American Physical Society NOT saying humans aren't causing global warming

Apparently, there's a new "meme" going around the interwebs: "The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change..." Check out this excerpt from hotair.com:

The American Physical Society had been a proponent of the “consensus” on anthropogenic global warming/climate change — until now.  While the main organization has not addressed its position — yet — a major unit within APS has declared global warming unproven and that the IPCC’s conclusions unsupportable.  The APS will re-open the debate on global warming with a new paper accusing the IPCC of deliberate obfuscation (via Memeorandum):

Another excerpt from DailyTech:

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.  The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.  The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

Well, let's see what's going on with the APS, then, shall we? Taken from the Editor's Comments section of the July 2008 online "Physics and Society" quarterly edition of its Forum of Physics and Society (emphasis mine): 

With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher  Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM)

Ummm... So somehow HotAir and DailyTech went from an invited scientific debate to the APS reversing its stance on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) can only really be answered with the accusation of "spinning" the news (or a major lack of understaing about the nature of scientific debate). Since I consider that people at DailyTech (from which HotAir got its news) are likely somewhat versed in the concept of scientific debates, I am going to conclude that their position is merely a major spin campaign about the APS to match their viewpoint on AGW. And, indeed, if you go to the APS homepage, you will find the following (click the image on the left to bring up a screen-capture of the July 18, 2008 web page):

APS Climate Change Statement

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

So let's do a little sleuthing to see what's up with that Forum on Physics and Society online quarterly. Indeed, if you read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page, you will note that it states, just as the APS homepage announcement does (emphasis mine):

Physics and Society is the quarterly of the Forum on Physics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society. It presents letters, commentary, book reviews and reviewed articles on the relations of physics and the physics community to government and society. It also carries news of the Forum and provides a medium for Forum members to exchange ideas. Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum. Contributed articles (up to 2500 words, technicalities are encouraged), letters (500 words), commentary (1000 words), reviews (1000 words) and brief news articles are welcome. Send them to the relevant editor by e-mail (preferred) or regular mail.

So taking this additional piece of evidence into account, TechNews and HotAir are both really spinning the news by stating that APS - a group with a membership of 500,000 - has changed its position on whether humans are causing global warming by basing their entire claim on a single un-reviewed article submitted as part of a pro vs. con scientific debate in a quarterly forum-derived newsletter. They also seem to ignore the big, glaring letters on the APS's own home page: "APS Position Remains Unchanged ... Read APS Climate Change Statement":

National Policy

07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

So, in the end, this turns out to be another (very poor) attempt by global warming skeptics at trying to "prove" their position is right, by "showing" the scientific consensus point as wrong, incomplete, inconclusive, or otherwise without scientific merit. I really hope that the editor of the quaterly (JJM) does not get more than a polite e-mail reminding him of the polemics that take place around this subject outside the ivory towers of science (and academia in general).

Hat tip to Climate Progress

Why allow anti-defamation for religions?

From today's Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Ed has a series of articles about religion and the public sphere. I'm focusing on one here today:  "Why Pan-Religious Cooperation Could be Bad".


In the first story, Ed links to the AP story about King Abdullah's speech in Madrid:

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia exhorted followers of the world's leading faiths to turn away from extremism and embrace a spirit of reconciliation, saying at the start of an interfaith conference Wednesday that history's great conflicts were not caused by religion itself but by its misinterpretation.

...

Abdullah's comments came at the start of a Saudi-sponsored gathering that aims to bring Muslims, Christians and Jews closer together at a time when the world often puts the three faiths at odds.

...

The Saudis have billed the gathering — which also includes Buddhist and Hindu participants, as well as practitioners of several Eastern religions — as a strictly religious affair. There's to be no mention of hot-button issues such as the war in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iranian nuclear ambitions or rising oil prices.

His point of contention is that this seems to be rather hypocritical from the previous statements made by the king:

But remember, this is the same oppressive dictator who previously proposed that the three Abrahamic religions should join forces against....well, everyone else...

and

Abdullah, like many others, has called for an international law prohibiting "defamation" of religion. As I said a few days ago, I'm just not inclined to accept lectures about ethics from a brutal dictator whose regime beheads people for being of the wrong religion, puts gay people to death and has roving gangs (they call them police) whose job is to beat women who leave the house unattended by a male relative. You're gonna lecture me on ethics, you fascist asshole?

I had heard about the conference listening to the BBC, but didn't really think much about it until Ed wrote on the topic. I (as is usually the case) agree with Ed's contentions. I also ask, "Why should religions get an anti-defamation allowance?" I mean, apart from having to first define what constitutes a "religion" (Does a non-theistic Buddhism or Confucianism count? Does the FSM count? What about cults like "Aum Shinrikyo" or small "break-away" sects like the "Branch Dividians"?), one has to constantly worry about whether something someone says about a religion would be found to be defamation of that religion by any one follower of it. Even pronouncements of one religious holy text about other religions (e.g., "Thou shalt have no gods before me.") could be construed by someone else as defaming their religion.

In addition, many religions don't have a strict hierarchy. Even Christianity, with its myriad churches within Protestantism doesn't have a single "hierarchy", and there would be calls of bloody murder (or an appropriate equivalent) if one were suggested. Apart from very few instances (such as the Anglicanism, Catholicism and Mormonism), there isn't one person (or "supreme council") that can make judgments for the entire religion (and you'll note that all three instances I named are variants of Christianity - although Mormonism is a wide variant).

So if there were an international "defamation" law for religions, who would have standing to bring suit? Would it be anyone who wishes to do so if they are representing a very horizontally ordered religion (like FSM), or would suits only be heard if it were brought by a supreme leader or supreme council (thus negating the ability of religious organizations like FSM from taking part)? How would the law take into account statements made by one priest that goes against the decision of the supreme leader/council?

I propose that if religions do end up getting an international law prohibiting defamation, that someone set up a "Church of Humanism and Atheism" (or something similar) to justify demanding equal non-defamation of humanism and atheism. (Of course, religiously un-free countries like Saudi Arabia would likely be one of the first to deny recognition of such an institution.)

Although the potential limitations to freedoms of speech are also quite obvious, I'll let commenters at Ed's page get on that one.

Evolution and Darwin[ism]

Apparently, there's a bit of a discussion online about whether or not we all should stop calling it "Darwinian/-ist/-ism":

Why is [focusing on Dawrin] a problem? Because it’s all grossly misleading. It suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin.”

