The 'From Science' Letters, Volume 1.

Greetings all. Given the unprecedented popularity of my originally flash-in-the-pan idea of writing letters 'From Science', I've collected the series thus far in one easily navigable blogpost. if you're new to the seres, please peruse and enjoy at your leisure. If you're an experienced reader,please relive the classics. Or read them again and realise that they were crap all along, and vow to never read any of my output ever again. Your choice entirely.

And please, feel free to leave feedback and suggest subjects for future letters/articles, I'm think I've addressed most of the more obvious targets, but am happy to be proven wrong.

1. Dear Media, from Science

2. Dear Homeopathy, from Science

3. Dear Astrology, from Science (and not forgetting the incredible reply; 'Dear Science, from Astrology')

4. Dear Economics, from Science

5. Dear Apple, from Science

6. Dear Advertising, from Science

7. Dear 'The Pope', from Science

8. Dear Antivaxxers, from Science

9. Dear Teaspoons, from Science

10. Dear Alternative Medicine, from Science

11. Dear Women, from Science

12. Dear British Association of Homeopathic retailers, from Science

13. Dear Scientology, from Science

14. Dear Chiropractors, from Science

15. Dear Light-Speed, from Science

16. Dear 'The Pope' (again), from Science

17. Dear Hollywood, from Science

18. Dear Conspiracy Theorists, from Science

19. Dear Joanne the Tour Guide, from Dean (sort of a guest post, written from my actual perspective)

20. Dear Andrew Wakefield, from Science

There we go, 6 months worth of pointless ranting. Here's to many many more.

Dean

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

twitter: @garwboy

"Dear Conspiracy theorists, from Science" (No. 18)

And so we begin again. Let's see if this one generates any interesting 'feedback'

"Dear Conspiracy Theorists

Hello, it's me, I'm the anthropomorphic personification of Science. If it helps, think of me as one of those shadowy people/lizards that secretly control the Earth* (arguably the smartest one, but not the most influential, sort of like a Witch doctor in some prehistoric tribe, where the big dumb chiefs control thing while I dance around in the corner playing with psychoactive plants, frog guts and cackling madly to myself, and I'll stop there as this metaphor is in danger of becoming a bit too accurate)

Some of you think you know me very well but in actuality have no idea what I do or think, some of you think I'm a lot more capable than I actually am, others among you seem to think I can do stuff which is quite beyond me and, by my standards, utterly pointless. But I think it's important to contact you and put you right on a few things.

(I'm fully aware that this will not change your insane claims in any way, but I'll have cleared my conscience on the matter. Also, don't think that you guys have the monopoly on insane rantings about plots and conspiracies, have you met the homeopaths? At least most of the things you claim are within the possibilities of physics. Physics says Hi!, by the way. Not because he has any particular affection for you, I've just encouraged him to be more sociable as the others find him quite intimidating and worry that he's autistic).

I'd also like to point out that I'm fully aware that there is no official representative of 'conspiracy theorists' in society, and I hesitate to use the word 'nutters' due to the risks involved. Not, I should clarify, the risk of possible retribution, but of allergies, as some people I know claim to have such sensitive nut allergies that they probably go into anaphylactic shock as a result of reading the word 'nut' (I may have killed a dozen people with that last sentence, but what can you do?).

So, I'm writing this letter to set a few things straight. I am fully aware that you don't have an official body/spokesperson I can send this letter to, apart from maybe David Icke, but I'm legally prevented from coming within 50 metres of him because he thinks I'm a giant lizard, hence my opening comments.

And that's another thing, if the combined might of the human race isn't enough to prevent your subjugation by a dozen big reptiles that need to remain motionless in the presence of a heat source for several hours a day in order to raise their body temperature to useful levels, do you really deserve to be self-governed? Maybe the lizard Illuminati are the only things stopping the pigeons from wiping you out, or some other equally ridiculous threat.

