Very occasional GrodsContributor, Bookmanoldstyle, was last night considering the end of the world and wondering whether it was worth washing her hair*, when she remembered that the Large Hadron Collider featured in Dan Brown’s novel Angels & Demons. So a-Googling she went and up pops a whole page on the CERN website devoted to a FAQ about the book. These are her favourite bits and they should be yours too.

Q: Does it consist of red brick buildings with white-frocked scientists running around carrying files?
No, that is rather far from reality; we have mostly white buildings made of concrete and the scientists wear everyday clothes and they mostly do not carry files.

Q: Can we make antimatter bombs?
No. It would take billions of years to produce enough antimatter for a bomb having the same destructiveness as ‘typical’ hydrogen bombs, of which there exist more than ten thousand already.

Sociological note: scientists realized that the atom bomb was a real possibility many years before one was actually built and exploded, and then the public was totally surprised and amazed. On the other hand, the public somehow anticipates the antimatter bomb, but we have known for a long time that it cannot be realized in practice.

That sure puts my mind at rest.

* This last bit is probably not true. It’s probably made up by The Editor.

Some people say that the Large Hadron Collider is later today going to end the world by sucking the planet up its own arse. Most scientists say we’re perfectly safe, and Bruce is so confident the world’s not ending that he’s not having sex today. Not even a blow job.

But John Surname is not so sure. Even though he’s trying to look all casual by making lame jokes about giant krill and stuff, he has recorded his last words in this world for posterity just in case the world does end. And how fine the words are.

Seriously, U2, just fuck off.

So what will you do or say today to mark the end of the world?

Scientists from around the world have gone into public relations overdrive in an attempt to allay public fears about tomorrow’s inaugural operation of the Leon Bertrand Collider (LBC). After decades of planning, construction and testing, the LBC will tomorrow accelerate negatively charged strawman particles to near-light speed, in counter-intuitive directions, and cause them to smash into each other at predetermined points around a 27km circular tunnel. A handful of rogue theorists have predicted that the collision of these strawman particles will result in the creation of microscopic irony black holes that will grow larger over time until they eventually cause the entire planet to implode.

“There is absolutely no concrete evidence that any irony black holes created in the LBC will exist for longer than a few nanoseconds,” said Dr Andrew Landerhall of the University Of Life. “It is mathematically impossible for irony black holes in the LBC to be of greater strength than the strawman particles used to create them — and they’re pretty fucken pissweak.”

– AP

Science nerds around the world are currently wetting their pants over the imminent first tests of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. Here’s how Wikipedia explains exactly what a LHC does.

The collider tunnel contains two adjacent beam pipes, each containing a proton beam (a proton is one type of hadron). The two beams travel in opposite directions around the ring. Some 1232 bending magnets keep the beams on their circular path, while an additional 392 focusing magnets are used to keep the beams focused, in order to maximize the chances of interaction between the particles in the four intersection points, where the two beams will cross. In total, over 1600 superconducting magnets are installed, with most weighing over 27 tonnes. Approximately 96 tonnes of liquid helium is needed to keep the magnets at the operating temperature, making the LHC the largest cryogenic facility in the world at liquid helium temperature[10].

The protons will each have an energy of 7 TeV, giving a total collision energy of 14 TeV. It will take less than 90 microseconds for a proton to travel once around the main ring. Rather than continuous beams, the protons will be “bunched” together, into 2,808 bunches, so that interactions between the two beams will take place at discrete intervals never shorter than 25 ns apart. When the collider is first commissioned, it will be operated with fewer bunches, to give a bunch crossing interval of 75 ns. The number of bunches will later be increased to give a final bunch crossing interval of 25 ns.

Geddit? No? Well, here is the LHC in a hip hop nutshell.

(Cheers, Romany!)

Skepticism is good.

Strike that, skepticism is great. I am a skeptic of everything I consume. I accept nothing at face value, and as a result I am utterly perplexed by the current crop of climate change skeptics denialists and their absurd misappropriation of the evidence.

Now, in case you haven’t guessed, I am no climate scientist. And neither are you. And when you aren’t an expert you ought to trust those who do know what they are talking about - right?

Not the skeptics denialists. They call it an “appeal to authority”, which is fair enough. The authority could be corrupt, or just plain wrong. This is where the rot sets in, because the skeptics denialists don’t take into account that man-made global warming is a scientific consensus, despite what certain barrow-pushers claim. It is the consensus of thousands of climate scientists worldwide.