I agree. Anti-evolutionists base many of their arguments on quote-mines of Darwin's Origins, as if it were some sort of holy tome of evolutionary biology; an analogue to the Bible and Christianity. However, anyone who has taken a course in evolutionary biology will know that - apart from mentioning Darwin and Origins as part of the history of evolutionary biology - Darwin and Origins are hardly mentioned at all. Indeed, Origins is not likely even a required reading. Instead, there are several textbooks that show many of the advances that have taken place since 1859, including the discovery of DNA, the types and role of mutations, accounts of speciation observation, etc.

But I digress. To return to my argument: I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today.

As a former environmental and evolutionary biologist, I have to agree with much of this sentiment, and so do contributors over on Scienceblogs. They all seem to have a similar aversion to the words "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" - as if these words were epithets that had been slung in their direction too many times.

However, as Mike the Mad Biologist concludes,

Of course, creationists will always call evolutionary biology Darwinism. One reason is that they don't know what they're talking about, and so, party like it's 1859. The other reason is that they can't afford to acknowledge that evolutionary biology is a dynamic growing field that successfully and continuously meets the challenge of new data.

So if Mike is right (and it seems like he might be, based on what I keep seeing on YouTube), the creationist argument - especially the YEC argument of Biblical literalism - will clutch on to the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" (sometimes convoluting them with the term "athiest" and "secularist") with a calcifying grip to ensure that their definition of the term is inculcated into the minds of their followers. Similar to the arguments made from a literal reading of the Bible, the form of the "Darwinist" cannot be allowed to change.

Bad climate news...

Looking over at Climate Progress, we see that there are many climatic problems that are cropping up this year (and we've only just passed the half-way mark of 2008). From NOAA, we find out that:

• Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the eighth warmest on record for June and the ninth warmest for January-June year-to-date period.
• June 2008 temperatures were above average in Australia, northwestern Africa, eastern Brazil, the eastern and southern continental U.S., and most of Europe and Russia. Meanwhile, cooler-than-average conditions were present across the north-central and northwestern contiguous U.S., the southern countries of South America, northern India, and western Russia.
• Precipitation during June 2008 was above average in the Philippines, British Isles, Finland, Kenya, the midwestern and northeastern continental U.S., northern India, and eastern and southern China. Drier-than-average conditions were observed across the southern and most of the western U.S., parts of Europe, southern Australia, and South America.
• El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions transitioned to a neutral phase during June.

Tokyo rests atop the Mines of Moria

Take a look at the Tokyo storm sewer photos from over at Inhabitat.com. After looking at these, I was reminded of something... The Mines of Moria in the Lord of the Rings movie (and books). Check it out!

The Tokyo storm sewer system

Artistic representation of the Mines of Moria

Mines of Moria from The Fellowship of the Ring

What fish are you?

The WWF claims to be able to tell what your inner fish is, then head over to their web page to find out. It turns out that I'm an Atlantic Cod. (Yeah, baby!) Just in case you can't read what it says, here it is:

Umlud, based on the results of the quiz, the fish you're closest to is a Atlantic Cod!


You are quite a resilient fish and always hungry! You can grow to between 6 and 25 lbs, and a few of your fellow cod have been recorded weighing in at nearly a whopping 200 lbs. You swim with your mouth open and will eat just about anything including starfish, crabs, squid, worms, and even young cod. A strong swimmer, you can be found anywhere from 70 to 700 feet deep in cooler Atlantic waters. Your color may range from a gray-green to a reddish brown and depending on how deep you swim and environment, you may even change color.


Even though you may be a resilient fish, you are not very quick and face the threat of overfishing. The fisherman is your number one predator, as you have been a popular food choice among many. Yuo may be found in the frozen food isle at the grocers and on plates in restaurants. While many people are working to limit the use of you in food items, your fisheries have been drastically overfished you're your populations are close to collapse.

Who knew?

Going to Chile. Need to do some shopping.

I found out that I'll be attending the PASI workshop in Concepcion, Chile during most of August. Luckily, it will be "fully-funded" (i.e., I'll be reimbursed once I get there). However, in going there, I'll need to stock up on some supplies and upgrades.

In addition to purchasing some more jeans (had to buy some anyway), collared shirts (unlike collared greens, although some might be green), and socks, I thought seriously about taking this opportunity to upgrade my laptop. However, I have some pause. The main reason is because of the possibility of having my computer confiscated, and I don't want to have to worry about that with a new computer. However, I'm looking at a 20-hour travel time between D-town and Concepcion, so I'm thinking about purchasing some electronic toys and tools.

• Nintendo DS lite (crimson, of course)
  
• Civilization Revolution
• Advance Wars: Days of Ruin
  
• Nokia N810
  
• 8 GB memory chip
• Step-down electricity transformer
• Plug adapters
• Fused power strip
• Used laptop computer from property dispositions
  

The first two items I'm getting for my own use for the trip (some CivRev ought to pass the time nicely on the flight to Chile). Similarly, the N810 has the ability to operate as a internet browser and Skype phone (no expensive calls back from Chile - so long as I'm online). The used laptop I'm going to get because I can wipe the hard drive and install Linux (something that I've really wanted to do for a while) and use as my "main travel computer". All the other stuff are included to ensure that I won't have to worry about blowing my precious new electronic gear due to voltage issues.

I probably should also get a guide for things to do in Concepcion, since I'll be "on the town" for a few days after the workshop... I know that I can get good wine, coffee, olive oil, and hearts-of-palm. I know that there is a nice university there (which is where the conference will be held). I also know that it will be winter there (ahhh... the coolness! I can feel it already!), and is likely to be rainy. I'd like to purchase some things for my brother, his fiancée, my parents, my lab-mates, and my committee (as well as myself). I'm not one to just purchase a bunch of tsotchkes, but we'll see what there is on offer.

I can promise photos whilst I'm there.

Lunch on the first day of Fart Fair

Okay. I'll admit that I should have packed a lunch on the first day of Fart Fair, but I had though (naively) that it would be "okay" for me if I ate once again at the University Club, located in the Michigan Union. I pity my mistake. I really like the U Club because it has all-you-can-eat salad bar for $8.25, salad and hot bar for $9.25, and salad, hot bar, and soup for $10.25. It is also usually nearly empty.

I had thought that since it was not prominently displayed to the public slowly grazing through "art" outside, that they would be not-so-busy today. My mistake was made clear when I asked for a table and found that all the available ones had been reserved (I'll have to make a reservation tomorrow), meaning that I would have to wait.

That is what I'm doing now. Waiting to go to lunch. Dum-dee-dum... Bored...

Arbor Wiki

Just looking through Arbor Wiki. Amazing! Who thought that Ann Arbor had so much to do and offer? (I mean, I thought I knew, but no!)

