"Dear Media, from Science" (No.1)

(letter 1 of several, latest ones are here)

Dear Media

Hello. It's me, Science. Hope you're well. You seem a bit angry of late, snapping at people for no real reason. I've heard we all get a bit more right wing as we get older, but seriously, calm down. Try some meditation or yoga or Chamomile tea. And this is me (the personification of the abstract concept of Science, just to clarify) saying that, so you know I must be worried.

Look, I know we haven't always got along in the past (I know there was that Nuclear arms race thing, really sorry about that but you know what the 60's were like). Normally this wouldn't be a problem. My guys and your guys could simply avoid each other. But that's not really an option, because my guys have to go through your guys to tell people important stuff they've done. And that's where we have an issue, and it's why I'm writing to you. We really need to have words, because frankly you're making my job a lot harder, and it's clearly already way too hard for most of your people to get their head around.
(Seriously, do you bother with interviews any more, or just pick a badly scrawled name from one of the hundreds in Kelvin Mackenzie's hat? I mean, John Gaunt? Watson and Crick never discovered anything that twisted).

Firstly, would it kill you to be a bit more specific when you tell people what I'm up to? The number of news stories I've read which end with "...say scientists" just drives me to distraction. And I can't afford to be distracted, a lot of my work is quite delicate., some of it involves brains!
Do you realise how vague a term 'Scientists' is? It's like 'cars', there are hundreds of different types. It might be accurate, but it's not specific. You'd never say "'Kill all homosexuals', say religious people". And I don't blame you, there'd be uproar, but it's basically the same thing. You're not helping by grouping my lot together like that, they're a very diverse bunch. Einstein and Pasteur were both Scientists, but only one has anything useful to say on the laws of relativity. That and the big mustaches are all they have in common (both were also from mainland Europe, and they're both dead, but let's not get bogged down in this).
This implication that 'Scientists' are all in agreement whenever a 'breakthrough' is made is gibberish. As a result, people think my lot are some shadowy cabal who meet once a month in order to decide what new rules we have to dictate to the general populace. I've tried telling them that they're thinking of the Freemasons, not my lot, but to no avail. You're the one who's giving this impression, not me. Cut it out will you! If a botanist says there's no climate change, don't class him as a scientist, assume he's an idiot and ignore him, you have my permission. Some specificity, please. I know it sounds like extra work, but how hard can adding or changing a single word be? You're not writing the Bible here, and even if you were, same applies.

In keeping with the previous point, just because someone says they're working for me, it doesn't mean they are. This Gillian McKeith person for example, I've never seen her before in my life. Yes, she's successful, but that doesn't mean she has a clue what she's on about. She's written a bunch of books filled with bizarre concepts and fantastical processes. Hoo-bloody-ray for her, but does that give her the qualification to dictate diet? Why stop there, why not J.K. Rowling pills? Tolkien supplements? Think, will you! Scientists are reputed to be intelligent, why would an intelligent person willingly choose to indulge in close up examinations of an obese person's bowel movements? And you're the one who put it on TV! I have a number of good therapists working for me if you fancy sorting that out.
Here's a good rule of thumb; if the person you're talking to is wealthier than you, odds are they're not one of my lot. Spread the word. Please don't encourage that sort of behaviour, just tell people straight; it's a con. What's that? Lot's of people believe in things like nutritionalism and homeopathy? Yeah fair point, we wouldn't want the media telling people things they didn't know, what a crazy system that would be.

Oh, by the way, this whole 'balanced argument' thing you've got going on. I see your point, but make your mind up! Either you present 2 sides to every argument or none, why is it just when it's a controversy involving me! Yes, some people think that MMR and Autism are linked, some people think that Me and my guys would knowingly build a device capable of swallowing the planet with a black hole and turn it on just to see what happens. These people are wrong, you know they are, but they get to air their views anyway. When a murder is reported, do you get statements from the people who thought that the victim had it coming? Why not? If balanced arguments are so vital, why are some stories exempt? Come on mate, a bit of fairness is all I'm asking for.

