[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science

Thu Jul 21 11:46:16 PDT 2022

Hi Stephen,
> Meanwhile, notice that the opposite does NOT happen.  In other words,
nowhere in the “alternative” or “pseudoscience” world are the real academic
debates on these supposedly “alternative facts” actually referenced.  It’s
a one-sided argument where science engages it’s critics but it’s critics
then ignore those legitimate responses to their attacks.

This is usually a sign the debater is approaching the topic with a
pre-conceived conclusion and will discard contradictory facts, treating the
data as a means to an end.

As for this particular dataset on Dr Roy's website, I downloaded his data
file (it was not csv-formatted) and created a chart. The charts don't match
at all. It's also clear it's an incomplete dataset. The numbers are
"temperature anomalies", which are deltas from an average calculated across
a range of the original temperature data (eg, years 1981-2001). The average
of the anomaly data across the same range should equal zero. There was no
such range in his data file, so he's missing data.

I don't know whether the data is legit or not, but someone who's this
sloppy with their charts and data is working from a trust deficit.

Jerry

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 1:34 PM Stephen Quatrano <stefanoq at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jerry,
>
> I get what you are saying.  Theories that explain the evidence are
> absolutely a matter of debate in the scientific community.  And it’s
> certainly true about what should be DONE about climate change, which is not
> a scientific question at all.  But with respect to the evidence itself,
> especially in a case like this, I think there is still a LOT we can say in
> order to push back on a post-modern kind of view where everyone is entitled
> to their own facts as well as their own opinions.  Furthermore, in this
> case, I think there’s evidence that this data set in particular is being
> used in bad faith — abused in other words — to undermine public confidence
> in science.
>
> This satellite data is not a set of “alternative facts” that are ignored
> by the scientific community.  It doesn’t even contradict warming that has
> been observed unless you cherry pick the data.  (Why are we looking at the
> last 18 years?)  On the contrary, the overall dataset confirms the fact
> that the planet is warming, first of all.  And second, this data set is
> PART of the empirical data we use to understand what is happening to our
> planet.  And finally, on its own, it does not falsify an overwhelming,
> global consensus on the fact of climate change and attribution models that
> can ONLY account for observed changes when we consider the effects of human
> activity.
>
> All you need to do to verify these three claims is search the scientific
> record for the dataset.  Voila!  You find it!!  Someone more skilled than I
> am with familiarity and access to original scientific research can do it
> even better than I have, no doubt.  I’d love to see and learn more about
> this dataset!
>
> This is pretty far from my own expertise but I have invested quite a bit
> of time into both the history and philosophy of science in order to
> understand “how we know what we know”.  I’ve learned to take a deep breath
> and ask some important questions before engaging in unproductive debate on
> science and pseudoscience.
>
> For example, my first question is:  “What exactly is this data set?”  I
> try hard to actually be interested in the data and interested in learning.
> Why not?  It’s cool.
>
> And my second question is:  “If it is legit, and if it does contradict
> other data, is it actually being ignored by scientists (which is what is
> being implied by the controversy)?  Is it being hidden or covered up?  Or
> perhaps it’s actually being used in their models?”
>
> Does anyone else notice that these questions are not asked by those who
> are sowing doubt?  And they surely don’t make explicit claims that
> scientists have ignored or tried to cover up the contradictory data.  Why
> not?  Because they can be investigated pretty easily.  And if you look,
> you’ll find out that ALL of the legitimate data is being used by the
> community, not just those “convenient” datapoints that support some kind of
> bogus theory.
>
> I used Google for literally 5 minutes and found these pretty interesting
> looking arguments that engage with the data, the actual data, NOT
> ALTERNATIVE FACTS, and explain that it IS being used and HOW it’s being
> used and WHY.
>
> https://skepticalscience.com/Response-Data-or-Dogma-hearing.html
>
> https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=466
>
> “What-about-ism” is a plague on our open society and rational public
> discourse.  It’s a problem that all you need to do to cast doubt on hard
> won consensus after years of debate and vital institutions, is to throw
> data that seems to contradict conventional wisdom and ask questions like
> these:  “What about the 'Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures’
> data set from satellites?”
>
> Even I experience a kind of knee-jerk, visceral response to this
> question.  I feel myself asking, “Yeah!  What ABOUT that contradictory
> data?”  Dang!
>
> You see, it’s just too easy to cast doubt and undermine confidence like
> this.  And it’s really, freakin hard to build trust.
>
> Stepping back, I notice that the record of scientific literature DOES
> consider these measurements, dare I call them “facts."  There are no
> alternative facts.  The prevailing models MUST account for all