My thirty-four mile bike ride

Today, I went on a 34-mile bike ride. The Kitchen Empress' birthday was yesterday, but due to he being under the weather, was not much in the mood for celebrations. In addition, the inclement weather in the morning - and the chance for rain throughout the day - kept me from trying to get out to Pinkney on Saturday.

However, with the promise of a nice day (and it was), I headed out to Pinkney this morning, via Dexter. Now, you should know that I've never really ridden a bike more than about eight miles at one time, however, I had always wanted to get out to Dexter (all the bike riders on Huron River Drive seemed so happy in their ride). My thinking was that if K.E. was still not in the mood for visitors, then I could have lunch there and return to Ann Arbor.

On my way out, I rode through Bandemer Park - where the city has added amenities (more bike racks, a dirt bike course, disc golf, permanent toilets at the crew site, and an artificial wetland) - and along the AmTrak rails until I got to Barton Dam Park. From there, I rode along Huron River Drive, trying to keep the gears between 2x5 (on the climbs) and 2x7 (on the descents and flats). I was able to do this for much of the time, only having to switch to 2x4 one time on my way to Dexter. Somewhere along my journey, I heard a bike coming up to pass me, and I looked to my left, and there was Ted.

"Hey, Shaw!"

"Hey, Ted!"

"Whatcha doin?"

"Riding to Dexter. You?"

The conversation went on kind of like that for about 30 seconds. He had said that he and his wife had seem me riding, and he rode up to say, "Hi." He then turned back to catch up with his wife, going back to Ann Arbor. I was passed by only one other cyclist before I got a call from K.E. about 200 yards from Mast Road.

I informed her that I was cycling to Dexter, and asked if she would care to meet me for brunch/lunch at the Lighthouse Cafe (which we found later had a prominent display of "God Bless America" painted on the side of the building). My cycling out to Dexter seemed to cheer her up and motivate her to come down to Dexter and meet me for lunch (even though she was still suffering from congestion), and she said that she would proceed to get ready and head out. I cycled into town, taking photos of some buildings near the Huron River before heading to the "downtown." There I saw massive cranes working on a bridge going over Mill Creek. Cycling out there, I noticed that the rumor that Dexter would be soon taking its dam out was a past rumor. That, indeed, it was out, and the construction crews were in the middle of taking that opportunity to fix up the bridge.

Having had the opportunity to lead class field trips to the site just downstream of where the dam stood (when it was there), I had a pretty good idea of the quality of habitat and stream flow at that site. The removal of the dam had drained areas of the upstream dam-formed wetlands, and the river had slowly cut into the loose sand and silt that had laid dormant behind the dam wall. Looking at this site, I became really excited about the possibilities of having a master's student group measure the impacts of dam removal on the river and the surrounding (now exposed) land. The benefit is that over the past several years, many classes have been taken to the site below the dam, providing ample data for measurement of a "before dam removal" conditions. I will have to talk to my faculty advisor about this one.

At lunch, we both ordered the Eggs Benedict (aka "Benny") and what turned out to be rather anemic (what my mother calls "American-style") coffee (what my dad calls "brown water"). The Bennys were decent and the hashbrowns crispy (as I like them). During lunch, K.E. asked if I wanted to go up to Pinkney with her - and after some vacillating on my part (not wanting to have her put up with me while sick, while also needing to be in town for a 9:15AM meeting tomorrow) - I did end up acquiescing to her invitation, loaded my bike on her truck, and headed up to Pinkney.

On the way, we stopped at a small garage sale and met two lovely ladies (and a very gregarious Irish Red-and-White Setter puppy) with lots of conversation and horse tack for sale. After talking with them about this-and-that, we headed off with two extension cords, a travel mug, and a watering wand, all purchased for a grand sum of $1!

Returning to her cottage on the lake, we were surprised (K.E. was delighted) to see two friends of K.E. - Katie and John. They had vowed earlier in the week to take a party out to her, and they were true to their word. Luckily, they had only had to wait for 5 mins. Although K.E. was very happy to see them, and proceeded to show them all of her gardening experiments, she did have to cut the meeting short with a promise to hold a real party at a later date. I stayed with the Empress for a little while longer before heading back into Ann Arbor - almost a marathon's worth of riding.

Before continuing this rambling story, I need to make two things clear. The first is that much of rural Michigan does not have bike lanes or much of a shoulder, meaning that bicycle riders have to contend with constantly on the edge of literally riding off the road and having to share the road with motor vehicles that may (or may not) get over very far. The second is that my bike is not what you would call a road bike by any stretch of the imagination. It is a "hybrid" bike - defined as a cross between a road bike and a mountain bike - that allows primarily for an easy mid-speed ride on relatively flat surfaces, but no real aerodynamicity (as you would get on a road bike) or robustness (as you would get on a mountain bike). What's more, the bike (with loaded pannier) weighs in the order of 40 lb (much heavier than a road bike). With these two points in mind, please continue reading (if you can bear it).

Heading out from K.E.'s place, I knew of a bike trail that ran along an old railway route between Jackson, MI and (possibly) Northville, MI (although the existence of the track is no longer visible outside of Livingston County. It would take me along a slightly longer path back to Dexter, but one with wider roads and (I hoped) less traffic, due to a sparser population. Cycling along the bike path was wonderful - trees shading the path and breaking most of the wind. Once I got to Merrill Road, things started to get a little more hairy - wind gusts in my face, hills (remember: heavy bike), cars (remember: no shoulder). Still, I was pretty fresh, having rested for several hours at this point, and getting to Strawberry Lake Road for my brief trek WSW would not be a major issue. However, once I got to Strawberry Lake Road, I ended up cycling right into the wind, making a ride along slowly rolling hills much more tiring than originally expected. I ended up stopping once along that 3.2-mile segment to take some water and catch my breath. (I was still trying to keep within a 2x5 and 2x7 range on this segment).

Turning on to Mast Road (for my 6.5-mile ride into Dexter) proved that this path on my bike was not likely the best choice. It had three hills (one before N. Territorial, one after it, and one before Dexter), and I had to down-shift to 2x3 on all three of them. In addition, much of the ride is through farming country - no trees - and the wind really did not help with the climbs. (Gripe, gripe.) However, after what seemed a really long time, I made it into Dexter - roughly 1 hour after I left K.E.'s cottage - and stopped at the Bearclaw Cafe for some coffee (laced with a lot of sugar for my sore muscles).