You guys seriously need to ease up on the potential world-killing plague hysteria too, although I have to confess that your 'vaccines are a form of government mind control' gibberish is close enough to the antivaxxers rhetoric to make them look stupid by association. It doesn't stop either of you I know, but it makes me laugh at least, and they say laughter is the best medicine, don't they? (it isn't, by the way, it's usually antibiotics of some description, but it depends on the illness really)

But like I said, you have no official representation, you conspiracy nuts just exist in the shadows, forming secret alliances that attempt to influence peoples behaviour and alter how they think, which, when you consider the sort of things you keep ranting about, is all kinds of ironic.

I just felt it necessary to contact you just to give you the means to cut some of the more ridiculous notions from the bubbling mass of screaming nonsense you churn out on a daily basis (should you feel the need). Here is my response to some of your more notable claims.

Basically, here are some things I can do.

- Land on the moon

- Prove that the Earth is round

- Keep giant lizard people at bay.

- Tell the difference between an extraterrestrial humanoid and a crap mannequin.

All of those things I've done. I'm not saying there isn't a grain of truth to some of them, though. Yes, the moon landings were politically motivated, but I still had to bloody do it! It's always the way, Politics treats me like some mooching relative looking for handouts when things are going well, but as soon as the undigested expelled matter hits the air-circulation device, he comes banging on my door in the middle of the night, screaming for my help in doing something I would have done years ago if he'd got economics to release the purse strings! Bunch of dicks.

Still, given the choice between travelling to another stellar planetary body, or trying to get thousands of Americans involved in a conspiracy to keep their mouths shut for the next 50 years, then hand me the metal tubes and point me in the direction of 'up'. It's not like it's hard to travel in space, anyway. All you need to do is construct a really big firework that doesn't explode, which is the the most complex part of a firework. It's hardly rocket science!

...no, wait, hang on...

Anyway. Admittedly, if you gave me an alien corpse I probably would dissect it before they'd even informed the next of kin (I'm not impatient, but at light speed any message is going to take the bare minimum of 4.3 years to get to the family, and I can have him/her/it gutted and re-packed in a lot less time than that). But I haven't done that, so stop saying I have! CGI wasn't even vaguely plausible in the 1960's, so those images are real, as are the moon rocks and all the rest. Not, as you claim, computer generated. If modern-standards CGI was possible at that time, we would have had access to technology that would have made getting to the moon a lot easier. So, you know, cut the gibberish.

And another thing, if there was a shadowy government watching our every move, Black Helicopters would be a ludicrous way to do it! The noise and fuel expenditure required for enough helicopters to watch every member of the populace would be anything but 'shadowy', 'apocalyptically expensive and noisy' would be more accurate.

And just to round off, here are some things I can't do (yet)

- Construct highly manoeuvrable spacecraft (seriously, if I could I would just flog it to the highest bidder and spend the profits on researching more benign things, like working out a way to nullify that bizarre smell dogs make when they get wet and come indoors)

- Clone anyone

- Control the minds of the population via dilutions of fluoride in the drinking water.

Believe me, I'd like to do all these things. Consider yourself lucky that I can't. It would be very useful to me, if fluoride did make people more submissive and suggestible, because the people who consume slightly more water than all others are the homeopaths, and if they were inadvertently consuming more fluoride and becoming suggestible I could hack into their web or radio systems and play a simple repetitive message. Something like "you. Are. Talking. Shit". Could save a lot of lives, in the long run. But I'm afraid fluoride doesn't do that, it just provides a noticeable enhancement to your teeth's ability to resist damage from things like sugar, even if in pill form (Homeopaths again)

I know many of your theories concern one group or another controlling the world (or trying to). I do tend to not care about such things, as long as I get my grants paid on time it might as well be blood-sucking lizards. You may think this is cynical. Did I mention to you, I'm Science? It's what I do. So keep your mad little theories if you like. As long as they don't involve me, I'm fine with it.

But please, leave me out of it if you can. It' hard to do important work when you're laughing your arse off at people (no offence)

Love and kisses

Science (BA hons)

* = Of course, when I say 'Earth', I mean 'the social and governmental systems that oversee the societies of the intelligent beings (for a relative value of 'intelligent') that cover the majority of the landmasses on the surfaces of the planet that said intelligent beings have named 'Earth'. Arguably I should clarify that I suppose, but it's easier to just say 'Earth', and if the people you suspect of controlling it actually have the ability to alter the orbit, spin and maybe even physical properties of the planet, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than some shoddy leaflets to depose them, let me tell you.

