[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
Jerry Harris
jerryharri at gmail.com
Mon Jul 25 13:12:52 PDT 2022
> "Anyone who denies that there are legitimate scientific questions... is
either un-read or not a true believer in what the process of science is all
about who is just interested in *psychological terror* of the populace."
(emphasis added)
This seems to be a variant of Godwin's Law. (Although, am I pulling a
Meta-Godwin by referencing Godwin? :-)
Are we having a disagreement on whether climate change is human-caused or
on the severity of the impact on Earth and humans? I thought we were past
this stage of the discussion.
[image: image.png]
Jerry
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 2:33 PM Ted Kochanski <tedpkphd at gmail.com> wrote:
> Marvin,
>
> In addition to Lonborg who believes strongly in the human role in causing
> climate change on a global scale there are many imminent atmospheric
> scientists who question the dependence of the "Catastrophic wing of the
> Anthropogenic Climate Change argument] on models which are constantly
> tweaked [without actually modifying the underlying theoretical framework
> for the models nor actually testing them against the best of our
> measurements of things like vertical profiles] -- meanwhile the planet
> does its own thing with our and all of the other inputs.
>
> Anyone who denies that there are legitimate scientific questions leading
> to model parameters which are inadequately quantified [even in some cases
> to the sign of the term] to result in model output which is consistent with
> the best measurements -- is either un-read or not a true believer in what
> the process of science is all about who is just interested in psychological
> terror of the populace.
>
> I suggest reading Fred Singer -- just before his death he and several
> others updated his original 1997 book for the layman and others
> Hot Talk, Cold Science (2021)
> Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (Revised and Expanded Third Edition)
>
> S. Fred Singer (Author)
> David R. Legates (Author)
> Anthony R. Lupo (Author)
> Frederick Seitz (Foreword)
> William Happer (Foreword)
>
> Ted
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 10:56 AM Marvin Menzin <mmenzin at icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> Even in our discussion about actions we should take on climate change,
>> it's notable that many rational voices support action "but not if it hurts
>> economic growth". If the consequences of climate change are so severe, why
>> should we not act regardless? Does the complexity of predicting the outcome
>> of the status quo vs taking action lend bias towards non-change? Probably.
>> We're evolutionarily not equipped to deal with long-term threats.
>>
>> Re the above , there are many rational people willing to accept some
>> hardship to mitigate warming and the long term threat.. so it comes down
>> to degree, what degree of pain is justified given the threat and the
>> uncertainty of the timeline?
>> i suggest reading Lomberg on the subject. .he is one of that tries to
>> quantify the cost benefit ratios of our actions on climate.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2022, at 10:50 AM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ted,
>> Thanks for the explanations about the complexities with taking
>> temperature measurements and your comments about the human aspect of
>> scientific endeavors.
>>
>> We are legitimizing (to a larger degree than I'd like to admit) the realm
>> of conspiracy theories and deliberate disinformation campaigns by tacitly
>> acknowledging the notion that labeling information a conspiracy or
>> disinformation is a matter of choice. Pointing out a person's profit motive
>> or ideological agenda for spreading the information isn't a strong argument
>> since we all apply our belief systems when selecting data on the ladder of
>> inference. On major topics where experts disagree, it especially opens the
>> door for non-experts to confuse the debate and dilute our collective
>> resolve to take important action.
>>
>> Even in our discussion about actions we should take on climate change,
>> it's notable that many rational voices support action "but not if it hurts
>> economic growth". If the consequences of climate change are so severe, why
>> should we not act regardless? Does the complexity of predicting the outcome
>> of the status quo vs taking action lend bias towards non-change? Probably.
>> We're evolutionarily not equipped to deal with long-term threats.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 11:39 AM Ted Kochanski <tedpkphd at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry and all
>>>
>>> I think one has to be very careful in characterizing and manipulating
>>> data which may not be well understood [as to error sources, various
>>> pre-processing, etc.]