After calling the Kitchen Empress to see how she was faring, I decided to cycle back along Ann Arbor-Dexter Road (the direct path back to Ann Arbor). Heading out of Dexter, I was pleasantly surprised to note the presence of a bike lane that transformed into a wide shoulder once out of town. This made cycling along the road much less of a hair-raising ride, and with the massive amount of sugar in my coffee, I was quickly covered the 3.1 miles to the Miller Road/Ann Arbor-Dexter Road junction. Here I was provided with a choice: either continue down Ann Arbor-Dexter (with its wide shoulder), and add 1.6 miles (with some more hills) to my ride, or take Miller Road, with the small (nearly non-existent) shoulder. I chose the latter, since I was gambling that it was also the road less-traveled. I turned out (in my opinion) to be a wise choice, since it had long downhill sections that really allowed me to try and get to my maximum speed on 3x8. Unfortunately, at the bottom of one hill, the back of my shoe accidentally caught the bottom of my pannier, and it unhooked off the rack and was torn off the bike as it was dragged on the ground. This forced me to head back and pick it up, re-attach it, and repack it before starting off again ... to almost immediately do the same thing. (Augh!)

Once my foot-clumsiness was sorted out, I slowly climbed the hill that I found myself at the bottom of up to the 4-way Stop at Wagner road, and then slowly climbed the constructed hill taking me to the M14 overpass bridge. From there, it was mostly downhill home, and I took the opportunity (again) to cycle on 3x8; the sensation of being passed very slowly by a motor vehicle while going really fast on a bike is sensational, let me tell you. Finally, before returning home, I decided to head up Spring Road (on a whim), and noticed a really nice looking house with circular trim work and building design. As I slowly cycled past, I noticed several books lying strewn out along the driveway. Looking through them, I found a 1946 edition of Grey's Anatomy and some pulp fantasy novels. These I put in my pannier before continuing home.

I ended up cycling more than four times farther than I had ever cycled before (admittedly, in two chunks of time), and my legs are sore. Even after soaking in a hot bath for over an hour, I think that they will be complaining either tomorrow or the next day. This is not something I look forward to, but the elation of cycling such a distance really makes me happy. (My arse is quite sore, too, and I'm really thinking that if I'm going to attempt some similar distance again that I should purchase some riding shorts!)

The Onion: Volatile India-Pakistan Standoff In 11,680th Day

Hilarious. Just hilarious.

Science dogmatism in the face of "skeptics" wielding false logic

This wasn't meant to be a long entry, but it just sort of turned out that way. I was hoping that I would be able to shed some light on some points about why scientists are generally peeved about today's "skeptics", and why scientists don't worry about trying to cover up or hide gaps in scientific knowledge (like they are sometimes accused of doing). I have tried to keep the discussion (and examples) limited to the area of climate change - although similar things happen in many other "politicized" areas of science - to keep the frame of the argument consistent. I know it's long, and there are several links to articles, science blogs, and YouTube clips, but I hope it will clarify some things that aren't really so obvious, unless you are in the thick of it.

Starts:

Much of the sentiment of "verbal feeding on the soft flesh of climate change 'skeptic' articles" comes from not the quantity of skepticism, but the quality of it (the same is true in the case of evolution, stem cells, and any other politically/socially hot science topic). Many scientists are not true dogmatists, but have taken that stance with people who are not experts in their field, mostly due to the constant rhetorical attacks that are mounted on them by so-called skeptics. What started as a reasoned two-way conversation among scientists about said skepticism moved inexorably to hostility and a pseudo-dogmatic stance that many scientists feel is the only consistent way of diverting the rhetorical (read: non-evidence-based) skepticism.

Papers like those from OISM rehash old canards that have been refuted several times in the scientific literature (and some of these refutations have been multiply tested as well). Against these sorts of papers, scientists take a morbid relish of tearing it to shreds, possibly due to the ease of being able to do, or the catharsis they get from being able to whale away at a paper they (being some sub-group of scientists) feel encapsulates the sort of attacks against their profession that they feel are constantly being made. It is unlikely - based on previous experience with such "skeptical" authors or groups - to get a reasoned response to have a two-way conversation. Certain groups (like OISM, the Heritage Foundation, and others) have been shown to receive private funds for the sole purpose of casting doubt on scientific claims, without actually "proving" anything of their own (playing off a false-dichotomy fallacy); these groups tend not to seek "truth" or "understanding", but are set up to sow doubt (sometimes by using out-and-out lies). The annoying thing for the attacked scientists is that they are the ones the ones asked to try and prove the "skeptic" point wrong, as opposed to the skeptic proving that he is right (the burden of proof fallacy).

One of the biggest problems comes with the word "skeptic." Scientists, by their training, are expected to be skeptical. They are in the business of hypothesis testing, and a dogmatic scientist will not a good scientist make (one of the first things I was taught at university was, "Never believe anything you see, hear, or read without checking its validity - including this statement"). One of the bases of Western science is the ability to question (forming an assumption and a counter assumption) and, through a logical process of testing the question, arrive at a conclusion that answers whether the assumption is a false one or not. True, it does require a certain level of "buying in" with the dominant scientific theory governing the nature of question being asked (you wouldn't, for example, use the Theory of Gravity to form a question pertaining to Game Theory), but an implicit part of the nature of hypothesis testing is to test the groundwork theory (i.e., if your result is something not predicted by theory, and you prove to yourself that it wasn't caused by user error, then you have just tested the theory). However, science tends to be a conservative business, because science is always concerned - due to the nature of only being able to prove a falsehood - of committing Type I and Type II errors. There cannot be multiple ways that physics operates, for example, and until a major flaw in the theories governing physics (and a proposed theory works to explain the flaw and everything else the previous theory explained), physics experiments will continue to build upon their highly tested (and quite robust) theories. This is the same for all other sciences. Sometimes this means that a field will continuously hit itself on the head with logical errors (such as with phlogiston theory and caloric theory) until such time as a workable theory comes about (theory of thermodynamics).

