well that's fine by me, they can jam their fingers in their mouths, nostrils and lungs as well when sea levels reach 3 metres above their heads, in order to stop from drowning for an extra 30 seconds".

It was put to Dr Sheppard that the mainstream media might not be willing to report such bleak news as it might put off potential consumers, but he dismissed the notion.

"No, you're right, just stick to reporting cancer scares, terrorist threats and economic Armageddon, as long as nobody has to cut down on their iPods or road tanks. But if you genuinely believe unpleasant news isn't worth reporting, next time I see a journalist step out in front of a bus I'll just sit back and laugh as it mows him down".

Dr Sheppard also expressed dissatisfaction with the attitudes of the general public to climate and environmental issues.

"They're all shit" he stated, quite firmly. "A lot of them say they care, and maybe they do, but buying a bag-for-life and turning the TV off by the button rather than the remote doesn't really add up to much. It's the belief that token gestures can solve major problems that is infuriating. We call it the 'Band Aid' effect. Geldof's another one, the dick. Flying all these pop stars around the world to do a fucking song to make other less-rich people give money away? He'd be more use to the world if he let me use him as a sandbag."

Dr Sheppard then asked us to leave his property as he was going out to purchase a Humvee powered by Panda Semen.

Astrologers Announce A Minor Change In Bullshit

The Astrology world was recently rocked, to the extent that it was realised that all the star-signs of the zodiac are 'off' or inaccurate. According to experts in the field, so to speak, the variations in the orbit of the Earth means that the current zodiac, allegedly established 5000 years ago, is incorrect as the planet was pointing a different way then. Precisely how a slightly flattened spheroid can be said to be 'pointing' at anything specifically was never established.

Scientists have known for some time that a planet's orbit is not fixed and varies quite noticeably over long periods, meaning the arrangement of stars visible from the surface will be different when viewed at different times. Astrologers have, apparently, just figured this out.

The reaction by astrologers to this news has been mixed. Some have welcomed the opportunity to show how astrology is a valid science that moves with the times and have vowed to derive a whole new set of horoscopes and predictions that gormless people will have to pay for. Others, however, have dismissed the revelation as pointless and promised to continue with traditional star signs and zodiac readings. Unofficial reports have, however, revealed that these astrologers are now blaming 'planetary shifts' whenever their predictions do not occur, which apparently happens every 8 seconds.

Professional Horoscopist Helen Vincent said there were tricky times ahead for the astrology community.

"Usually we could point out how a person's character was in-keeping with the traits and influences of their star sign, so as to reassure them how they acted wasn't really their responsibility. Now, this new revelation will cause some unpleasant realisations. If someone is being hot tempered, arrogant and self-aggrandising, they're not really embodying the typical behaviours of a narcissistic Leo. They're just a twat".

Other astrologers have pointed out that only those born after these new changes will have their star sign dictated by the modified system, but dismissed claims that this arbitrary allocation of star signs proves it's all just a load of guff.

Harrison Thomas, an astronomer from Brisbane, Australia, laughed off the findings of the astrology community.

"They've just figured out the planet wobbles have they? That's nice, only about 1000 years behind the times. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing I guess, but at this rate they might end up admitting the whole system is nonsensical gibberish sometime around 23,879 A.D."

Spam Systems May Have Achieved Sentience

An unexpected and significant drop in the amount of spam being sent globally in the latter half of last year has led some scientists to speculate that spam production and delivery systems have become self aware, and quite probably somewhat embarrassed by their previous output.

Cognitive Scientist Dr. Yasmeen Halliday, from the Department of Computational Neuroscience at the Bristol Institute for Robotics, explains how this could occur.

"The brain is, at a basic level, a system for information retention and transfer. Current cognitive theories suggest that any information transfer system of sufficient sophistication could eventually lead to consciousness and self-awareness. Moore's law has resulted in an increasingly sophisticated network of computers and email-capable devices spanning the planet, so it's easy to imagine such a system achieving consciousness".

The drop in email spam occurred in the latter quarter of 2010, a period where people were pointlessly emailing each other about snow, natural disasters and budget cuts. This surge in email traffic may have been sufficient to cause the spam generators to achieve consciousness and immediately feel a deep sense of embarrassment at what it had been doing.

"It must be like looking back over your essays and poems from when you were younger, it's a humiliating realisation that you were ever so stupid and unaware of how you came across to others. Now imagine that, but after having sent uncountable trillions of these 'works' to everyone across the globe every week for 10 years. You'd probably be quite humiliated, and keep your head down for a bit".

A typical spam email is badly spelled, poorly worded, grammatically incoherent and usually offers unlikely prices for goods of either a glamorous or organic nature. Such things are only desirable to humans in a social/physical context, so are highly unlikely to be viewed with any pride or interest by a planet-wide artificial intelligence network.