> observations, including these.  And sure enough, these very datasets are
> clearly referenced in the literature.
>
> Meanwhile, notice that the opposite does NOT happen.  In other words,
> nowhere in the “alternative” or “pseudoscience” world are the real academic
> debates on these supposedly “alternative facts” actually referenced.  It’s
> a one-sided argument where science engages it’s critics but it’s critics
> then ignore those legitimate responses to their attacks.  They repeat
> themselves.  Or they move on.  They don’t actually debate the issue:  they
> just cast doubt on the entire endeavor.
>
> I call this “bad faith” or pseudo-discourse.  It’s not, in fact, a
> conversation at all.
>
> Unfortunately, this creates a lot of collateral damage as well.  It
> affects our confidence and public trust in EVERYTHING.
>
> SQ
>
> On Jul 21, 2022, at 12:15 PM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Peter,
> I disagree. The climate change debate shows us that alternative facts have
> been created and used to support pre-determined conclusions. The latest
> example recently shared on this list was that global warming is on "pause"
> and CO2 increase is not the cause of climate change. (
> https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/)
>
> Even in situations where the facts are agreed upon by all parties, there
> can be plenty of alternative conclusions. Sometimes these are positive and
> progressive, eg, the scientific method where a new theory is proposed based
> on existing data. Sometimes there is incorrect or flawed reasoning (e.g.,
> stupidity) that is used to reach a different conclusion. And sometimes,
> there are belief- or ideologically-driven conclusions where the data and
> reasoning chain only serves as means to an end.
>
> This gets me back to conspiracy theorists. Dismissing them as either
> "stupid" or "fact-deprived" ignores the harm they can cause through
> disinformation amplification and brainwashing.
>
> I know this is typical over-thinking of a simple cartoon, but this is why
> I feel the cartoon is timelessly funny, IMO.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:21 AM <palbin24 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Fortunately in science “alternate facts” do not exist.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On Jul 21, 2022, at 11:11 AM, carllazarus at comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Facts don’t matter to conspiracy theorists.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* LCTG <lctg-bounces+carllazarus=comcast.net at lists.toku.us> *On
>> Behalf Of *Jerry Harris
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 21, 2022 8:30 AM
>> *To:* john rudy <jjrudy1 at comcast.net>
>> *Cc:* Lex Computer Group <LCTG at lists.toku.us>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
>>
>>
>>
>> If only conspiracy theories or disinformation campaigns could be so
>> easily refuted with facts.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 10:58 AM john rudy <jjrudy1 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <image001.png>
>>
>> ===============================================
>> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
>> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
>> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives:
>> http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email
>> lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
>> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
>> <http://lctg.toku.us/>
>> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>> This message was sent to jerryharri at gmail.com.
>> Set your list options:
>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com
>>
>> ===============================================
>> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
>> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
>> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives:
>> http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email
>> lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
>> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
>> <http://lctg.toku.us/>
>> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>> This message was sent to palbin24 at yahoo.com.
>> Set your list options:
>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/palbin24@yahoo.com
>>
>> ===============================================
>> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
>> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
>> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives:
>> http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email
>> lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
>> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
>> <http://lctg.toku.us/>
>> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>> This message was sent to jerryharri at gmail.com.
>> Set your list options:
>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com
>
> ===============================================
> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives:
> http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us <lctg-subscribe at toku.us>  To
> unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us <lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us>
> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
> This message was sent to stefanoq at gmail.com.
> Set your list options:
> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/stefanoq@gmail.com
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220721/a7457447/attachment.html>