E-mail: 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

Careering off course

There should be a link to a science news story here, but there isn't, it's just a clip from Rhys Darby's new DVD

Evening. Not done one of these for a while, but been busy. I'm now attempting to complete my thesis whilst simultaneously looking for a job I can do as soon as I complete my thesis but I can't really get a job yet as I haven't finished my thesis but the thesis is taking too long because I'm also looking for work.

Repeat as necessary. You see the quandary I'm in?

This is my first experience with job searching in the field of high level Science research. A lot of people have asked me which I'm going to pursue when I finish my PhD; Science or Comedy. I don't really see why I have to choose one and ignore the other, I haven't so far. But if I did, I really enjoy both, but which one pays better? I'll be honest, I've never seen a situation where desperate scientists have to drive hundreds of miles to conduct 20 minutes of research in front of a disinterested crowd of strangers in exchange for a fiver.
A lot of people I work with seem to have gravitated towards new jobs by some form of academic osmosis, and well done to them. I didn't think this would ever happen for me, for several reasons. Namely, although I enjoy and am interested in my research, I don't live and breathe it. And also I am still startlingly ignorant about how this industry works, unlike those who have a family history of higher education so know the correct procedures and conduct. My parents have always been supportive, but I'm the first person in my family to do A levels, let alone anything else. I guess I could have just asked people how things work, but then I was always worried about being exposed as the blatant fraud I am, so I kept my head down and people just assumed I knew what I was doing. But I'll show them!
Current wisdom is to do a post-doc, or post-doctoral position. Form what I can gather, this is where you do basically the same thing you did during your PhD, but you don't need to put it all in a big report after 3 years, and everyone just lets you get on with things rather than check up on you every few weeks to make sure you haven't snapped and run off to become a bricklayer, or been killed by a rat 'gone rogue' without anyone finding your partially shredded remains.
Traditional sources of career advancement aren't as useful as I remember. The Job centre used to be an option, but it focuses largely on converting the 'unemployed' to 'employed', anything beyond that is a bonus.
I did go to the careers centre for a 30 minute meeting about my options. The nice lady asked what I wanted, and I said ideally, I'd like a job that incorporates all my skills. She agreed that this was something I should definitely aim for. Then I told her all my skills., basically the Neuroscience and comedy. It's fun seeing a supposed expert genuinely at a loss for what to say. We agreed that I have created my own niche, but as I pointed out, a niche is only a niche if people know of it. What I've created is more of a blind spot, a phantom zone of career possibilities. If I'm being outrageously self-promotional, I could say I'm like the nuclear power of employees; potentially extremely useful, but if no-ones discovered it it's not worth a damn.
So I'm currently applying for post-docs in the Bristol area, with the hope of moving there some day. I've had to re-do my CV several times over, and it probably still could be improved. But if anyone knows of a neuroscience post-doc going in the South West or Wales, let me know.

And just to keep up to speed, here's a Science news round-up.

Mice Traced to Vikings: Studying the genomes of mice can be useful in studying human migration patterns. Because mice and humans so frequently travel together (unless you're in first class I assume), their genetic variation has been shaped by our movements in the past. Very interesting, although I'm suspicious of any research that involves mice, the most evil of all creatures. I honestly wouldn't put it past mice to change their DNA just to screw up our research. Horrible little bastards, all of them. Even this article had me excited, I thought it would suggest that mice ARE actually Vikings, after some evolutionary twist like the one that turned dinosaurs into birds. But no, an interesting if less exciting bit of news about species cohabitation reflecting migration patterns. Curse you, you scampery little furry balls of evil!

