[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
Stephen Quatrano
stefanoq at gmail.com
Sat Jul 23 11:01:06 PDT 2022
Wow, Ted. This is terrific stuff. Thank you very much!!!
SQ
> On Jul 22, 2022, at 5:53 PM, Ted Kochanski <tedpkphd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Larry, et al
>
> The problem with comparing 1936 to 2022 or any other year on a global basis is that -- in 1936 we didn't have any truly global data set as all of the data was collected locally for various purposes [e.g. local air field, harbor master, college, agricultural climatology] with various types of instrumentation, calibration procedures, maintenance of the site, etc. In addition to the fact that large areas of the globe [the inhospitable ones] had virtually no data collected, there was virtually no data collected from the oceans except in busy shipping lanes. Even in highly populated areas, if the area was not well-connected via telegraph there was no point in making meteorological measurements.
>
> Satellites and in the highly developed countries automated stations have improved matters -- but there are still few ocean sampling sites,and outside of the G-100? There are still lots of places even in G-100 countries with no reliable sites. Most importantly for a reliable long-term data series -- there has to be active maintenance of the "weather station" and its immediate environs. There are hundreds of well documented examples of meteorological data being collected from the same site but its immediate environment has changed drastically by near-by construction obstructing air flows, changing ambient light and shadows, changes in land usage [e.g. paving. meadows becoming forested] -- even dust and grime changing the color of the housing for the temperature measurement.
>
> Satellites while able to provide global samples have their own problems -- satellite radiometry doesn't really give you a surface temperature-- it gives you an average over a roughly conical [frustum of a cone] volume where the conditions are sufficiently similar as to excite emission/absorption in the same narrow band [Oxygen dipole rotation] coming from the atmosphere within the field of view of the satellite Microwave Sensing Unit*1 [which varies in construction some from one family of satellites to another]*2
>
> So -- really knowing what the temperature of the earth [however defined] is doing over long periods of time is extremely challenging
>
> That's why a number of years ago I proposed a comprehensive program which included:
> 1) development of airborne package which could be included on all jet aircraft with pressurized cabins -- continuously recording measurements of the air fed into the cabin [accompanied by flight parameters from gps and a time stamp] and downloaded to the web on landing
> 2) Global Prize for the best surface and possibly drone based measurement unit --
> 3 years to build,
> 2 years to test and select the "winners" simultaneously picking 1 million sites globally distributed
> 5 years to manufacture [globally] and deploy globally
> 10 years to collect the "calibration data set"
> 3) Global Prize for modeling [similar to the hardware process] and synchronous with the Hardware process
> 4) Global Prediction Prize -- take the 10 year Calibration data set and predict the data over the next ten years
> 5) Repeat steps 1-4 every 10 years
>
> data to be made easily accessible to the world
>
> Gates, Bezos, Musk the other "fat cats" and anyone else to fund through a non governmental non NGO structure with big prizes to attract the best and brightest from anywhere
> 30 or 40 years from now we might know really how much of an issue we have to address -- at this point its all a mixture of unreliable data and models which are hard to test against any actual reliable data sets
>
> Its particularly galling to talk to someone who understands modeling issue or theoretical framework issues who being totally ignorant of real data collection just assumes the data is good -- I've had my share with wrestling with recalcitrant instrumentation, and data processing in plasma physics experiments -- while simultaneously seeing theorists "breeze in" grab some preliminary data only later to to flip the phase caz=sually to make the "theorey " fit the newly collected data from improved instrumentation or changes in operating conditions
>
> The best advice I got from a really old GE engineer was: "99% of everything you read or hear in your career is "KRAP" -- so to be successful you need to build and improve a really strong filter and apply it rigorously"
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *1
> from the Wikipedia on MSU
> Records have been created by merging data from nine different MSUs, each with peculiarities (e.g., time drift of the spacecraft relative to the local solar time) that must be calculated and removed because they can have substantial impacts on the resulting trend.[15] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-15>
> The process of constructing a temperature record from a radiance record is difficult. The satellite temperature record comes from a succession of different satellites and problems with inter-calibration between the satellites are important, especially NOAA-9, which accounts for most of the difference between various analyses.[16] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-16> NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2.[14] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-Mears2005-14> There are ongoing efforts to resolve differences in satellite temperature datasets.