>>> Spencer*1 and Christy*2 are very careful scientists and in particular
>>> know the satellite microwave radiometer data better than nearly anybody --
>>> having worked with it for more than 30 years
>>>
>>> The Satellite data record has been scrutinized, challenged and augmented
>>> over the years until the error bars[mostly now duie to the difficulty in
>>> calibrating from one satellite to a successor and the effects of
>>> orbital decay on the field of view] are miniscule [+/- 0.02 C] in
>>> comparison to the very poorly characterized and grossly manipulated global
>>> surface temperature record. For example the "Official Boston Temperature"
>>> has been collected from sites at different elevations above sea level,
>>> different distances from the edge of the harbor and even on different sides
>>> of the harbor. Even for the nearly one hundred years that the temperature
>>> has been measured in East Boston-- there have been several measurement
>>> sites since the days of the East Boston Army Airfield [gravel strip]*3 --
>>> and then the configuration of the harbor's edge and nature of the
>>> surrounding surfaces near to the measurement site has changed drastically
>>> even when the measurements were taken at the old control tower. Even since
>>> the measurement site returned to the edge of the harbor with the filling of
>>> Bird Island Flats and the construction of the Hyatt and Logan Office Center
>>> there have been further changes in the surroundings with the construction
>>> of the adjacent paved area for the one-way runway on one side and the
>>> consolidated garage for rental cars on the other side.
>>>
>>> As a personal observation I have had some extensive exposure to the NOAA
>>> ocean buoy data sets when I was working on an unrelated problem at Lincoln
>>> Lab. I was bothered by a persistent "fat tail" on the distribution of the
>>> buoys' air temperature records despite a "careful design" of the sun
>>> shields for the thermometers. On closer inspection the anomalous tails
>>> occurred only immediately before sunset and immediately after sunrise. The
>>> best explanation -- low angle scattering of sunlight from the ocean under
>>> calm sea surface conditions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Overall its easy to assume the best for the data collection and
>>> processing -- no-one screws-up the data intentionally -- --
>>> butrealloy understanding the constraints and quirks of the data is often
>>> complicated when all the idiosyncrasies get considered.
>>>
>>>
>>> *1
>>> Spencer's background
>>>
>>>> Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of
>>>> Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist
>>>> at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior
>>>> Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where
>>>> he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement
>>>> Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr.
>>>> Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the
>>>> Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He
>>>> has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global
>>>> warming.
>>>
>>> Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government
>>>> agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company
>>>> to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
>>>
>>>
>>> *2
>>> Christy's background
>>>
>>>> Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric
>>>> Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University
>>>> of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in
>>>> 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In
>>>> 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principal
>>>> Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data
>>>> set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For
>>>> this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for
>>>> Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. *In 1996, they were
>>>> selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society
>>>> "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from
>>>> operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability
>>>> to monitor climate."* In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow
>>>> of the American Meteorological Society.
>>>> Education
>>>> Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois, 1987
>>>> M.S., Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois, 1984
>>>> Graduate Research Assistant University of Illinois (summer 1985 at NCAR)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *3
>>> Wikipedia article
>>>
>>>> Jeffries Point in East Boston was selected as the site, due to its
>>>> principal advantage of the capability for enlargement through the filling
>>>> in of the adjoining flats, owned by the state. The aircraft landing field
>>>> at Jeffires Point in East Boston was to accommodate military, naval and air
>>>> mail airplanes and commercial and civilian flyers.
>>>> Built in 1923, East Boston's new airport had two 1,500 foot cinder
>>>> covered runways laid out in the shape of a "T" with turning circles at each
>>>> end.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 2:46 PM Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com>
>>> 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 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 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 mmenzin at icloud.com.
>> Set your list options:
>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/mmenzin@icloud.com
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220725/122c117e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 118345 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220725/122c117e/attachment.png>
More information about the LCTG
mailing list