Counter to this concept of scientific skepticism is that of the modern-day, think-tank funded skeptic. These "skeptics" seem to decide on a desired outcome, and then find evidence (aka "cherry pick" their evidence) that seems to fit that desired outcome. These arguments are therefore based on a logical fallacy of begging the question (aka petitio principii), as opposed to trying to fit an ever-increasing amount of evidence into a single unified theory to explain everything (which is what science tends to do). Another tactic these "skeptics" employ is an argument by authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), where they state that "X number of scientists have serious reservations about Y Theory." When one goes and looks at this evidence, it is quite often (and unsurprising by now) that the numbers have been inflated by a variety of means (such as including people who aren't experts in the field, including experts in the field based on misconstrued statements he/she has made, including dead people, etc.). A final major tactic used by global warming skeptics is to use non-standard avenues of dissent. One of the most powerful global warming deniers was Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who is [in]famous for stating, that "much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science," is also [in]famous for stalling any forward action on global climate change in the senate when he was chairman of the Committee of the Environment and Public Works (which is the committee through which all environmental legislation must pass) by filling the docket with global warming deniers (who had no irrefutable evidence of a lack of global warming) and hostilely questioning scientists (and Al Gore) who were proponents of the theory of global warming (even when he wasn't the head of the committee). In addition to the road blocks created by Inhofe (who was listed as the worst environmental senator by the League of Conservation Voters and likes to use language hearkening back to the Nixonian "silent majority" vs. "elitist minority" false dichotomy, especially when talking about global warming) and other climate change legislation road-blockers, another avenue for attack that skeptics use is an appeal to the public (another form of an argument by authority, since such arguments are generally - although usually falsely - couched in terms that the public in general feels they are expert enough in judging; conflating "weather" with "climate" for example), instead of going through a rigorous scientific peer review prior to public press announcement.

And the "skepticism" does not have a small voice, but is helped along by private funds and - sometimes - governmental stalling (or punitive actions). Due to this rather daunting wall of false skepticism, it isn't surprising that climate scientists have become dogmatic in their responses to claims they have already refuted or people representing private interest groups that have a history of antagonistic relationships with the science of climate change (and sometimes the scientists themselves).

I could go into all the problems with the bases of the arguments made in favor of the "skeptics", but they are generally based on only disproving a facet of climate change science, and not the whole thing (Sen. Inhofe is still in that minority that continues to purport his view that the whole thing is a major hoax). Many try and make the argument that since they are able to show that there is not absolute certainty with topic X, then the entirety of climate change science is wrong (which is what the OISM paper tries to do on several fronts). This is like saying that since Newton's laws of motion do not explain E=mc^2, then Newtonian physics is wrong (with the added implication that the assumption of the Newtonian-physics denier is automatically correct - the false dichotomy). In fact, many scientists are working on filling in those gaps of knowledge, and many actively admit to finding gaps, for it is in these gaps that funding and research interest lie. The thing is, though, that scientists do not generally go to the popular press to report a gap in knowledge, since it is not really the proper forum in which to do so. These gaps get reported in the scientific journals, usually in the discussion or conclusion section of scientific papers. Sometimes, major discussions (via experimental results) take place because of these reported gaps, and when it is solved to the satisfaction of peer review scientists, then it gets reported publicly. Scientists are generally not worried (in the sense of losing legitimacy as a scientist) about gaps in knowledge. In fact, it isn't surprising to go to a science conference and have several people from different universities (who have never contacted each other) give presentations on effectively the same gap in knowledge, but taken from different starting points. In other words, scientists make their reputation on filling gaps, and if anything, they will endeavor to ensure that other scientists don't know that they are working on filling a gap, in case others fill it in faster.

If you want to read a generally good further discussion of this topic, I will refer you to: The Republican War on Science, or to the ScienceBlog The Intersection. Chris Mooney is a journalist (I believe) that does research on the topic of why it seems that the Republican party is hostile to the traditional process of science, and he often writes about the anti-science stance of government on his blog (which is co-written with Sheril Kirshenbaum - who writes about a different set of topics - so make sure to check out the "by" line at the bottom of each entry snippet). If you are going to get the book (either at the library or at the store), I recommend reading the paperback version, since Mooney expands and updates the topics from when the hardcover was published.

Wireless internet on trains and Linux

Listening to Morning Edition today, and I heard about a plan to put really fast Wi-Fi on the BART trains in San Francisco. It sounds really cool, and makes me really want: commuter trains in SE Michigan ... with Wi-Fi. But I digress (as per usual).

One of the limitations for the Wi-Fi system on commuter trains is the time it takes for people to get out their devices and boot them up (and the shut-down, put-away time, too) versus the amount of time that the commuter spends on the train. A solution offered on the show was the abilities of smart phones (like the iPhone) to link up to wireless networks, and remain virtually "always" on. One other solution, as I have been thinking about this, is to have a computer with a very fast boot-up time; one running some sort of Linux OS.

Perhaps the people working on a Linux OS in the Bay Area (or anywhere else that on-train Wi-Fi shows up) might use this as a selling point: a quick boot-up onto a Linux OS via USB or CD to allow for internet surfing on the train. I know already that many Linux OS can do the quick boot-up, but I think the major seller (at least in the Bay Area if BART Wi-Fi takes off) is the many benefits of using it on the train (fast boot-up, OS stability, low-level risk for viruses, etc), especially if someone out there makes an OS that is optimized to take advantage of the BART Wi-Fi system. And once a person is hooked on Linux due to using it on the twice-daily commute, the possibility of using Linux elsewhere - coffee shops, bookstores, in the park, etc. - increases.

Although the focus of the company interviewed on the show was in its installation of Wi-Fi on BART, the immediate connection I make with the concept of "commuter trains" out here (where there are none, really) is with AmTrak. Yes, they aren't really "commuter" trains anywhere, except in the northeast, but with increased ridership on AmTrak over the past number of  years, with the infrastructure already in place for plugging in computers, the number of potential customers on a single, multi-hour train ride is quite high. Whether the company interviewed on the show (or other companies) are already trying to ride the AmTrak wagon, I don't know, but when you have a captive audience which may well use your product sitting in place for several hours, I can't see any obvious reason not to try and capture them. ("Capture" a "captive" audience seems redundant, but what-the-hey.) Of course, as a pseudo-Federal organization/company, doing business with AmTrak may itself prove to have nightmares, but I would have to say that I would not mind in the slightest to being able to get online during the several-hour trips to Chicago and back again.

I'm not yet "Hooked on Linux", but part of that is due to a lack of need on my part - I have three computers at work, all of them maintained by highly competent IT staff - and a lack of compatibility with certain crucial software packages - ArcGIS, SPSS, HEC-RAS, etc. However, I've been looking to get a university-used laptop and use that one as my main "travel" computer, running Linux. (I'm really tempted by this option, especially when I know that DHS is searching - sometime siezing - people's computers at international borders. Having a fast boot-up second-hand refurbished Linux laptop will help with getting through customs, while also making a computer confiscation less painful - I hope - than losing my "main" laptop computer.)

Saw Wall-E

Yesterday, I went to see Wall-E with Kitchen Empress. I really liked it, and know that I will be purchasing it when it comes out on DVD. It did many things very well, including bringing the robots to life, creating a believable storyline, continuing with the marvelous tradition of Pixar animation, and just being really fun.