Some scientists disagree, sure.

I, for one, think that is terrific, because isn’t that what science is all about?

Instead the scientific community is treated, by certain individuals with dubious motives, as involved in some kind of bizarre conspiracy, deliberately toiling to mislead the public.

A great example of this comes from Tim Blair, who claimed on Q&A during his failed performance that “we need to separate science from scientists”, but, presumably, not including the ones who follow his pre-conceived idealogical lines, because both Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt make numerous appeals to authority of their own.

People who don’t follow Andrew Bolt’s pied piper routine are cast as “followers of the Green faith”. In fact, I consider denialism to be the faith. It is too similar to creationism to be ignored.

Climate change skeptics denialists…

1) …ignore/misrepresent science that doesn’t fit in with their theory. A great example of this is Andrew Bolt’s peddling of the infamous 1998 graph - even the slightest bit of research will tell you that the graph is deliberately misleading, yet Bolt continues to parade it as “proof”. Andrew Bolt knows how dubious this evidence is, but his job isn’t to actually disprove global warming - he’ll leave that other people - but instead to poke holes in the evidence. If he can get even a kernel of doubt into people’s minds, he’s done his job.

But the great thing about science is that bad science is disproved by scientists, not by agenda driven bums like Bolt. If global warming can be disproved scientifically - and I pray it will - then it will be done by the scientists. Instead, the evidence for global warming continues to get stronger, and evidence against continues to grow weaker (much like the way the evidence in support of evolution continues to strengthen).

Another great example is the Great Global Warming Swindle. The film is riddled with numerous deficiencies, inaccuracies and falsifications (including invented graphs), but that doesn’t matter to the climate change skeptics denialists who continue to cling to it because its central hypothesis agrees with theirs.

I, on the other hand, don’t pay any attention to documentaries that are so flagrantly inaccurate - even the ones which have a central hypothesis that I agree with. That kind of idiocy has no place in public debate - except as a model of what not to do - because it doesn’t do anyone any favours. TGGWS completely discredited itself, but like Bolt’s writing, its job wasn’t to be accurate. It was to create doubt in people’s minds.

What kind of method is that?

2) …exhibit blind faith. Andrew Bolt’s many followers have shown absolutely no ability to think for themselves. They’ve decided that God created the world in seven days global warming is false, because God Andrew Bolt tells them. And when asked for the evidence, they all turn to the Bible same old rubbish that he is writing. And can’t come up with anything new. Reading Andrew Bolt’s comments section today was to re-read everything he has ever written on the subject of global warming. It’s astounding that people continue to parrot what he writes, even the stuff that has been soundly discredited (for example, the aforementioned 1998 graph).

3) …attempt to discredit scientists. This is a big one, because it is exactly what the creationists try to do. Is it any surprise that it is the scientists standing in the way of mainstream acceptance of what they both believe in? So how do they combat this? By trying to discredit scientists, of course. Over a hundred years since Darwin’s death, the creationists are still doing their darndest to discredit him.

Now, there are many other similarities but I don’t have the time to list them all here. Perhaps you could suggest some in the comments?

So, I am posing some questions to skeptics out there, assuming they are going to bother posting here.

1. Why are you a “skeptic”?

2. Do you agree with Andrew Bolt’s tactics, which I’ve outlined at length above?

3. Do you understand how big oil is actively muddying the debate? Do you agree with these kinds of tactics, and do you think you can get fairer information from oil lobbies than non-partisan scientists?

4. What evidence, if any, would it actually take for you to accept that global warming is man-made? Or are you like AWH, and don’t accept anything because the “leftists” do?

To reiterate, I completely support skepticism, and I think it is healthy, and important. But when does skepticism become denialism?

And why have I written this?

Because I’d like to see if deniers are able to present strong, non-partisan, rhetoric-free reasons for why they believe what they do.

Why do I believe the scientists? Because they present a strong case for man-made global warming, while the denialists continue to present the same shoddy graphs, rhetoric, muddying techniques, conspiracy theories and partisan rubbish. I wish to God that GW was all a myth but, alas, on the whole I’m afraid the evidence points directly to it.

Answer away, and I’m back to ten word posts tomorrow. Promise.