Yeah, I suppose I do come across as a bit demanding. I mean, why do what I say? What do you owe me? A fair point, I've no right to tell you what to do, you're way too powerful to care what I think. By the way, the printing press, radio, electricity, ink-jets, laser printing, typewriters, lenses, cameras, photography, video technology, air travel, satellite communication, television, mobile phones; you're welcome, don't worry about it. I mean what's a few civilisation-changing breakthroughs between friends? No doubt you could do without them, no problem. But bear in mind, I also invented blogs and the internet, you ignore me and I will obsolete your ass! Not something that can happen to me so easily. I'm the embodiment of the abstract concept known as Science, don't know if I mentioned that.

And yes, you can argue that, as you're dependant on the general public ,you have to give them what they want, but it won't wash with me mate. There are plenty of smart people in the general populace, but catering to them would be more effort wouldn't it? Path of least resistance, lowest common denominator and all that. Don't you have any pride in your work? But I guess it's easier to become sloppy when it's possible to just make up some stuff that sound's good rather than do the research like I have to.

Speaking of which, what's with all the 'opinion' columns? Why the hell would anyone care what Piers Morgan thinks? And don't say 'But they do' automatically. Try a little experiment; For a week, pretend that Piers Morgan doesn't exist. I hypothesise that the World won't spin off it's axis. If anything, I predict it will get somewhat better; people will go about their lives feeling more jubilant and free without knowing why, like a dog that's had a painful growth removed from it's genitals. Prove me wrong!

Anyway, hope you take all this on board. Have you seen Politics lately? I'm afraid I haven't spoken to him since he cut my Nutt off. Git. And how's Big Business? Don't protest, we all know you've been sleeping together for years now. It's embarrassing, watching you make excuses then scampering away behind the Bushes (Presidents and foliage) together, just admit it will you?

Anyway, think about what I said, yeah?

Science (BA Hons)

P.S. Reading this back, I do come across as a bit of a sanctimonious prick, don't I. I'll work on that.

Twitter: @garwboy (a follow up letter is now available, here)

The world's most powerful sex toy

My wife and I went to Asda earlier to purchase a DVD player. We did this, then we came home. As I drove into the car park, I couldn't help but notice that one of the cars by the main entrance had a very disturbing hood ornament.
We parked, got out, and went to double-check what I'd believed I'd seen. Yup. Stuck to the bonnet of this flashy silver car was (is) a large bright-red dildo. I say large, I'd have said it was small, but according to the law of averages, it's actually large.
I have seen marital aides before. I have seen cars before. Never have I seen the two be merged in this fashion. For what purpose has this surreal union taken place? Being a scientist, I feel compelled to concoct some theories.

The car itself is Silver, like a surprising number of cars in the car park. Did it persistently reflect sunlight into the window of someone's flat, disrupting their sleep? Sleep deprivation has been known to have a wide range of side effects, depending on the individual. People become more irritable and less focused, and can even show signs of delirium and madness. Did one resident of my building suffer this process, to the point where their sleep pattern was completely disrupted and they started having hallucinations, to the point where some illogical train of thought led them to think that fixing a large phallus to the bonnet would solve their problem?
Given the facts of our recent weather, the limited focusing properties of silver car bodywork and the fact that people don;t normally sleep during day when the sun is out (unless they're working nights, which is possible, but this would still require the sun to remain stationary for an extended periods, which it doesn't, or to put it more accurately, it does but we Earth doesn't, and if you think this is unnecessary pedantry just appreciate the fact that I haven't thought to bring up galactic rotation and Universal expansion apart from to stipulating that I won't be discussing them)

Is it a gesture of revenge from a spurned lover? Or perhaps an attempt at wooing from a hopeful but deranged wannabe lover? I can't really see any logic behind gluing a false penis on the car, it's slightly embarrassing but too weird for an act of revenge, and definitely memorable but hardly complimentary enough for an attempt at wooing. But then logic doesn't really apply when someone has been spurned or is in the throes of lust. Poetic, but strange.