> Comparison with surface trends[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements&action=edit§ion=6>]
> To compare the MSU retrievals to the trend from the surface temperature record <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record> it is most appropriate to derive trends for the part of the atmosphere nearest the surface, i.e., the lower troposphere <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere>. As discussed earlier, the lowest of the temperature retrievals, TLT, is not a direct measurement, but a value calculated by subtracting higher altitude brightness temperature from the lower measurements. The trends found from the UAH and the RSS groups, shown in the table below, are calculated by slightly different methods, and result in different values for the trends.
> Using the T2 or TMT channel (which include significant contributions from the stratosphere <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere>, which has cooled), Mears et al. of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) find (through January 2017) a trend of +0.140 °C/decade.[17] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-RSS-time_series-17> Spencer and Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), find a smaller trend of +0.08 °C/decade.[18] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-UAH_TMT-18>
> In comparing these measurements to surface temperature models, it is important to note that resulting values for the lower troposphere measurements taken by the MSU is a weighted average of temperatures over multiple altitudes (roughly 0 to 12 km), and not a surface temperature (see TLT in figure 3 above). The results are thus not precisely comparable to surface temperature models.
>
> *2
> from the wikipedia on MSU
> Creation of the satellite temperature record
> Main article: Satellite temperature measurements <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements>
> From 1979 to 2005 the microwave sounding units <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_sounding_unit> (MSUs) and since 1998 the Advanced Microwave Sounding Units <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Microwave_Sounding_Unit> on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_radiation> from atmospheric oxygen <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen>. The intensity is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere>, as demonstrated by theory and direct comparisons with atmospheric temperatures from radiosonde (balloon) profiles.
> Different frequencies sample a different weighted range of the atmosphere, depending on the absorption depth (i.e., optical depth <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_depth>) of the microwaves through the atmosphere. [3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-MSU-weighting-functions-3>[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-dudhia2015-4> To derive data of the temperature profile at lower altitudes and remove the stratospheric influence, researchers have developed synthetic products by subtracting signals at different altitude and view angles; such as "2LT", which has a maximum at about 650 hPa. However this process amplifies noise,[5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-Christy1998-5> increases inter-satellite calibration biases and enhances surface contamination.[6] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-Fu2005-6>
> Records have been created by merging data from nine different MSUs and AMSU data, each with peculiarities that must be calculated and removed because they can have substantial impacts on the resulting trend.[7] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-7> The process of constructing a temperature record from a radiance record is difficult and some of the required corrections are as large as the trend itself: [8] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-CCSP-8>
> Analysis technique[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements&action=edit§ion=2>]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weighting_Function.png>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weighting_Function.png>MSU weighting functions based upon the U.S. Standard Atmosphere <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Standard_Atmosphere>.
> Upwelling radiance is measured at different frequencies; these different frequency bands sample a different weighted range of the atmosphere.[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-MSU-weighting-functions-3> Since the atmosphere is partially but not completely opaque, the brightness measured is an average across a band of atmosphere, depending on the penetration depth of the microwaves.[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-dudhia2015-4> The brightness temperature <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightness_temperature> (TB) measured by satellite is given by:[9] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-Mears2009-9>
>
> where is the surface weight, and are the temperatures at the surface and at the atmospheric level and is the atmospheric weighting function.
> Both the surface and atmospheric weights are dependent on the surface emissivity , the absorption coefficient and the earth incidence angle ; the surface weight is the product of and an attenuation factor:
>
> where the secant theta term accounts for the dependence of optical path length on the vertical angle, and is the optical depth:
>
> The atmospheric weighting functions can be written as:
>
> The first term in this equation is related to the radiation emitted upward from the level and attenuated along the path to the top of the atmosphere (∞), the second include the radiation emitted downward from the level z to the surface (0) and the radiation reflected back by the surface (proportional to ) to the top of the atmosphere, the exact form of is dependent upon the temperature, water vapor and liquid water content of the atmosphere.