It had some elements of Short Circuit in it (and the little Wall-E unit even looks a little bit like Johnny-5). However, the storyline for Wall-E is (imho) much better, and the little 'droid is even more likable than the admittedly quite affable J-5. (Truth be told, I really felt that the flesh-and-blood actors didn't really help sell those two films...)

Happy Birthday, Orcboy!

Happy b-day Orcboy. May your campaigns be many, and your victories decisive!

Stupid signage

I saw this sign informing handicapped users that the handicap entrance can be found ... to the right of the door?For those of you not in the know, this is the southwest entrance to Angell Hall (this entrance is barely visible in the linked picture, but you can see it peeking out about one inch from left-of-center, assuming that your screen's resolution is the same as mine - which in all likelihood it isn't). The handicapped entrance is on the northwest side, which is in the analogous position as this one, but all the way past and around the large classical architecture stairs-and-columns that mark the U's only pseudo-classical building.

Now, it wouldn't be so bad if but there were a sign or map informing someone in a wheelchair where they have to go, instead of indicating that they "enfenestrate" themselves through the window.

I am Yin-Yang

Based on a five-question online quiz, I am apparently quite the balanced individual.

Here's the verdict:

Are you yin or yang?
My result is: Yin-Yang
Managing the best of both worlds you try to keep an open mind to most things. You have a perfect balance.

Now, everybody repeat after me:

"Ohm...."

Something amazing happens on the 4th of July

Via Physorg:

News Flash: On 4th of July weekend, NASA forecasts lights in the sky.
No, not those lights. Look beyond the fireworks. Almost halfway up the
western sky, just above the twilight glow of sunset, a trio of worlds
is gathering: Saturn, Mars and the crescent Moon.

Well, it won't be as interesting for those of us without telescopes or with too much glare or clouds. Apparently, NASA has forecast a planetary syzygy occurring between Mars, Saturn, and the star Regulus on July 4. On July 5 (my birthday), the crescent moon comes into alignment with the other three.

However, being in Ann Arbor, I doubt that I will be able to see any of this - too much light, too great a possibility for cloud cover, and too many trees.

Half way through 2008

Since 2008 is a leap year, there are 366 days this year. That means that half of the year will have gone by at midnight on day 184. July 1 is day 183. (Also a White Rabbit day, and Canada Day!)

You made it through half of this year. Only half of it to go before the start of 2009!

Japanese Rube Goldberg machines

Ahh, those wacky Japanese and their Goldberg machines. Check them out. Really engrossing...

A collection of short RGMs:


A really long RGM using several different forms of energy:

Ahh, accents and the world of understanding located between our ears.

"What?"


That short film reminded me of some YouTube videos I stumbled across last year about how language and culture intersect in humorous ways. Enjoy.

"Subtitles"


"Do you speak English?"

White Rabbit

Gotcha!

June Photos

Sunset on Zingerman's Deli

Maintenance work being done on Martha Cook Hall

The charred remains of Delta Upsilon after the June 2 fire.

Just another Saturday morning at the Ann Arbor Farmers' Market.

Continued build of North Quad, as seen from MLB (Romance Languages)

Credo of those with strong convictions

"Judge those who you think might judge you.
Hold preconceptions that you know have worked.
People are dumb, except for those that aren’t.
Don't restrict civil liberties, except when people are dumb.
Things are never black-and-white, except when they are.
It’s okay to kill people, except when they were not meant to die.
Stereotype all the time.
Remember that I’m the victim here!"

Why computer system updates are annoying

Yesterday, I learned that I didn't have enough funds in my checking account (poor grad student as I am) to cover a small purchase, something that I knew shouldn't have happened, since I was supposed to be paid the previous week. However, I went online, checked my balance and account activity, and low-and-behold, I was overdrawn. Arse.

So this morning I called university payroll. I spoke to a very nice woman there who politely informed me that I wasn't hired. Hm! "Well..." I told her, "I'm pretty sure that I put in hours, filled in a time-sheet, and handed it in to the appropriate person in my department." However, that attempt was only met with the same polite information that my bi-weekly payments authorization was not in the system, and suggest that I call my department's HR person.

So I call my department's HR person, who is a lovely individual. She informs me that, no, I couldn't be hired yet, as I had not completed the "student employment application" on the new and improved student interface. Shit. The university's upgrading their system, and they can't "remember":

• that I am eligible to work in the United States
• that I'm not a felon
• what my prior non-university employment was
• whether I have family employed at the university, and
• that I understand that I cannot profit privately from public research funds.

Well, I had to sign off on all of these things before. For five years. Why is it different now? What part of a W-4 tax form makes it obscure whether I'm eligible to work in the US? What part of the university's own employment form's section on prior felonies makes it unclear that I'm not a felon? Why isn't their database strong enough for it to figure out on its own whether I have family working at the University? (I'm pretty sure that they don't count anything beyond a first cousin.)

All because of four little questions that someone decided weren't important enough to 'port over from the previous databases did I not get my direct deposit, forcing me into negativity (financial and emotional). Why am I not surprised?

What really gets my goat, though, is that I had been working continuously for over one year! Yeah! I know. Apparently, the university's main HR database doesn't know that I'm working presently for it and getting paid. (Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing!) Sheesh!

Of course, I could be kvetching (hey! Firefox's spell-check includes the word 'kvetching'!) about nothing. These sorts of things may well be greater nightmares in other universities, in government, or in the private sector. Of course, not having worked through another system's overhaul, I'm in no place to say, and I'm merely disgruntled about the stupid shift over.

On the plus side, the interface is much cleaner, the graphics are nicer, and there are more pieces of information that can be accessed. (Previously, you might have to drill down through several different menus to find the one you were looking for.)

Therefore, this is the moral: When there's a system overhaul, immediately figure out how it affects you and seek to rectify the situation as soon as possible.

UPDATE 2008/06/25: I talked with the manager of my bank's local branch (where I set up my account). I showed him the university's pay calendar, explained the situation, and showed him the e-mail I received from my department's HR person stating that I can pick up my paycheck from payroll tomorrow. He kindly waived my overdraft fee. YAY!

UPDATE 2008/06/26: I went down to payroll myself to pick up a check they issued off-cycle. Although I had to take a 10-minute bus ride down there, wait 10 minutes for another bus after picking up my check, and ride the bus 10 minutes back to campus before cycling to my bank to make a deposit, it was very nice to spend almost an hour in order to get money in my account.

Assistance to quit smoking in Scotland: a tangential analysis

From today's PhysOrg:

The pilot scheme to be tried in Dundee, north of Edinburgh, will see smokers offered 12.50 pounds (15.8 euros, 24.7 dollars) per week to quit. Health bosses hope that 900 smokers will give up as a result in the next two years.