Yesterday Andrew Bolt, with some of his trademark snip-and-drop editing,  turned an essay by art critic Robert Nelson from Freudian to freaky. Today Michael Carr-Gregg -  a media-happy Melbourne psychologist who makes his living flogging seminars and lectures to whoever is willing to pay - weighed in with his two bits:

“I don’t believe that any six-year-old could possibly have the cognitive or emotional maturity to consent to being photographed in the way that her mother has photographed her,” Dr Carr-Gregg said. “I’m really worried that these pictures are on the net already and they will go around the world and that they have the potential to haunt this little girl for the rest of her life.

I’m really worried too, Mike. Much like at Chuck’s house, in my family home there are faded old Kodachrome pictures of my siblings and I playing naked in the backyard, jumping under sprinklers and what-not. My parents have shown these to literally dozens of visitors over the past two decades, both relatives and friends. Mum and Dad are obviously peddlers of child-porn; I’m obviously mentally scarred. Carr-Gregg has really opened my eyes … but the best is yet to come:  

“Now she’s very mouthy at 11 years old, she’s already been paraded in front of the cameras, and I, as an expert in bullying, would be very, very concerned about what that might mean for her in her school life later on.” 

We’re getting closer to Carr-Gregg’s quaint philosophy now - and he knows all about kids too because he’s an expert (and is happy to tell us so). Olympia Nelson might have seemed “mouthy” to him but to me she seemed confident and articulate beyond her years - is that something psychologists wish to discourage? Is his advice to children ’shut the hell up or you’ll be bullied’? What kind of social vision is that to be articulating in the mainstream press? No wonder Carr-Gregg is the go-to man for tabloids when they run sensationalised stories about adolescent behaviour.

Dr Carr-Gregg said many of Freud’s psychosexual theories were being discarded. “I don’t think it’s a viable argument, the whole sensuality of children argument,” he said. “I think ordinary Australians can and do interpret what (Mr Nelson) has done as furthering the sexualisation of children, and no amount of misconstrued psychobabble is going to change that.”

A psychologist accusing someone of “psychobabble”; just taste the sweet irony. Remember when a number of teenage boys were charged with tormenting and sexually assaulting a girl in the Werribee area, filming the attack and distributing the DVD? Carr-Gregg said we shouldn’t imprison them because it was all down to ‘neurological underdevelopment’:

Research says the last part of the brain to develop is that responsible for planning, impulse control, risk assessment, and that any vestige of self-control disappears in a pack.  [There is] scientific evidence from neuro-imaging studies that teenagers do have less culpability than adults because of their brain development.

The Editor, John Surname, Ant Rogenous, Jeremy Sear and Craig discuss:

* The Garnaut Report
* Art vs. kiddie porn (round two)
* World Youth Day sex propaganda
* Ask A Barman
* Funniest things on the intertubes

** Because Jeremy Sear is flogging Wii Fit to death, use only the “Play in popup” link or the “Download” link. **

 GrodsThink 23 (8 July 2008) [31:35m]: Play in Popup | Download

Subscribe:   

Here at GrodsCorp we’re often asked what we’re on about when we make comments that simply contain the word “tap”. The science of tapology is mysterious so the other night when Craig and I were at a pub with cause to drink numerous glasses of scotch we sketched out the following flow chart.

If it can’t be flowcharted it’s not worth knowing

After discussions with most of the GrodsTeam at the GrodsThink record last night, and taking into account some minor alterations, I’ve hereby codified the theory of Tapology and made it official. I hope this chart clears things up for all GrodsReaders — perhaps consider printing it out and putting it in your wallet.

You obviously start with “boy” or “girl” depending on your personal tap preference

Yesterday Jamaica’s Usain Bolt sprints across the line in 9.71 seconds to break the world 100-metre record … and Melbourne’s Andrew Bolt was even quicker with a wild and wilful misinterpetation of an analogy:

The Bishop [of Stafford] is … arguing that men who imprison and rape their daughters are really no worse than leading scientists who dispute the causes and dangers of global warming, which is further proof that this cleric is as stupid as he is hysterical.

Actually, that wasn’t what his Bishopness was arguing at all. His exact words were that the actions of Austrian incest freak Josef Fritzl “represents merely the most extreme form of a very common philosophy of life: I will do what makes me happy, and if that causes others to suffer, hard luck.” He didn’t liken them at all; he didn’t standardize their actions or use one to absolve the other. Nor did he refer to scientists, as Bolt claims, but rather to the general public. The bishop was simply suggesting that self-serving attitudes result in harm to others, whether on a local or a global scale.