People don't like living next to a Nuclear plant: It turns out, that people might object to having a nuclear power plant built in their back yard. How much did they spend finding this out? I've been to a nuclear plant, it was quite cool (metaphorically, I'm sure the reactor was at temperatures normally found beneath the surface of your basic star) and a fascinating experience. i would go again. Would I live next to one? No. Nothing against nuclear power, but I don't like the thought of living next to any gigantic complex power plant, it's just ominous. And I'm well informed. But at least this story makes more sense than people objecting to sea based wind farms because 'it'll spoil the scenery'. Jesus wept, get a sense of perspective! Would these people object to life-saving brain surgery because it spoiled their hair?

Microsoft say Google is better: Microsoft says they are a 'David' to Google's 'Goliath'. As I'm currently writing this on a Microsoft PC with windows, like my laptop has, and as does every other computer I've ever used or even seen except for macs which don't count because I don't know that many pretentious people, I have to say I have limited sympathy for Microsoft. And I may have even supported them if they'd used the term 'Googliath'. I wonder if we'll see that term in some official capacity over the next few days?

CONSPIRACY! Keeping it going, here's another conspiracy theory.

McDonald's build secret global transit system!
Haven't you ever wondered why McDonald's burgers never look like the pictures over the counter? It's because all the burgers McDonald's sell (approx 45 million a day) are made at the very first McDonald's restaurant, in San Bernardino, California. The exact recipe of McDonald's burgers which makes them so addictive despite being crap is a very closely guarded secret, so the McDonald brothers decided never to let one be made off-site. Since then, every McDonald's franchise has been connected to the ever expanding kitchens underneath San Bernardino via a system of high-speed pneumatic tubes. There are no actual fryers or ovens outside of the main restaurant, just tube terminals cleverly disguised. These tubes now stretch all over the world. However, the 'fast food' commitment means burgers have to travel at supersonic speeds to get to the correct restaurant in time. This is why American McDonald's seem so much better, and British ones are squashed and crap; it's because the British ones have just crossed the Atlantic in less than 3 minutes, and the pressures incurred squash them until they look as pathetic as they do, whereas American burgers have a much shorter journey time.
The secret sauce is made from the processed remains of employees who risk giving away the great secret.

Calm Weather in Space, not necessarily good news.

Space Doesn't Blow As Much As It Should

Keeping with the space theme established this week, what with moon landings and Dr Who mix-ups, the above story seems rather apt. According to readings, solar winds are at a 50 year low. For those of you that don't know, Solar Wind is the constant barrage of matter emitted by the sun. This isn't actual wind, this isn't air moving in a general direction at speeds of about 10mph, this is solar wind, a never-ending sleet of star matter travelling at near light-speeds, hammering anything and everything in it's way. The Northern Lights, that fantastical light display you see in the far North at certain times of year (not the fictional but enjoyable Philip Pullman book), I believe that's an interaction between solar wind and the Earths magnetic field. I may be wrong, so don't hold me to that. But the Solar Wind is currently very low. Not sure what this will do to the wind-chill factor, seeing as it's still star matter, and also that the background temperature of space is near to absolute zero, it's probably not worth worrying about.

Earths atmosphere and magnetic field means we'll be fine, the big swaddling blankets around us prevent any nasty space crap from getting through. And that's what the Solar wind does. Bare in mind all stars do the same, and a lot of stars are bigger and nastier than our own friendly sun. The Solar wind extends outward in all directions for millions of miles, so the crap put out by other stars can't get into our system as our Solar wind repels it.

But now the Solar wind is low, and nasty space crap can get close to us. Not a problem for earth, but it may effect things in Earth Orbit. Long story short, the drop in Solar wind may interfere with Sky TV and communications, maybe even broadband.

Inconvenient, but I think we'll manage, we'll just have to reinforce satellites in future. But I like the way this news story reads. I think most people read news stories and think two things; Will this effect me? and What can be done about it? In this case, the answers are 'Slightly' and 'Sweet F.A.' I question whether this was worth reporting, but it's still news. I wonder if the right wing nutters will blame asylum seekers for 'taking all our sunlight', or maybe the Oil companies will try and blame global warming on this, or suggest that it will reverse it somehow. The possibilities are endless. I did laugh at the report saying that the current levels are 'thought to be well within the long-term norm'. Implying that if they weren't, they'd go have words!