Perhaps it's an attempt by the owner of the car (who I assume is male, it looks like a man's sort of car, and I have nothing else to go on) to improve his image in some way, however wrongly. A big flashy car is often regarded as a compensation for not having a particularly large penis. Perhaps this person wants a car that compensates for small manhood, but can't really afford one that sufficiently says that, so he's decided to enhance its phallic properties in an even less subtle manner. The colour combination is jarring, but if he's colour blind (an affliction that effects mostly men by a massive margin, what with it being caused by a Y chromosome gene, further supporting my gender assumption), then silver grey and shiny red could look quite similar.
Or maybe it's a physical thing. Perhaps it's meant to be some attempt at creating an aerofoil or pick up radio signals better? Don't see why it would, but people will believe anything if you tell them using big enough words.

I've seen some cars with Large Poppies or red noses on them, to support a particular group of people or charity. Is this a similar tribute to a charity I haven't heard of yet? To fallen porn stars or something? Or have the organisers of Comic Relief day just gone waaaaay too far with the design of the new symbol?

I'm only assuming this new attachment isn't being used for what it's designed for. What if I'm wrong? What if it's there deliberately? For some people, the stimulation provided by a few AA batteries may not be enough. A sex toy which gives a whole new meaning to 'Horse Power'. I imagine the vibrations caused by the engine of a running car, coupled with the danger of riding the bonnet of a moving vehicle and the thrill of doing this in public on some Catherine-the-Great-esque device would provide an intense experience for the adventurous lady, or even more adventurous man.

I genuinely don't know, but it's been bugging me all day as you can probably guess. It's far too embarrassing to ask the cars owner, but at least if it's still there tomorrow I can confirm that it's a deliberate modification to the car. Or that it's been maliciously welded on, but seeing as it's very anatomically correct that image just brings tears to the eyes.

Is it an attempt by an enraged former lover to

Twitter: @garwboy

Big Brother's Big Bag of Balls

Here's how pervasive the phenomenon of modern reality TV has become.

I have not watched a single second, not seen a single still shot, nor have I bothered looking up any details on-line about the current series of Celebrity Big Brother (running in the UK at the moment, for the benefit of you lucky lucky foreigners), yet somehow I know all about it. How did that happen? I've heard theories that you learn faster when you're asleep, which I sincerely doubt, but to actively avoid information only to have it seep into your brain anyway? How does that work.
In his superb book 'Neverwhere', Neil Gaiman coins the phrase 'White knowledge', akin to 'white noise' but instead of a background noise it's background information that the majority of people become aware of without realising it. He uses this phrase to describe how people eventually end up knowing the ins-and-outs of the London Tube system, which makes sense as that would be very useful for residents of London who need to get about. I'm guessing I've picked up my Celebrity Big Brother (and no, I will not call it CBB) knowledge in a similar manner, for all that it is utterly useless to me. So this is what I know about the Celebrity Big Brother contestants.

DANE BOWERS - He was in that band. Another Blue Alert Level, wasn't it? He was the one with the high voice, or is that Blue? Then he went Solo for a bit when they finished, and did a song with Victoria Beckham, which strikes me as the musical equivalent of playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the chamber. Then he was with Jordan for a while, which strikes me as the sexual equivalent of the same thing.

STEPHEN BALDWIN - If the Baldwin Brothers were Captain Planet's Planeteers, Stephen would be the one with the power of 'Heart'. A Born again Right-wing fundamentalist, the sort of person who does for regular Christians what Harold Shipman did for GPs, Stephen apparently doesn't believe in evolution because 'there are still Apes'. This argument convinced Dane Bowers and the glamour model one, and he no doubt thought of this as a victory for himself and God. Prick

SISQO - Most people who confess to having an underwear fetish are kept at arms length and usually pitied, but they at least have the decency to admit that it's weird. They don't write songs about it that become international smash hits. For clarification, Sisqo's biggest hit is 'The Thong Song', which is ridiculous; his crowning achievement was his role singing the chorus for 'Wild Wild West', the groundbreaking Will Smith rap/film. Sisqo also stays in my head as his name is a blatant rip-off of Captain Sisko, the lead character from Star Trek: Deep Space 9, who if it came down to it, could easily beat him in a fight.

