[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] The Argument on Climate Science.

[Ted Kochanski]

Jerry,

Unfortunately -- scientists are just humans and subject to the human
condition in all its manifestations including jealousy and envy, anger and
clique-forming.  Scientists can be very parochial and closely guard a
member of the "tribe" against any assault from without -- such as
challenging the "statui quo".  This is especially true when money and/or
"professional status" is involved.  Throw in a controversial topic in which
people get deeply committed to one of a couple of interpretations of the
same data -- and open warfare can nearly result.  Certainly, reviewers can
band together and deny a "heretic" from being published, receive a major
grant or even be granted tenure.

The famous Isaac Newton quote "If I have seen further than others it is
because I stood upon the shoulders of giants" -- was not as
self-deprecating as it sounds.  Newton was a bit of a giant for his time
standing almost 2m tall  -- meanwhile his arch rival Robert Hook [Hooks law
of springs] was much smaller  [and hence not a giant upon whose shoulders
Newton was standing].

Ted

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:53 AM Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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
>>
>>
>> ===============================================
> ::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 tedpkphd at gmail.com.
> Set your list options:
> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/tedpkphd@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220722/8a30dd78/attachment.html>