This program is based on an apparently successful previous program called: Give it up for baby. As of the end of September 2007 thirty-one women were recruited in the program, with a 95% pass rate based on weekly carbon monoxide breath tests. From the December 10, 2007 progress report for the program:

The scheme has paid £1,760 to the women as credits to be claimed against fresh food and groceries at ASDA. The first birth of an infant under the scheme has taken place, with both the mother and father having given up smoking.
...
No significant operational issues have affected the provision of the scheme. No significant risk issues have been identified.

I've not found more recent results, but it seems that things are going well. However, a basic economic analysis of future cost-savings would be useful. However, I've not found any such analysis in the summary, so I decided to do really basic back-of-the-envelope calculations to see what sort of benefit the "Give it up for baby" scheme might have. First, I had to find out what sort of things the British press reports, viz health risks caused by smoking during pregnancy in the UK.

From The Independent (March 2, 2002):

Pregnant smokers are a further cause for concern, with higher risks of miscarriage, reduced birthweight, and perinatal death. For parents who continue to smoke after birth, there is an increased risk of cot death and the children themselves are more likely to take it up. The highest smoking rates found among expectant mothers are closely related to health inequalities.
...
Pregnant women who smoke are a key focus of action as smoking cessation services are developed. The Government's latest infant feeding survey figures show a 5 per cent drop in the number of pregnant women smoking since 1995, and pounds 3m has been invested in training and appointing midwives to co-ordinate antenatal and postnatal smoking cessation services, giving specialist advice. A new national NHS helpline for pregnant smokers wishing to quit has also been set up.

Areas of cost savings for the woman include cigarettes at roughly ~£490 (based on a median cigarette usage over a 280-day pregnancy of 7 cigarettes/day, 20 cigarettes/pack, and a cost of £5/pack*), for a low birth-weight baby £50,000 (based on a low value of $100,000 in the United States in 2000 dollars and exchange rate of £1=$2), and funeral costs due to perinatal death £2,048 (based on median British funeral cost) give an estimated (low) cost savings to the mother of £52,538. This doesn't even cover the costs of possible counseling and ancillary costs due to lost time at work, for example. Admittedly, I would imagine that the NHS would cover some (or a lot) of the £50,000 I'm listing as care for a low birth-weight baby, but even if it is covered by a negligible co-pay, the direct costs are still high.

In 1998, the British government released a report stating that smoking costs the NHS £1.4 billion each year. If we assume that the NHS picks up the majority of the bill for the estimated £50,000 listed above, then even for the small sample size of this program (31 women), the NHS saves a possible £1.55 million at the expenditure of only a few thousand pounds. If this was expanded to the rest of Scotland, the NHS may well see large-scale results.

The figure of £1.4 billion provides a scale of how much cost-savings the NHS would see if the Scottish scheme a) worked, and b) was used throughout the country. Already, the UK has mandated a smoking ban in all public buildings throughout the country (including pubs, mind). Of course, after the UK gains the benefits of cost-abatement due to a more healthy society, it will inevitably have to deal with the costs of a society that has lived longer than previously would have - increased costs for senior living...

* The NHS has a nifty little Flash applet on personal costs of cigarettes.

George Carlin is dead

George Carlin is dead at 71 from "heart failure." Unfortunately, due to his freedom-of-speech, and anti-religious bigotry routines against profanity decisions have put him on a hit-list of certain cretins in the "moral leagues" of this country.

Although I could post some of his stand-up here, I'm not going to do so, because any one stand-up routine that I post might be pulled for various reasons (copyright, obscenity, etc.). However, I'll link to YouTube's search results for 'George Carlin'.

The world will be a paler place until the next social commentator steps into the breach. George, you'll be missed, since you never seemed to sink into the intolerant form of vitriol that those who support religio-dogmatism and censored speech.

China #1 in CO2

From PhysOrg:

With an eight percent national increase, China's carbon dioxide emissions contributed the bulk of last year's 3.1 percent global rise in CO2 emissions, according to a statement released on the last day of a United Nations conference on climate change in Bonn, Germany.

"With this, China tops the list of CO2 emitting countries, having about a quarter share in global CO2 emissions (24 percent)," it said.

The United States was second with 21 percent, while the European Union was at 12 percent, India eight percent and Russia six percent, said the statement.

Cement clinker production was a major cause of the emissions, and with an increase of 10 percent in 2007 China now accounted for about 51 percent of global cement production, said the PBL.

"After the earthquake which recently hit the Sichuan province, it may be expected that the rebuilding of houses and roads for over five million people will cause the cement demand to soar even further," it said.

Warmer winter weather and high fuel prices contributed to a two percent drop in CO2 emissions in Europe last year, it added.

But in the US, a cold winter and warm summer contributed to rising carbon emissions from heating and cooling functions. Overall in the US last year, CO2 emissions rose by 1.8 percent.

"Since population size and level of economic development differ considerably between countries, the emissions expressed per person show a largely different ranking," added the agency.

The US topped the list of C02 emissions per person measured in metric tonnes with 19.4, followed by Russia with 11.8, the EU with 8.6, China with 5.1 and India with 1.8.

The figures were compiled from recently published British Petroleum energy data and cement production data for 2007.

In the current global warming talks, the US and other Western nations have balked at making mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases as developing nations like China are not required to slash emissions under the UN climate change framework.

This might not be such a great time to harp on about this (again), but one wonders how this will impact the Olympic games (since much of China's energy production is via coal).

Thunderf00t, VenomFangX, and false arguments

For those of you not "in the know", Thunderf00t and VenomFangX are both Youtube posters who oppose each other's viewpoint on whether the science of evolution describes the myriad of life we see today or if that myriad was specially created by the Christian God. Based on some videos previously posted here, you might guess which one I agree with.

However, on one of the latest (not the greatest, but rather humorous) rebuttals posted by Thunderf00t (which apparently got pulled sometime between 12:15pm and 1:15pm), I saw this humorous message (complete with mis-spellings) posted by ooglebydoogleby:

ime convinced where do i sign up to have my brain removed and a blomonge inseted with a jelly crusifix internal moulding. venom= the snake in the garden. fang= for another negative god. and the x= the the cross of christianity turned 1/8 at 45 degrees 8x45=360 which added to the five days of satanic festivals that the pagans marked the begining of the new year with = one year, 5 representing the devils dominium over the four spacial direction nth sth east and wst the fifth being time. ooohhh..