LADY SOVEREIGN - A Lady Rapper? Whatever next. Apparently she's young and stroppy, like a spoiled Teen. Her credentials as a rapper are apparently 'she raps', by which logic I am a professional film critic as I've seen a film and talked about it before. I genuinely don't know anything about her, particularly why she's considered a celebrity. I imagine when her Rap career flounders she'll go back to mummy and daddy and they'll get her a well paid job as a consultant in 'the city' or something. To me, everyone who has more fame than ability has wealthy influential parents, and I've not been dissuaded of that preconception yet, no matter how wildly wrong it may be.

A WHOREMONGER - A woman who is famous for running a brothel that catered to celebrities. Is this in any way acceptable? Yes, she was in the papers (I'm told) but then so was Ian Huntley, and I don't think he's considered a 'celebrity'. Isn't it normal procedure to punish criminals? Why would she be on Celebrity Big Brother... ah...

SOMEONES GIRLFRIEND - Or is it ex girlfriend? Christ, that could describe any of the female Big Brother contestants. And Pete Burns.

VINNIE JONES - That guy who used to be a violent footballer, but now is an actor playing exclusively violent parts. I saw an interview when he started acting, where he said 'I really want to win an Oscar'. How's that plan working out, Vinnie?

SOME TITS - There's one who is basically a mobile life support system for a pair of breasts. There always is. Names are irrelevant, it might even be the same one every year. Nobody would realise. She needs to be there, to make the possibility of nudity a positive thing

THE OTHERS - There are others, like it makes a bit of difference.

For pretty much all my life, I have been overly aware of other people listening to me. I don't know why, maybe it was because I grew up in a busy pub; there was always someone around. As such, I always behave as if I'm in a library. I'm always conscious of speaking too loudly and disturbing others. As a result, I speak relatively quietly and very quickly, as most people who've spoken to me will attest to. So the thought of wanting to go on V and have millions of people take time to stare at you for hours on end is utterly alien to me.
Big Brother may have been interesting. Not sure if they still do, but they used to bill it as a 'social experiment'. Another example of the double standards of media types when it comes to Science (a hint of science makes something more credible, but if it's said or done by an actual scientist, it's boring and/or untrustworthy, see the MMR vaccine scandal for many examples of this.
If it's an experiment, what's the hypothesis? What are they measuring? Where are the dependant variables? Is this counterbalanced? Exactly how does 'let's put a bunch of twats in isolation and see what they do' benefit society?
2010 sees the last series of Big Brother, celebrity and regular. I personally think it could have lasted longer if they'd been more strict about the experimental aspect. Obviously, given the media Frenzy around it, the 'social experiment' that is Big Brother would have subjects skewed largely in favour of the 'Shallow fame-hungry twat' variety. For a proper experiment in social interaction, you'd need a control group. Imagine watching a house full of people who don;t want to be there, who've been randomly abducted from the street. I'd watch that, no doubt.

That would be quite illegal obviously, but if they're already glorifying Prostitution ring leaders, how is that any worse?

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

Avatar Bingo

There's some interesting debate around 'Avatar' at the moment, concerning whether it's good or not, whether the flashy visuals mean the shoddy plot is worth overlooking etc.

I saw it, quite enjoyable, but for those of you that don't want to see it but will somehow be coerced into going anyway, here's a handy way to kill the time (of which there is much).

Simply print this out and tick an item off whenever you see it/think it, as they include a variety of clichéd characters and observations. This may also make an interesting drinking game for anyone who ends up with it on DVD, or if you have an unusually relaxed cinema with a wider-than-average selection of 'refreshments'.

[N.B. I don't think any of these will spoil the plot, such as it is, but if you worry it might then read no further]

- Convenient Twin

- Harassed Scientist

- Instinctive expertise in supposedly complex process

- "Screw your rules, I have emotions!"

- Beautiful Savage

- "My, what great big numbers!"

- "So, do they have the same... you know... bits?"

- Suspiciously attractive person, considering their job.

- New Tech v Old Fashioned

- Biology always beats machinery!

