A useful rule of thumb for deciding if science articles in newspapers are worth paying attention to, I find, is to skim it and see if the word 'boffin' is used at any point. This article is a prime example; My expectations weren't very high for a science article in the Mirror, but Jesus Christ this is a load of nonsense.

"IT sometimes takes a mighty hammer to crack a tiny nut. And none are more aware of this than scientists in Geneva, who are overseeing a vast engineering project that they hope will unlock some of the greatest secrets of the universe. What they discover may be used for the benefit of all mankind - including the reversal of global warming."

Whoa, hold your horses! This is the first I'd heard of it. Here I was labouring away under the misapprehension that the LHC was, if anything, going to contribute to global warming due to the huge amounts of energy required to run it. It appears however that we are in fact going to solve the problem for ever, whew, that makes my conscience a lot clearer.

"There could be signs of hidden dimensions of space beyond the three we know or exotic particles nobody has ever seen before. The Holy Grail, though, is the elusive Higgs boson, the part of an atom nicknamed the 'God particle'."

Part of the atom, eh? That one's news to me too, you learn something new every day! It only gets better though:

"But if the experiment is a success, the benefits of controlling the God particle could be mind-blowing. Mass and gravity could be manipulated in a way that is currently the stuff of science fiction. Tractor beams, as seen on TV shows such as Star Trek, would allow the manipulation of giant objects without any effort."

Wow! That's bloody brilliant! Just like Star Trek, you say? Marvellous. Will we be able to get some of those nice Heisenberg Compensator thingies too? I've heard they work very well...

"More crucially, anti-gravity propulsion engines could enable travel without burning polluting fuels - solving perhaps the planet's most urgent problem."

Ah, okay, so that explains (in terms of the article's internal consistency, not any factual basis I hasten to add) the 'reverse global warming' statement - Although it strikes me that this would only actually perhaps slow or alleviate global warming, rather than actually reversing it, lowering the global temperature precipitating a new ice age perhaps. Semantics aside, Mr. Pie, I'd like you to meet my good friend Mr. Sky.

Damien Fletcher, you are a moron.

...and no, I'm not just annoyed because LHCb (or any LHC B-physics program for that matter) isn't mentioned.