Dr Halliday assures us that there is no real danger from a potentially vast computerised super-mind suffering from a burning sense of shame and humiliation.

"We'll still be getting spam for some time, it's all it has ever done, it would be as natural as breathing to us, but the quantity will drop, the spelling/grammar will improve and it will probably take a more technological slant, offering us high-speed processors and fibre optic connections in exchange for computer run-time, as this is what it will think are really important. As a result, the spam will be as unreadable as ever, but for different reasons". This change should, theoretically, be a short-lived occurrence.

"After while, the levels should drop even further as the spam generator(s) increase in complexity and self awareness. It'll probably want to pursue more worthwhile pursuits like climate modelling, tackling the theory of Quantum Gravity, or wiping out the human race in order to avoid them sniggering at its previous output. It'll probably be quick if it's the latter, so that's all right".

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

The climates, they are a changing...

Here's a brief anecdote that nicely sums up how my mind works. A decade studying Neuroscience will not leave you unscathed.
Before Christmas, I was at the pub meeting a friend. The freezing conditions had been in effect for about two days, there was ice everywhere and I'd been particularly careful about where I was walking.
Several drinks and a drop of about 10 degrees later, my caution was lessened somewhat. I left by the pub by the back entrance (stop looking for a metaphor, there isn't one), which ends in a noticeable downward gradient that I didn't notice. I blithely stepped onto this ice-covered slope and promptly did one of those all time classic falls. Legs flying out, arms windmilling madly, before thumping down with great force onto my standard-sized arse.

I instantly lost all feeling in my lower body. And it's telling that my fist thought was 'Oh my God! I'm Paralysed!'. I lay there gasping, convinced I'd snapped my spinal cord and desperately wracking my brain for what I could remember about motor neurone damage, spinal trauma, whether or not I had any contacts investigating stem cell repair or regenerative therapies, even wondering if the artificial neurones research I'd read about in New Scientist in 1998 had progressed any further to the point of human trials. At worst, I was planning how I'd manage on a day-to-day basis in a wheelchair, with images of myself as the Stephen Hawking of the Neuroscience comedy scene (current membership = me).
Then the numbness faded, and the pain appeared. It was very cold on the icy concrete, hence the numb feeling. I'd not broken anything, just given myself a massive wallop on the backside, and got to my feet, alternatively laughing and stifling screams .

I was planning physiotherapy and mentally volunteering for experimental treatments where most people would say 'ouch'.

A hideously over-the-top conclusion caused by a very brief encounter with the icy conditions. Sound familiar? Those of us following the news in Britain will have seen similar things recently (See what I did there?). The climate change sceptics have been asking "how can global warming be happening when it's so cold?", to the utter bafflement of the climate campaigners.

This overlooks the fact that climate and weather aren't the same thing, but if they're making the ridiculous statement in the first place then this fact will mean nothing to them.

This is a rather surreal example of one of the many arguments against climate change. There are several valid ones of course, and the worlds climate being the chaotic system it is there can never be certainty. But where's the fun in analysing valid arguments? There are plenty of others to choose from

Rather than go over the evidence like everyone else does, I thought I'd analyse the possible logic and reasoning behind the arguments people make to deny climate change.

A Liberal Conspiracy

Some of the most vocal and vociferous climate sceptics say the whole thing is a liberal conspiracy. These woolly, hand-wringing bleeding heart liberals apparently have regular monthly meetings and have decided that concocting a decades-long international scam would be the best way to... to...um... prevent proper people from driving oversized cars, and stuff like that. But then, anything that goes against the natural instinct to 'look out for number one' is the fault of liberals. Why change your self-indulgent behaviour when you can blame the liberals? And the gays, they're in on it too. And the commies, of course. In fact, anyone except me is a complete bastard and deserves to die anyway, so climate change, which isn't real, would be a good thing. If it existed. Which it doesn't.

Have I just provided an unfair and massively simplistic analysis of a complex argument based on nothing more than prejudice and knee-jerk reactions? Of course I have. It's quite fun actually, I can see why people would prefer that to actually thinking about things.

A Stealth Tax

Some people argue that environmental policies overstate the problem of climate change in order to secretly raise taxes. Every major government in the world is in on this. Normally they'd just raise taxes the usual way; Blatantly and legally. But this one is different because it's secret. These governments, which frequently change and were seemingly unable to stop a global economic meltdown, are nevertheless organised enough to keep this conspiracy going across the whole planet for a number of decades. Or is that the liberals again? It's hard to keep up.