- Blatant bad-guy who just loves war.

- Money beats principles.

- Dubious mystical ceremony which will blatantly come in handy later on.

- Harassed leader.

- Inconvenient evolutionary traits.

- "Wouldn't that be fatal?"

- Hard choice to make.

- Plucky rebels doing what's right.

- "Why would that even evolve on a low-gravity world?"

- In the nick of time...

- Yet another spectacular panoramic shot.

- Rivals in love.

- Inconveniently located treasure.

- Diplomacy NEVER works, as it doesn't have as many explosions

- Why is there only one like that?

- Why are humans such bastards, anyway?

So there you go. Feel free to add more.

Like I said, I enjoyed it overall. Well, most of it. My father generously took us to see it in 3D at the IMAX, and I think my visual cortex melted and dribbled out of my ears after the second hour.

Dean Burnett
sciencedigestive.blogspot.com
Twitter: @garwboy

The most depressing gibberish of the year.

Hi all. Long time no see.
In case you weren't aware of it, next Monday is the 'most depressing day of the year'. Or to put it another way, it really isn't, but a professional codswallop merchant worked it out using 'actual math' a few years ago, and the media have regurgitated it ever since around this time, like some awful hairball of garbage with the faint whiff of science.
Forgive the overly-descriptive language, but it's become something of a personal issue of mine. No doubt I've mentioned it before in this blog, but I think it bares repeating, and that certainly seems to be the media's approach.

For 2 years running now, due to my dual role in the Science-Comedy worlds, local media people have come to me asking for an 'explanation' as to why it's the most depressing day and what people can do about it.
The first time was a puff piece for a local paper, where they asked me to explain how it works and what people can do to cheer themselves up. My detailed explanation about why it isn't was cut in favour of me saying 'just go out' in a variety of ways, coupled with 'cheerful' pictures of me looking like a knock-off Doctor Who after too many e-numbers.
The following year, the Regional news team approached me with the same idea. I thought this would be a good way to make amends and clarify my position, and decided that I'd do it. What it ended up being was a 10 second clip on the evening news, of me saying 'cheer up' again and telling painful jokes while the journalist interviewed me on my couch, having arranged us in a position which could only be described as homoerotic.
Not sure if anyone else will be approached in your areas by media types with similar intentions, but here's a brief list of things worth knowing (if you don't already) if they do come a knocking.

- The Equation behind the most depressing day of the year was invented by Dr Cliff Arnill, and was paid to do so by a travel company (Thompson's I think, but don;t hold me to that) in order to encourage people to take winter breaks.

- I don't know what Dr Cliff Arnill's qualifications really are, but he bills himself as a Cardiff University researcher (like what I was until recently). He did briefly teach an adult learning class at the University, but is certainly not a researcher there, nor was he ever. The fact that he claims he is makes me suspicious as to his actual scientific credentials, and the Cardiff University media dept. have asked me to stress that he is not affiliated with them in any way

- He gets paid money by said Travel firm every time the equation is mentioned in the media, so even criticising it will benefit him.

- The equation, as you can probably tell if you look it up, is based completely on guesswork and bizarre logic, so is of no actual use at all, and I am told there is much research to completely contradict the idea that Winter is 'more depressing' in general. But in it's defence, it does look all Sciencey.

I say all this just to share the benefits of my painful experience. I felt it was good that the mainstream media took an interest in an aspect of 'science', but my feeble efforts to correct their misconceptions were completely ignored. If you are scientist of any sort and are asked to 'comment' on this non-story wherever you are, I'd bet Diamonds to toenail clippings that they already have the story/article/feature planned out and are asking someone in the science-based field to comment purely to lend it credibility. Unless they give you final say on the finished item, which would be incredibly unusual, I'd advise everyone to leave it alone
The media will keep flogging this never-was-alive-to-begin-with Horse whatever we do, no doubt, but we don't have to donate our credibility to it too.

P.S. Other people may have experiences with this issue that are the polar opposite to mine, this is just my two-pence worth. Not that I got paid even that much for my contributions...

Dean Burnett, PhD
sciencedigestive.blogspot.com
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