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

[Ted Kochanski]

Michael, et al

No -- I disagree with that view:

Newtonian dynamics is not considered settled science because it doesn't
describe QM phenomena nor even the practicum for operating GPS satellites
which need relativistic corrections.

However, Newtonian Dynamics does a good-enough job in describing problems
on the human-ish scale -- that it has been adopted cook-book like to solve
useful real-world problems such as launching the Saturn V from the pad at
the Kennedy Space Center

Ted

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 4:45 PM Michael Alexander <mna.ma at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> I believe people should be more precise when talking about “Settled
> Science”.  Was/is Newtonian physics overthrown by Einstein?  Not exactly.
> Engineers can confidently design cars, ships, airplanes, satellite
> systems, etc. without recourse to the theory of relativity.  For the most
> part, people don’t need relativistic physics.
>
> So Newtonian physics is, for most practical purposes, “settled science”.
> Scientists now know its an approximation to what we think of as the
> “correct” (relativistic) physics; but Einstein didn’t “invalidate”
> Newtonian mechanics.
>
> Similarly, I can lean against a brick wall, confident that I won’t
> suddenly appear on the opposite side.  Quantum mechanics tells us there’s a
> nonzero probability that I could ‘tunnel’ (the quantum mechanics term)
> through the wall – but the probability of such an event is vanishingly
> small.  Classical physics can be safely applied to the situation.  In such
> situations classical physics is “settled science”.
>
> To be sure, in our modern world, there are many situations where the newer
> “settled sciences” are necessary – GPS couldn’t work, for example, without
> accounting for the effect of gravity on timekeeping (general relativity)
> – but that’s because *extreme* time precision is required in GPS.
> Semiconductor device sciences are generally a mixture of quantum and
> classical physics.
>
> So in what sense global warming/climate change “settled science”?  In my
> view, it’s through accretion of a *variety* of scientific observations,
> including admittedly imperfect global temperature measurements,
> supplemented by the results of sophisticated computer modeling – most of
> which point in the same direction.
>
> The global system is too complicated – now, at least – for clear-cut
> conclusions of the kind by which Newtonian vs. Einsteinian mechanics can be
> judged.  Rather, it’s the accretion of observations and theory that
> lead lead scientists to judgment on the somewhat mushy basis of what
> lawyers call “preponderance of the evidence”.  By this standard,
> debates over the precision of one or another measurement are of secondary
> importance; the salient issue is how the imperfect pieces of evidence
> are adding up.
>
>     – Mike Alexander
>
>
> On Saturday, July 23, 2022, 2:51 PM, Stephen Quatrano <stefanoq at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Yes!  This is right on, Ted.
>
> For sure our scientific institutions — scientific societies — consist of
> individual scientists, fallible human beings.  And the institutions
> themselves (along with their peer-reviewed processes) have succumbed
> to social, political and cultural bias and made serious, grievous errors in
> the past.  The history of science is FILLED with examples.  Nevertheless,
> what makes science different from other, similar human institutions,
> however, is that ultimately, scientific beliefs and models that support
> them have to stand up to reality and the constant pressure of new
> research.  No-one is more celebrated in science than the individual outlier
> who undermines conventional wisdom and overturns a field with original data
> and reason.  Although plenty of scientists have made terrible errors over
> the centuries, science as a whole and over time, centuries in some cases,
> is self correcting.
>
> WRT Climate Change, what impresses me is the record of the debate going
> back decades.  Decades.  Take the long view and read the record.  It’s
> impressive.  And that’s what is meant by “settled science.”  It’s never
> really settled.  While it is unlikely, there is always a chance that new
> data will emerge and overturn conventional models.  Is this satellite data
> so challenging?  I think not.  But don’t listen to me:  simply look at the
> record.  It has been debated!!!
>
> In this record, I really don’t think there are any “alternative” data.
> Measurements, all measurements, all of them uncertain, are part of the
> record, along with an argument, contentious at times, that by and large
> addresses criticism one point at a time.  There are many debates that
> continue to rage WITHIN this community, in the context of the published
> science, in particular on the margins of what has been established and
> accepted.  As far as I have been able to tell, those “scientists” who have
> not been allowed to publish their criticism of establishment views are
> either touting data interpretations of data that has already been addressed
> in the literature.  In other words, they are not published because they
> have nothing to add.
>
> What if there WERE data that contradicted the mainstream?  Should someone
> find data now that actually contradicts conventional wisdom and shows that
> we have nothing to fear from climate change, they’d win the Nobel for
> sure!  There is plenty of incentive to disprove conventional wisdom among
> scientists.   They are an ornery, skeptical bunch, in my experience.
>
> I like this one:
>
> After all, evolution is “just” a theory.  A theory supported by lots and
> lots of evidence.  And it isn’t contradicted by ANY evidence.  But we
> should remain open to evaluating any such evidence that is forthcoming, as
> hard as that might be.
>
> SQ
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2022, at 12:00 PM, Ted Kochanski <tedpkphd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> <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 <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
> <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
>
> ===============================================
>
> ::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 mna.ma at yahoo.com.
> Set your list options:
> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/mna.ma@yahoo.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220723/9330e6a6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: evolution evidence nobel.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 84004 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220723/9330e6a6/attachment.jpeg>