Not so you’d notice from Bolt’s post, seeing how he snipped this quote:

“In fact you could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he is – we are in effect locking our children and grandchildren into a world with no future and throwing away the key. We are right to be disgusted at these crimes. But mere disgust is too convenient. There are lessons for all of us to learn.”

…down to this…

“In fact you could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he [Fritzl] is…’’

He also overlooked the fact that the Bishop’s remarks were clearly understood and appreciated by a director of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a charity that works with victims of child sex abuse. At least someone there is able to read and comprehend an analogy, not jump off the deep end, arms flailing, because if references both kiddy-fiddlers and carbon-squanderers.

Git.

Being a medium level nerdlinger I’ve been cruising the webs in my few spare moments today looking at photos of the Phoenix explorer module that’s just landed on Mars. I especially get excited by the minute attention to detail required by the scientists, engineers and mechanics who work on the hardware that needs to withstand and function in the extremes of conditions of outer space and other worlds. So I was a bit shocked when I looked at this photo.

Engineers construct the Phoenix module using the latest in sticky tape technology

I can’t see how the government’s budget decision to slash CSIRO funding by $63 million can be anything but:

a) Bad policy and bad for Australia;
b) A slap in the face for science in Australia; and
c) An admission that the Labor policy to “revitalise” the CSIRO was non-core.

It is widely held that Australia is suffering a science and technology “brain drain” due to pitiful funding of research in this country, yet the Rudd government talks endlessly about things like strengthening industry, protecting agriculture from the effects of drought, and battling climate change through smarter energy generation. Unless we want to import the knowledge and technology required to meet these sort of challenges we must ensure that the CSIRO is generously resourced. And while corporate dollars should make up a portion of total funding the bulk of the money must inevitably come from the taxpayer purse unless government introduces serious incentives for corporations to invest serious money (while ensuring that commercial interests do not impact on the integrity of the research, of course.)

The CSIRO receives total funding of far less than a billion clams per year — pocket change for the kind of work they do — and the Rudd Labor government just tightened the belt even more despite promises to do otherwise. Very disappointing, Kevin.

I kinda wish I could’ve been alive for the last couple of thousand years so I was able to watch Catholicism (and other religions) try rooly, rooly hard to marry their beliefs with human kind’s developing body of scientific knowledge and our growing awareness of the universe in which we live. I mean, listening to the Vatican’s “chief astronomer” try to grapple with life, the universe and everything and not make his religion look like a pile of pants is bloody hilarious.

“As an astronomer I continue to believe that God is the creator of the universe,” Jose Gabriel Funes said in an interview with the Vatican mouthpiece, the Osservatore Romano.

Even if “we don’t currently have any proof … the hypothesis” of extraterrestrial life cannot be ruled out, said Mr Funes, a Jesuit priest who directs the Vatican’s observatory at Castel Gandolfo, near Rome.

“Just as there are a plethora of creatures on Earth, there could be others, equally intelligent, created by God,” he said.

So far, so good. Nothing too weird there. But…

Original sin, which by Christian tradition occurred in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit of a particular tree, refers to the fallen state from which humans can be saved only by God’s grace.

Asked about the difficult theological question, Mr Funes said: “If other intelligent beings exist, it’s not certain that they need redemption.”

They could “have remained in full friendship with their creator” without committing the original sin, he said.

Oh dear.

If not, extraterrestrials would benefit equally from the “incarnation,” in which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, assumed earthlings’ flesh, body and soul in order to redeem them, which Mr Funes called “a unique event that cannot be repeated”.

* smacks forehead into hand *

But all of this begs the really obvious question: what would Jesus Christ look like on ET’s planet?

JC phone home

The Editor, John Surname, Ant Rogenous, Jeremy Sear, Keri, The Happy Revolutionary and Craig discuss:

* Kevin Rudd’s world tour of the world
* Plain English
* The republic
* Climate change alarmism
* Incest
* Keith Windschuttle vs. Archie Roach in the GrodsThink naked cage fight

** Because downloads of Kevin Rudd’s salute to the US Prez on YouTube have caused congestion in teh intertubes use only the “Play in popup” link or the “Download” link. **

 GrodsThink 11 (8 April 2008) [33:22m]: Play in Popup | Download

Subscribe:   

I love reading popular science books about physics, chaos theory, string theory and all that sort of stuff. I’m not very smart in these areas but I know just enough to be dangerous and love the Dummies Guide To-style explanations that these books provide.