But like it or not, the Sun will do as it likes. It's bigger than us, and we need it.

CONSPIRACY THEORY: I've mentioned a few conspiracy theories recently, and it occurs to me that they all start somewhere. So let's see if I can start some of my own.

The Trident Nuclear Weapon System Renewal was a Hoax!

Last years confirmed renewal of the British Nuclear defense system 'Trident' won't happen. It is a cunning ploy on behalf of top government officials. The proposed revamp will cost £20bn, enough for 4 Large Hadron Colliders. However, the actual cost of the revamp will be more like £280, the cost of the Spray paint necessary to give each missile a new coat of paint to make them look new (known as the British Rail manoeuvre). No-one would ever know about the con unless a nuclear Holocaust takes place, at which point people will have more important things to worry about than whether or not our missiles were duds.

The £billions earmarked for investment in the renewal will actually be spent on Tony Blair's undersea volcano and pork pies for John Prescott.

Fake Moon Landings (and other hysterical ramblings)

Did we really land on the moon?.... Yes! Of course we did!

(First and foremost, I'd like to apologise to any Dr. Who fans that have wandered here by accident, as after my last blog I was added to boxxet.com without my knowledge, and they stated that "Science Digestive has great Doctor Who news, photos, videos and more". It doesn't, the best I can offer is that I will soon be a DOCTOR, WHO writes bilge about science news stories. Sorry to waste your time, although if you're a stereotypical hardcore Dr. Who fan, that probably isn't much of an issue)

I recently got a request to do something about the fake moon landings. Or more accurately, the claim that the moon landings were fake when they clearly weren't. There are countless websites refuting this wild claim, of which the above link is just one of the more concise. But as discussed previously, such conspiracy theories are rife on the web, where there is no system in place to check people's arguments.
Some theories, such as the numerous 9/11 conspiracies seem more politically motivated. I don't like the Bush administration, I confess, but I doubt they set the whole thing up as many do claim. This would require an incredible level of organisation, cunning and guile in order to set-up and then get away with, and subsequent actions have arguably demonstrated that the current US government is nowhere near that competent (although if anyone in the US is reading this, I get my information second hand from UK based journalists and pundits, who probably aren't impartial, so I may be wrong in my opinions, although if I am, would that make the conspiracy theories more valid?)
Other conspiracies appear to be more paranoia based. Many believe in UFOs, and that it's a 'government conspiracy' to cover up the existence of aliens. Which begs the question, if an alien race that has achieved a level of technology required for space travel wanted to make itself known to the human race, what exactly could our governments do to stop them?
But in my experience, a lot of conspiracy theories are built upon scientific ignorance, of which the 'faked moon landings' are one of the most well known. Many still believe that Global Warming isn't happening, despite the mounds of data that says it is, because it would be better if Global warming isn't happening. But there are many other conspiracy theories that crumble under the most basic scientific analysis, and thrive only on pure ignorance.
Some people still believe the Earth is flat. We all know it isn't, there's so much proof to counter that claim that it would be embarrassing to go into it here, yet people still persist. I think the problem is with Science itself; some people just don't like it. Nobody likes to be told what to do or what's what, and nobody likes to be made to feel inferior, and when Science comes along and says 'this is how it is', it gets come peoples backs up, perhaps understandably. The majority of conspiracy theories seem to me to be elaborate versions of one kid shouting 'I know something you don't know' to another. People are intimidated by someone who knows too much, and will do anything to redress the balance. When I was in school, I was frequently persecuted because 'you think you know everything'. Which is ridiculous, because as I pointed out, if I knew everything one of the things I'd know was that I knew everything, so I wouldn't have to think about it at all. Thinking itself would be redundant, so it's a nonsensical statement. So yeah, I got beaten up a lot.
The best conspiracy theories endure because they have a precise combination of ingredients. A certain amount of feasibility, a dash of 'it's the man' style cover up, a plausible motive and a certain amount of logic. But not too much logic, because logic and evidence (or science) are not one and the same, logic only equals science when you have all the facts. Consider the following classic joke (observation, to be precise), rightly criticised by the late great Douglas Adams in The Salmon of Doubt.