> Channels[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements&action=edit§ion=3>]
> MSU Channel 1 is not used to monitor atmospheric temperature because it's too much sensitive to the emission from the surface, furthermore it is heavily contaminated by water vapor/liquid water in the lowermost troposphere.[10] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-10>
> Channel 2 or TMT is broadly representative of the troposphere <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere>, albeit with a significant overlap with the lower stratosphere; the weighting function has its maximum at 350 hPa (corresponding to about 8 km altitude)[11] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-11> and half-power at about 40 and 800 hPa (roughly 2–22 km).
> Figure 3 (right) shows the atmospheric levels sampled by different wavelength from the satellite measurements, where TLS, TTS, and TTT represent three different wavelengths. Note that the lowest measurement, TTT, includes brightness from both atmospheric and surface emission. TMT and TLT represent the altitude range computed lower troposphere temperature calculated using an atmospheric model <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_model> as discussed below.
> The T4 or TLS channel in representative of the temperature in the lower stratosphere with a peak weighting function at around 17 km above the earth surface.
> Calculation of lower troposphere temperature
> In an attempt to derive data for lower altitudes and remove the stratospheric <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere> influence, several researchers have developed synthetic products that subtract the higher-altitude values from the lowest altitude (TMT) measurement. Such a data-analysis technique is dependent on modeling the effect of altitude on temperature. However, this process amplifies noise,[5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-Christy1998-5> increases inter-satellite calibration biases and enhances surface contamination.[6] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-Fu2005-6> Spencer <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)> and Christy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy> developed the synthetic "2LT" (later renamed "TLT") product by subtracting signals at different view angles; this has a maximum at about 650 hPa. The 2LT product has gone through numerous versions as various corrections have been applied. Another such methodology has been developed by Fu and Johanson,[12] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#cite_note-fu_2004-12> the TTT(Total Troposphere Temperature) channel is a linear combination of the TMT and TLS channel: TTT=1.156*TMT-0.153*TLS for the global average and TTT=1.12*TMT-0.11*TLS at tropical latitudes
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 8:31 PM Larry Wittig <9423lew at gmail.com <mailto:9423lew at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Here is what it says at the end of the WAPO 1936 heat wave article. Remember there is a difference between weather (including heat waves like now) and climate:
>
> The warming in 2021 is starkly different in another major way, too. Today's global warming is a global phenomenon, impacting the entire world. But in 1936, the record Central U.S. heat was limited to just half a percent of Earth's surface. This limited warming spell is shown in the map below, which was created and tweeted by climate scientist Brian Brettschneider.
> "It was a very localized phenomenon," said Dai.
> Brian Brettschneider
> <https://twitter.com/Climatologist49?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1437159535202824198%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Farticle%2Fhottest-summer-2021-us-dust-bowl>@Climatologist49
> <https://twitter.com/Climatologist49?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1437159535202824198%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Farticle%2Fhottest-summer-2021-us-dust-bowl>·
> Follow
> <https://twitter.com/intent/follow?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1437159535202824198%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Farticle%2Fhottest-summer-2021-us-dust-bowl&screen_name=Climatologist49> <https://twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1437159535202824198?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1437159535202824198%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Farticle%2Fhottest-summer-2021-us-dust-bowl>
> To the people saying "what global warming" because of the incredibly warm summer of 1936, that summer was the 83rd warmest globally since 1900. Only 0.5% of the Earth saw their warmest summer. Guess where that 0.5% was?