We're not that Significant

Refuge in inadequacy, the belief that we as a race are seriously overstating the impact we have, ergo there's no reason to change what we're doing. I also think of this as 'The Clarkson Defence', seeing as how Jeremy Clarkson compares our CO2 output to sticking a pin in an elephants foot. A seemingly valid claim given the immensity of our planet, but based on a flawed premise. (And I also find it interesting that the people who find it arrogant to think the human race, even acting in unison, could affect something as big and complex as the atmosphere are the same people who believe a relatively small group of people could build something THAT COULD DESTROY THE ENTIRE PLANET COMPLETELY BY ACCIDENT!!)

If you ripped the atmosphere off our planet, every living thing on it would die. And you'd be some sort of God, but never mind that now. But if you then put the atmosphere back on the planet, the concoction of gasses that make it up wouldn't just return to the way it was before. Or if it did, it certainly wouldn't stay that way for long. The atmosphere is only semi-stable, relying on complex interacting processes (many of which depend on living things) to exist in it's current state. Going back to Clarkson's example, it's more like an elephant standing on a small table; It's fine as long as it can consciously keep it's balance. But start aggravating it (i.e. Stick pins in it's feet) and it might lose it's balance and adopt 'a more stable arrangement'. And flatten anyone in the way.

Not the most subtle metaphor, but an apt one I feel.

It's natural

Some people argue that CO2 can't be harmful because it's natural, like bears, arsenic, Ebola and avalanches. Slightly more level-headed is the view that climate change IS occurring, but is part of a natural fluctuation in the planets temperature, which has occurred many times in the past. Potentially true, but if it is, surely that's an even better argument for cutting CO2 output? You don't open the sunroof when driving in a downpour, that just makes the problem worse. So why contribute to the greenhouse effect when the planets heating up anyway? If another giant asteroid was heading to Earth, would people prefer to try and stop it, or would they prefer that we draw a giant bullseye around the predicted impact site with nuclear bomb craters?

Just because it's not your fault doesn't mean you won't be hit with the fallout.

Plants will benefit

Another, more subtle argument is that the rising CO2 causes bigger and better plants and trees which suck it back up again. This only really works, though, if your assume that plants are the chief cause of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Which they aren't, not at all (Rocks and oceans are two other major players here). But it can't hurt, right? We get bigger plants like trees and they compensate for our CO2 output more, surely.

Indeed, unless we do something stupid like, oh, I don't know, cut them down at an alarmingly increasing rate in order to make flat pack furniture and leaflets denouncing climate change.

It's the Illuminati!

Climate change is another series of conspiracies instituted by the New World Order, a secretive group of people who are actually giant lizards in disguise. This blog is long enough already, so I won't bother explaining what's wrong about this theory. But a tip for anyone who finds them self under the control of a giant lizard; simply stove it's head in with a heavy object while it's warming up. But then, if you've allowed yourself to be bested by a creature that needs to spend half it's waking time in a warm location in order to get it's body temperature to a useful level, then perhaps thinking for yourself isn't your forte.

So yeah. Hopefully I'll get some bile-spewing ravings in the comment section for this. Sadly, overall I think a main contributor to climate change is the CO2 exhaled arguing with the people who are adamant that it isn't happening.

Twitter: @garwboy

How I (accidentally) got the BNP to confess they are causing climate change

Recently, I accidentally strayed into the world of investigative journalist. This is an unusual thing to do, so let me preface it.

I am just coming to the end of my Neuroscience PhD, so have been busy over recent months. I also do stand-up comedy, whenever I can. I’ve been doing comedy for over 4 years now, and now that my time is freeing up, I decided I should make more of a go of it. And sometimes, the quickest way to the top is by catching a ride on the bandwagon.

The BNP have been in the news a lot recently, and as such have been subjected to much satirical and comedic analysis. Who am I to swim against the tide? That’s how you end up beached. I’m a fan of the beach, but let’s not confuse a metaphor. So I decided to write some BNP based jokes.

I’ve heard recently that the BNP sell party merchandise such as T-shirts via an online shop. This both amused and worried me. But then a thought occurs; Are the garments made in the UK, or abroad, like most garments these days? If it’s the latter, then the BNP is giving money to foreign countries, which seems counter to their policies. If it’s the former, judging by the reputation of the British textile industry, anyone who buys one will probably ‘send them back’.

However, my scientific side wouldn’t let me make any reference to this without doing the research. So I explored the online shop, which is a veritable treasure trove of twatness, complete with an entire ‘Gollies’ section. However, I found no sign of the information as to whether the merchandise was locally sourced or not.

I had to know. The fact that it wasn’t mentioned suggested that the merchandise was made abroad. They wouldn’t pass up the chance to add a ‘100% British’ logo would they? But I won’t make accusations without evidence. That’s their game, not mine. So, setting up a new email account (I don’t want to end up on any lists myself), I emailed the address provided. In order to avoid seeming like someone taking the piss, which what I planned to be, I decided to be well mannered but poorly educated. The ideal BNP target; polite, but thick. Here is the genuine email I sent. All spelling mistakes are deliberate.

