[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] The Argument on Climate Science.
Jerry Harris
jerryharri at gmail.com
Fri Jul 22 07:53:36 PDT 2022
> They presented the difficulties in analyzing the data sets and the broad
range of possible climate changes.
Sound bites, 280-character Tweets, and social media zingers don't lend
themselves to any level of nuance.
I'd like to share this article to broaden the original topic's scope (eg,
facts refuting conspiracy theorists and disinformation campaigns).
It’s been clear for quite a while now that red America and blue America are
> becoming like two different countries claiming the same territory, with two
> different versions of the Constitution, economics, and American history.
> But Babel is not a story about tribalism; it’s a story about the
> fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had
> seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a
> metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within
> the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies,
> professional associations, museums, and even families.
>
- Jonathan Haidt,
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/
We're all commenting and observing that there's fierce competition over who
gets to define the facts and interpretations of these facts. I was
surprised to see scientific research expressed in similar terms: "relegate
your competitor scientists to obscurity...where the pleasure is not only
owning all of the hotels, but also in wiping out a friend". I've worked in
the tech world my whole career where business competition and technical
cooperation go hand-in-hand. (Eg, open source software and open standards)
Is this no longer the case in scientific research?
Jerry Harris (the other other Jerry)
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 6:23 PM Jerome Slate <SlateMD at comcast.net> wrote:
> 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 <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
>>
>>
>>
> ===============================================
> ::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
> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
> This message was sent to slatemd 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/20220722/aaabff9c/attachment.html>
More information about the LCTG
mailing list