[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science

[Ted Kochanski]

Michael, et al

I'm not sure what “mainstream expert opinion” -- actually means

There is enormous gap between the highly political "Summary for
Policymakers" and the technical content of the IPCC reports
There is a fairly rigorous peer review process for the technical chapters
with people of a skeptical bent such as Richard Lindzen playing key roles
as principal authors [e.g. in 2001]

The true sciencientists are careful to specify the large uncertainties
associated with many of the parameters -- sometime  with multidimensional
error bars -- such as the effects of clouds on radiation back into space at
night ["the blanket on top of the greenhouse roof effect"]
These parameters in turn govern the atmospheric models -- the truth is that
no one has yet figured out how to characterize the "feedback phase" [+/-
multiplier due to the various clouds at various altitudes] and many similar
processes -- so they are just approximated by other parameters or just
ignored [e.g. the well known crudeness of the general circulation models
down at the level of mountain ranges where with a few exceptions only a
generalized friction term is used in place of any detailed 3D processes
which we know are important in weather such as the  Alpine föhn, Chinooks,
etc.

In the end -- all of the IPCC " projections "quoted by the Media and
political types" are made by economic models of energy consumption and
fossil fuel burning -- they really have no fundamental basis in underlying
atmospheric science once the one parameter [sensitivity to doubling the CO2
is selected]

The stuff that the media talks about -- is crafted by the politics within
and without the UN Committee involved in the process -- many of the
people negotiating the Summary are politicians, economists or functionaries
contributed by the various countries -- many have no actual history of
making contributions to the underlying science

I agree that we need to well understand the matter before us -- however
precipitous ["pun"?] action is the absence of understanding is likely to be
wasteful at the minimum and even potentially exacerbating.

Finally -- its all well and good for the Davos crowd to preen and
congratulate themselves -- they have achieved a much higher standard of
living than their ancestors of just about a couple of generations ago [due
to fossil fuels and electricity] -- what about the B's of people still
living on a subsistence agricultural level  -- don't they deserve some
chance to flourish?

Ted

On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 5:38 PM Michael Alexander <mna.ma at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jerry et al.:  I subscribe to the idea that climate change is
> substantially human-caused, and that the impact on Earth and humans is
> already severe and getting worse.  It seems to me that critiques like
> those Ted Kochanski advances are, though perceptive and (I think) valid, of
> second-order importance for policymakers because the scope and intensity of
> climate-change-induced phenomena have become so huge.
>
> To the best of my understanding, “mainstream expert opinion”
> believes standard climate models (including the data fed into them) have
> underestimated the extent of global and regional changes (temperature
> changes, CO2 and CH4 (methane) concentrations), plus massive droughts, mass
> fires, etc.  Therefore, strong countervailing actions have become
> imperative, even as climate models and input data are improved.
>
> To say this is one thing.  To achieve genuine, significant changes—
> worldwide changes, not changes merely in North America – is quite different
> and far more complicated.
>
>     – Mike Alexander
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 25, 2022, 5:06 PM, Ted Kochanski <tedpkphd at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Jerry,
>
> Its not as simple as:
> branch -- the climate is constant
> or branch humans are changing the climate
>
> The climate is always changing, which is why the weather folks use a 30
> year sliding average to define [the average high, average low or the
> average] for a given location and a given calendar date.
> The dynamics of weather forcast on a short-time scale [say up to 10 days]
> and forecasts for the upcoming season are not cleanly delineated
> and then you get meta-events such as a drought lasting a few months to a
> few years  -- is that a climate or just weather event
>
> However, when you see prolonged instances of something such as the
> Extended Freezing weather in the 1300's through as late as the early 1800's
> in Europe, North America and beyond  -- aka the Little Ice Age [LIA] --
> that is clearly climate on a nearly global scale.  Similarly the LIA is
> predated by the Medieval Optimum [MO] when much of coastal Greenland was
> ice-free.  However, we have minimal instrumental data on the LIA [mostly
> the latter few decades] and none at all about the MO -- depending entirely
> on proxies of various fidelities and a scattering of documents relating to
> environmental conditions.
>
> Proxies from further back suggest that there were multiple LIA and MO like
> periods in the Holocene Epoch in the past approximately 11,650 cal years
> since the Last Glacial Period.  There was also one extraordinary event
> known as the Younger Dryas aka Younger Dryas stadial [cool period between
> roughly 12,900 and 11,600 years ago that disrupted the prevailing warming
> trend occurring in the Northern Hemisphere at the end of the Last Glacial
> Period.  Ice and other cores indicate that the onset of the cooling of the
> Younger Dryas was preceded by the Bølling-Allerød interstadial rapid
> warming [beginning approximately 14,700 years ago].  The Younger Dryas'
> return to near Glacial conditions lasted about 1300 hundred years and was
> followed by extremely rapid warming to near current conditions  [Greenland
> ice-core samples suggest that local temperatures increased by up to 10 °C
> in just a few decades].
>
> if you want to try to put your finger on the human component of climate
> change -- you need to look to the past few decades when we have some fairly
> "good" data sets of direct measurements of temperatures [from satellites
> with their issues] and CO2 concentration and figure how to exclude the
> non-human induced variability of the fairly recent [past 120 to 50 years
> ago].  This post LIA  era -- features substantial variability before the
> recent "Satellite Measurement Era" [SME] -- sufficient for both "Global
> Warming" [early 20th C] and "Global Cooling" with possible return to
> Glaciation [mid 20th C] to be popularized in major Magazine cover stories.
> If human activity didn't play a role in creating the MO or the LIA and is
> difficult to credibly associate with the ending of the LIA -- why do we
> feel so certain {"the science is settled"} that we can use human activity
> to explain everything which has happened in the modern Satellite era.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 4:13 PM Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "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
>
> ===============================================
> ::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/20220725/e6df4567/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/e6df4567/attachment.png>