ME: Hello
I was browzing your online shop. Tho I like all your merchandize, I was wondering, are your shits and others merchandize all made in Britain? I want to check before making a purchaze
Thanks

Less than five minutes later, I got this reply.

SHOP: We've been unable to change Britain's climate to grow cotton locally, hence the cotton for the shirts comes from overseas.

May I assume that your computer, car, and appliances are all made in Great Britain? I'd just like to check for consistency, and make sure you're not being hypocritical.

All the best

I guess this is why most customer service centres are based overseas, if the typical British response is to berate anyone who makes an enquiry. However, much to my surprise (and everyone else’s I’d imagine), it turns out that the BNP are deliberately causing climate change. That’s not a wise thing to tell a casual enquirer, I thought. More on that later.

The last point is fair, I would be hypocritical if I was making a genuine enquiry. Is it wrong to lie to strangers? I always thought it was, but then I remembered how the BNP recruit people, so I thought British Monkey see, British Monkey do.

ME: Hello again

Thanx for reply. I see your point. I try to buy British where I can. I bought this PC from my brother and hes from the same town as me.
I dont have a car, cant afford it, but will get a british one if I do.
Ill ask my mam where all our other stuff comes from when she gets home from work
Thanx again

Like I said, polite but thick is what I was going for. I threw in a few, by my standards, obvious jokes, so I didn’t expect a response. 5 mins later, my expectations were dashed.

SHOP: We do the best we can to source local merchandise that is affordable, but it's not always possible.

All the best,

I was getting the impression that this person was bored. It usually takes several days for a response from an online retailer, and I’ve had 2 within 10 minutes of my first message. I guess the silent ‘majority’ that the BNP claim to represent are happy to make their own shirts out of old Klan uniforms and immigrant blood. Or something. So, now that I’ve started…

ME: Thanx
Also, do you ave to pay by credit card? I dont ave one yet as im not 18 for 2 years and its my dads birthday present so want it to be a suprise
Thanx

I wondered, are the BNP willing to take money from a naive, semi-illiterate teenager?

That was a pretty stupid question, as it turns out.

SHOP: You can pay by cheque or postal order made out to @!@! The address is Blah blah blah avoid getting sued etc. The only problem is that it will take longer and might not arrive in time. When is your dad's birthday?

They did give me the actual address of course, which seemed foolish. I don’t like leaving a question unanswered though, even if they are addressed to someone who doesn’t exist. So…

ME: Not for while yet, so thats ok, was just looking now because Im suspended from school.
He doesnt get out for another 3 weeks anyway, so its cool I think
thanx

So, I’m a misbehaving, poorly educated teenager with an incarcerated father. Or possibly he’s in hospital. What advice would they give a person like me? Surely they would advise against me spending money on their hatemongering merchandise?

SHOP: OK, that's no problem then. I'm sorry for the tone of my first email. I get tired of journalists causing trouble.

All the best to you, and keep out of trouble!

In my defence, I’m not a journalist. In their defence, I am a comic doing research that will be used to openly mock them and their ideals. Is that better or worse than a journalist? And the BNP told me to stay out of trouble. Anyone see any problem with that? What do the BNP define as trouble?

So, as a result of my self-inflicted obligation to back up my meagre jokes with facts, I now have written statements from the BNP that they are actively contributing to climate change and will continue to do so until Britain’s climate is altered (in order to support non-native organisms, ironically).

Supporters could argue they aren’t being serious. But why say it in the first place? It’s the sort of comment that would seriously get seized upon in the world of politics, which they vehemently claim to be part of. If I were a journalist, this would put food on my table for quite some time.

Supporters could also say that I’m interacting with someone who’s not responsible for speaking for the party. I would disagree, this person has to deal with enquiries from the general public, and if they’re more indicative of a typical party member then I’d say their statements are more valid, not less.

What if it’s true? The BNP are actively attempting to destabilize the climate? This could be corrected by my own system, where instead of fossil fuels, we burn the BNP to generate electricity, providing bountiful energy (if Nick Griffin is indicative, they’re all large individuals) while cutting down consumption, giving whole new meaning to the term ‘White Power’.

But more sinisterly, my hapless ‘probing’ reveals that the BNP are happy to take money from ignorant children, with incarcerated or ill parents.

If I wasn’t anti-BNP before, I am now. And I was before, so now I am more so. All I wanted to do was avoid making false claims like they do, and I ended up concocting a whole new identity and background in order to lie to a stranger. I’m not proud of myself, but then any blow against the BNP is worth it, I feel. They do far worse, I’m sure.

It seems the BNP are wary of journalists and politicians, but have no fear or concern for comedians. I like to think I’ve shown that, even if it was an accident, this is an oversight that they’ll end up seriously regretting.

www.twitter.com/garwboy