"Scientists, what do they know? They say the Black Box on an Aeroplane is indestructible, then why not make the whole plane out of that stuff"

Lets overlook the fact that engineers, not scientists, are the ones who build planes, if you ignore that then the above joke makes logical sense. Duh, what are they doing? Idiot Scientists, they think they're so clever! Let's also overlook the fact that a black box is Titanium, a hardy but incredibly heavy metal. A plane made of titanium would require a hell of a lot more thrust to take off and stay in the air, so much so that no normal person could afford to pay the ticket prices required to cover fuel costs (no change there, then). And of course, the way physics works, such a rigid structure would mean the energy incurred on impact during a crash wouldn't be absorbed by a compressible craft but transmitted directly to the passengers, so you wouldn't get broken bones as much as a pureeing effect on the human occupants. But apart from that, stupid scientists!

(Interesting trivia, a typical black box is actually bright orange, making it easier to find after a crash, as it doesn't blend in with burnt, charred remains, which are ALWAYS black)

EDIT: Ben, the physicist I know, has pointed out that titanium is in fact quite light. I did have my suspicions about this, what with titanium being used in darts and bone-fixing bolts and stuff, but I decided to trust Douglas Adams, who wasn't a trained Scientist. More fool me, I assume he got mixed up with Steel, which is heavier. See his comment below for other explanations of the plane/black box durability difference)

But, in the spirit of the argument, here's my favourite reasons why the Moon Landings were faked, and the rebuttals

• IT WAS A POLITICAL STUNT TO WIN THE SPACE RACE: A logical argument at least, but this would require the cooperation of Russia, the USA's cold war rival. Seeing as Russia had space technology of their own, it wouldn't have been too hard to disprove the Moon landings if they were fake. But instead, they played along, even though it meant doing a favour to their arch rivals and global competitors. Is that how wars work, even Cold ones? During WWII, Germany broadcast constant propaganda to the UK, about fictional battles that the allies had badly lost, in order to crush the morale of the populace. Of course, the British authorities confirmed these claims, because the Nazi's asked nicely and they'd gone to so much effort already.
• THERE ARE NO STARS IN THE SKY IN ANY PHOTOS OF THE LUNAR SURFACE: This is normally the conspiracy 'trump card'. But you try taking a photo of the moon with a regular camera, you won't see any stars. The moon is too bright, to do it right you need to have specific cameras etc. Anyone with the most basic grasp of photography could tell you this.
• ITS TOO DIFFICULT TO GO TO THE MOON: Logically it would be easier to fake it, right? No. You'd have to get the 1000s of people involved in the 'cover-up' to play along for the rest of their lives, plus stage an elaborate forgery which was detailed enough to convince all the relevant media and your arch enemies despite such forgeries being far beyond the technologies available at the time, plus stage a realistic looking 'fake' launch that people could witness. In comparison, a lunar mission is just a question of physics.
  
• SPACE IS TOO DANGEROUS: Yes, there's a lot of radiation up there, yes there are micrometeorites travelling at such speeds that they could smash open a craft, yes the sun could bake an exposed human to a crisp in seconds without atmospheric protection. But people thought of that. Radiation protection was designed in, there are micrometeorites but the vast emptiness of space means a collision is incredibly unlikely, and the moon landings happened during a quiet solar period.
• THIS WOULDN'T HAPPEN ON EARTH...: I've seen this phrase pop up many times when some nutter analyses as flimsy piece of evidence, and the conclusion relies on the fact that 'on Earth, this doesn't happen...', which always leads me to internally scream THEY'RE NOT ON EARTH! Logically, they're contradicting their own argument. Instant credibility drop of -46 points.

There are plenty of other arguments, all of which can be found with a quick Google search, and all of which are based on a profound or even wilful lack of scientific understanding. As genius critic/columnist and super-cynic Charlie Brooker so aptly points out, Science is our best friend, and best friends are people who tell us things we don't necessarily want to hear.

Long blog this one, sorry bout that, just trying to compensate for the two previous silly ones.