> <https://twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1437159535202824198/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1437159535202824198%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Farticle%2Fhottest-summer-2021-us-dust-bowl>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 3:09 PM George Gamota <ggamota at stma-llc.com <mailto:ggamota at stma-llc.com>> wrote:
> Just to add to the mixture and put things in perspective
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/07/20/heat-wave-1936/ <https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/07/20/heat-wave-1936/>
> George
>
> <image003.jpg>
>
>
>
> From: LCTG <lctg-bounces+ggamota=stma-llc.com at lists.toku.us <mailto:stma-llc.com at lists.toku.us>> On Behalf Of Marvin Menzin
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 2:49 PM
> To: Stephen Quatrano <stefanoq at gmail.com <mailto:stefanoq at gmail.com>>
> Cc: Lex Computer Group <lctg at lists.toku.us <mailto:lctg at lists.toku.us>>
> Subject: Re: [Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
>
>
>
> My 2 cents,
>
> the real issue is what to do about warming on a cost benefit basis.
>
> most experts agree there is some man made warming which is bad for is all.
>
> they may argue about the degree of warming.. how fast its moving etc.
>
>
>
> the real problem is how far and how fast to go to go in trying to curtail it.
>
>
>
> If we really switched over to serious use of nuclear power ,and natural gas
>
> instead of so much oil and coal and continued the solar and wind efforts and EV efforts we could vastly cut emissions at a cost that would not kill the economy of the richer nations and would not badly hamper the development of the poorer nations.
>
>
>
> This is not so much science as engineering and economics… and common sense.
>
>
>
> right now myths about the dangers of nuclear power, and myths about how fast we can transition away from fossil fuels without busting our economy or keeping the poor countries poor ( which they will refuse do ) prevent us from moving toward a serious warming mitigation using more nuclear power and natural gas until solar and wind are able to economically replace oil and coal and later on natural gas.
>
>
>
> this above is the real issue our politicians face.
>
>
>
> extremists on one pole say there is no warming problem at all.. and on the other pole the end of the world is near and we must stop fossil fuels now even if the rich countries go bust and the poor stay poor .
>
>
>
> sadly we have solutions available to take a moderate path to solving global warming
>
> but they aren't being followed because of myths and extremists on both sides.
>
>
>
> There are signs the myths are being overcome. pelosi just ,changed course and said , hey, maybe we should look harder at nuclear..and the french are rethinking shutting down nuclear plamts.. so maybe the pols will finally do the right thing .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2022, at 1:35 PM, Stephen Quatrano <stefanoq at gmail.com <mailto: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/Response-Data-or-Dogma-hearing.html>
>
>
> https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=466 <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 <mailto: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/ <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:carllazarus at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Facts don’t matter to conspiracy theorists.
>
>
>
> From: LCTG <lctg-bounces+carllazarus=comcast.net at lists.toku.us <mailto: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 <mailto:jjrudy1 at comcast.net>>
> Cc: Lex Computer Group <LCTG at lists.toku.us <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us> Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us <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 <http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
> This message was sent to jerryharri at gmail.com <mailto:jerryharri at gmail.com>.
> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com <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 <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us> Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us <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 <http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
> This message was sent to palbin24 at yahoo.com <mailto:palbin24 at yahoo.com>.
> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/palbin24@yahoo.com <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 <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us> Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us <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 <http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
> This message was sent to jerryharri at gmail.com <mailto:jerryharri at gmail.com>.
> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com <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 <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us> Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us <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 <http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
> This message was sent to stefanoq at gmail.com <mailto:stefanoq at gmail.com>.
> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/stefanoq@gmail.com <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 <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us> Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us <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 <http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
> This message was sent to mmenzin at icloud.com <mailto:mmenzin at icloud.com>.
> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/mmenzin@icloud.com <http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/mmenzin@icloud.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 <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us> Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us <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 <http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
> This message was sent to 9423lew at gmail.com <mailto:9423lew at gmail.com>.
> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/9423lew@gmail.com <http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/9423lew@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 <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us> Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us <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 <http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
> This message was sent to tedpkphd at gmail.com <mailto:tedpkphd at gmail.com>.
> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/tedpkphd@gmail.com <http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/tedpkphd@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 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/20220723/3fb403b4/attachment.html>
More information about the LCTG
mailing list