[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science

Mon Jul 25 18:24:41 PDT 2022

All this is illuminating ..but the elephant in the room is what can be done that will mitigate warming  that is reasonable and also allows humans all over the world to enjoy a better standard of living..  or in some nations use energy to avoid backbreaking labor and starvation  while we reduce emissions .

-First rapidly convert to nuclear power generation along with hydropower. 
- in the short run until solar ,wind and energy storage become more economical 
use natural gas to replace oil and coal for power where there is a need that nucear cannot fill.c
- speed up research on solar ,wind and storage to increase their contribution to energy supply to replace natural gas over time 
- speed up research  on  artificial trees and other carbon removing ideas.
- continue conversion to EV ,trucks and buses

these methods and many not listed will get us a big improvement  over time 
without significantly reducing our living standards or condemning poor nations to stay poor. ( they wont do that anyway ..they  will pollute to grow,) 

and dont forget that in addition to the oil lobby twisting data there is a huge green lobby twisting data the opposite way.. Big money in  the green   indistry and govt subsidies.

all the above is common sense  and  engineering economics applied  to this problem .
all the extremists do is polarize the issue and fight useless ideological wars .. instead of getting behind  the compromises we need to make to make mitigation  progress at a reasonable cost to society .

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 25, 2022, at 7:17 PM, Ted Kochanski <tedpkphd at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
> ===============================================
> ::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/20220725/2f330f8e/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/20220725/2f330f8e/attachment.png>