Since it’s school holidays and I have both the time and energy to read for pleasure I’m currently working my way through Atom by Lawrence M. Krauss. Something that I’ve noticed in Atom and previously in other similar books is the authors’ love of a good exclamation mark! I mean, they sometimes cram two or three into a single paragraph! If somebody had the time and the inclination they could do a study into the ratio of exclamation marks to full stops in popular science books versus non-popular science books. Wouldn’t that be a riveting research project?

Here are a couple of choice exclamation mark samples from Atom.

At a certain point, if it collapses by a factor of 50 in size, then the density will have increased by a factor of 125,000!

The number of collisions of the atoms in this volume of air during the 4-billion-year history of life on Earth is about 10^45, about 10 billion times smaller still!

Current estimates in supersymmetric models are in the range from 10^34 to 10^35 years, well beyond the current limits!

I’ve decided that the exclamation mark in popular science books is like the laugh track in American sitcoms. The laugh track tells you when to laugh because it’s usually not obvious that the “joke” is meant to be funny, and the exclamation mark tells you when to be amazed because the scales are so small or large that it’s sometimes not obvious that the subject of the sentence is amazing.

Hello, I’m John Surname from the highly unpopular Random Brainwave. The Editor invited me to write for this site, and how could I resist?

To begin, I’d like to tell you something.

I’m a lefty.

No, don’t recoil in horror. I am wearing pants. I do not have dreadlocks.

The most surprising part about being on the left is the realisation that people on the right know more about your views than you do:

From A Wanker’s Habitat:

It was a matter of time before the threatened Left sat down and started thinking up ways to muzzle the free blogosphere. The rule of the elite minority attempts to silence the voice of the people yet again.

That’s too rational and intelligent for me to touch.

Then I realised something shocking - she’s right. I’m all about stifling free speech. So, for the first time I intend to outline the truths of the Left, which will come as no surprise to those brave, free-thinking rebels on the right who still deny global warming - what do scientists know anyway?

1. Free speech

We hate free speech. Personally, I really hate it when people disagree with me. The only thing that takes my mind off it is polishing my framed picture of David Hicks. So, we did something really clever here. We encouraged terrorism so that the governments of the world would introduce laws that stifle freedoms - so we don’t have to introduce these laws ourselves! This was a brilliant manouvere. It doesn’t matter that “the people” want to end the war, and that “the people” want the government to do something about global warming. We intend to stifle everyone, even those who agree with us. But especially those who don’t.

2. Multiculturalism

We embrace multiculturalism - why? So that the pure blood of anglo-saxons mixes with the impure blood of everyone else. That way we become one big brown race that loses it’s perfect white values, and adopts uncivillised “African” values. The left wants this, as it’s another way of controling the minds of everyone. Hey, I’m half New Guinean and look at me! It’s not possible to be only half Anglo AND conservative. Try it!

3. Global Warming

Andrew Bolt and his enlightened followers are right. Global Warming is one big religious scam. GrodsCorp personally payed off each and every one of the 2500 scientists of the ICPP report. Why? So that we can destroy the economies of the world’s top countries and plunge the entire planet into the darkness of evil socialism. Hooray!

4. Groupthink

Groupthink is wonderful. It means we don’t have to think for ourselves. We hate that. Instead, we let some socialist/hippie from Warrandyte choose our views for us. The best thing about engaging in groupthink is that you make lots of friends, and everyone likes you. Except Andrew Bolt, and wasn’t he an ex-leftie groupthinker anyway? Maybe that’s why he’s so bitter about the left. Or maybe it’s simply because he went forward in time and read this post.

5. We hate America

Everyone on the left hates America, without question. We all want to bring down Uncle Sam - why? Because….um….America makes us SO MAD!!! They’re like….RICH and we’re, like, not. Or whatever. I’ve got the munchies, I’m going to McDonald’s.

6. We love terrorism

We love religious extremeists pointlessly killing innocent people because they hate America, and we hate America, so by default, we love extremeists!

7. We’re cowards

Yeah, we’re cowards. We don’t oppose war because we are inherently opposed to the idea of senselessly fighting other people’s battles, or looking for fantasy weapons. We’re opposed to war because we’re yellow-bellied and don’t want to be killed in some god-forsaken desert. We might get sand in our weed!

Sure, there is a lot more I could say, but what I have written basically sums up the views of the hateful left. Now that you all know the truth, use it wisely. Even better, join us. You can’t beat us. At least be on the winning team for a change.