"Ooohhh.." indeed. The context within which the statement was written makes it even more funny:

VenomFangX "proves" the existence of God (once again) by showing that God knew the "exact diameter of the moon" in miles, as evidenced in the Gospel of Joshua, chapter 6. His "logic" in the video goes something like this:

6 days of marching around the city of Jericho (360 degrees) = 2160

2160 miles = "the exact diameter of moon" in miles

Based on his convoluted argument, VenomFangX twists logic in a way that only the best Bible Coders do to show that "A proves B because of something I make up based on numbers in the Bible." To that end, the statement by ooglebydoogleby is quite (at least to me) funny.

VenomFangX's argument is - of course - a false one, since it is an argument the begs the question. (i.e., God is omniscient and omnipotent. There is evidence that God knew something before man did. Therefore I can prove God's existence through his omniscience.) However, regardless of the fact that this is a false argument, VenomFangX makes several mistakes.

1. The passage of Joshua 6 is actually:

6 So Joshua son of Nun called the priests and said to them, "Take up the ark of the covenant of the LORD and have seven priests carry trumpets in front of it."

There is a mention of seven priests, and no mention of circling the city, nor of the number of times these priests were to circle it. Looking back at Joshua 1-5, though, one sees:

1 Now Jericho was tightly shut up because of the Israelites. No one went out and no one came in.

2 Then the LORD said to Joshua, "See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men. 3 March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days. 4 Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams' horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets. 5 When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have all the people give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the people will go up, every man straight in."

VenomFangX obviously needs to look at his Bible reference again, since it isn't Joshua 6, but Joshua 3 where the statement of marching around the city six times comes into play.

2. VenomFangX appears to place a lot of emphasis on his Bible Coding on Joshua 3, leading up to the what happens on the seventh day (remember that the number "7" has mystical significance in Judaism and Christianity). On the seventh day, the seven priests are supposed to march around the city seven times. This is significant. This is what the whole thing is leading up to. Not including this would be tantamount to heresy! If VenomFangX took this into account as well - as opposed to doing Bible Code searching - then you get the following:

7 priests (6 days * 360 degrees + 7 * 360 degrees)
= 7 (2160 + 2520)
= 7 (4860)
= 34020

As everyone knows, 34020 - while being a really large number - was the code given to the second generation of the TMS integrated circuit, as well as being the code for an image of City Hall Staton on the NY subway system. This proves God exists, since - in his omniscience - he was able to forsee integrated circuits as well as underground public transportation and centralized metropolitan goverment!

Okay, okay, that's a stretch. Maybe I shouldn't have included the 7 priests in the above equation. If I don't include them, then the resulting number is 4860. Consulting the Oracle at Google, one can find that this is the NIH code for the human gene nucleoside phosphorylase, which:

Encodes "an enzyme which reversibly catalyzes the phosphorolysis of purine nucleosides. The enzyme is trimeric, containing three identical subunits. Mutations which result in nucleoside phosphorylase deficiency result in defective T-cell (cell-mediated) immunity but can also affect B-cell immunity and antibody responses. Neurologic disorders may also be apparent in patients with immune defects. A known polymorphism at aa position 51 that does not affect enzyme activity has been described. A pseudogene has been identified on chromosome 2.

This proves God's existence because only through his omniscience would he have known about the creation of the National Institutes of Health and the funding of the Human Genome Project. Only he - in his eternal wisdom - would have encoded such a message in the form of a Bible dictum with no clue as to the means of mathematically extracting the information that would lead people to understand his true meaning. I see, however, that by hiding the number 4860 within his devising of a scheme by which Joshua could knock down the walls of Jericho, God was seeing a greater picture because he correlates the knocking down of the walls of Jericho with the knocking down of the mystery of the human genome! Wow!

Oh, wait. Maybe not. Maybe I've got the whole mathematical operation wrong. Maybe I'm supposed to add the values together (7 priests + 7 days + 13 times around the city = 27). And everyone knows that 27 is the product of 3 * 9, and when you add 3 + 9, you get 12, the number of Disciples! That is what the story of Jericho was really foretelling - the coming of Jesus Christ!

3. The diameter of the moon is not "exactly" 2160 miles. It's approximately that amount at the moon's equator. Between the moon's poles, the diameter is approximately 2157 miles. The average diameter of the moon is approximately 2159 miles. I'm sure that if one looked at the infinite number of different diameters one could draw through the moon, one might find something that was "exactly" 2160.0 miles. If God was omniscient and omnipotent, then wouldn't he have created a moon that was an exact sphere of 2160 miles? (Or is polar flattening and meteor impacts the work of the devil?)

4. The "mile" was not fully standardized until 1959! Below are some conversions of the equitorial lunar diameter into different miles (conversions done using onlineconversion.com, with the value of 3476.28 km):

• 2497.32 Spanish miles
• 2287.03 Ancient Roman miles
• 2160.52 Ancient British miles
• 2160.05 US survey miles
• 1916.36 Scottish miles
• 1875.84 UK nautical miles
• 1877.04 International nautical miles
• 1783.62 French miles
• 1697.40 Irish miles
• 1665.44 Portuguese miles
• 463.50 Danish miles
• 325.28 Ancient Swedish miles

People, this is one of the reasons why much of the world uses kilometers, and not miles. The fact that the moon is approximately 2160 US miles does little to show God's existence. It would have been much more conclusive if there was a Hebrew unit of length that somehow linked closely with the diameter of the moon - in this case. However, Hebrew units of length were not standardized. Therefore, a measurement in ells would be different for each person making that measurement, to such a degree that the "diameter-of-the-moon" argument that VenomFangX makes above would be covered within that really large spread of human-to-human error.

Sensible Units

Ever want to know how to convert between different types of units? Well, one can look up unit conversions on a table (so old school), or online at Online Conversion for a very extensive selection of conversion options.

For example: 

1 foot = 0.16666 fathom = 0.3048 meter.

Of course, there are some things that you need to convert that don't have constant conversion rates, such as currency. If you want to convert US Dollars into Canadian Dollars (or Australian Dollars or any other type of dollar), what would be a fair conversion rate? Well, a great online tool for this kind of unit conversion is XE.com (which even allows you to look at historic currency conversion rates - limited to 20 years of data - and a whole bunch of handy currency conversion tools besides).

For example:

 USD 1 = CAD 1.0050905404 on June 3, 2008

USD 1 = CAD 1.4530000000 on June 3, 1998

Of course, with the wonders of the internets, I find "SensibleUnits" - a place where you can convert standard units to "sensible" units.

For example: 

1 foot = 6.0 AA batteries end-to-end = 30 stacked CD cases

UPDATE (2010-03-29): The "SensibleUnits" website is no longer functional. Kinda sad, since I was just wondering how many Great Walls of China long the Mississippi River is.