[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] The Argument on Climate Science.
Jerome Slate
SlateMD at comcast.net
Thu Jul 21 15:22:42 PDT 2022
Dear Group.
First, let met say that “Climate Science” in the press has devolved into
an oxymoron. This contrasts sharply with the Penn State course in
climatology that Charlie Holbrow, Carl Lazarus, Mike Alexander and I
took. In that class, the scientists, believers all in global warming,
presented a balanced academic discussion of what we know and what we
don’t. They presented the difficulties in analyzing the data sets and
the broad range of possible climate changes.
In the press, we seen the opposite in scientists and others—true
believers cherry picking data without recognizing the many unknowns.
Serious scientific investigation /is not/ being a true believer in a
given result and then trying to prove it. Rather, the goal is to find a
definitive advance of any sort and to relegate your competitor
scientists to obscurity. Scientific investigation is much like the game
Monopoly, where the pleasure is not only owning all of the hotels, but
also in wiping out a friend.
Jerry Slate
Commissioner
Ministry of Truth
On 7/21/2022 2:46 PM, Jerry Harris wrote:
> 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
>> <mailto:lctg-subscribe at toku.us> To unsubscribe: email
>> lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us <mailto: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 stefanoq at gmail.com.
>> Set your list options:
>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/stefanoq@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: emaillctg-subscribe at toku.us To unsubscribe: emaillctg-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 toslatemd at comcast.net.
> Set your list options:http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/slatemd@comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220721/be7d699d/attachment.html>
More information about the LCTG
mailing list