[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
David Lees
joeoptics at gmail.com
Thu Jul 28 20:56:28 PDT 2022
It is a satire site and they rarely publish data, but from looking at some
of the points here:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts#Analyses_in_scientific_papers:_no_temp._trend_bias
It is not worth wasting time looking at material from Anthony Watts. It
looks like he was discredited more than a decade ago.
David Lees
>From Pixel 6 Pro
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 11:25 PM Shelly Lowenthal <shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com>
wrote:
> HaHa. Another site with no data, no explanations, and the largest number
> of times the word denier is written.
> Please do better.
>
> Shelly Lowenthal
>
> On Jul 28, 2022, at 10:45 PM, David Lees <joeoptics at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> You might have a typo in the URL. Perhaps you meant this?
> https://wottsupwiththat.com/
>
> David Lees
> From Pixel 6 Pro
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 8:47 PM Shelly Lowenthal <shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok - you don’t like heartland because climate alarmists are afraid of
>> them. Then click on this this link and read the report. Don’t need to read
>> - open your eyes and look at the photos.
>>
>>
>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/27/new-surface-stations-report-released-its-worse-than-we-thought/
>>
>> Shelly Lowenthal
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2022, at 7:17 PM, David Lees <joeoptics at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Heartland Institute. Hmmm. It does not appear to be a reliable source
>> of information to put it mildly looking at a neutral bias measurement site:
>> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heartland-institute/
>>
>> And this somewhat dated look certainly makes the case to ignore it:
>> https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute#Funding_base
>>
>>
>> No point in further discussion for me.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 5:37 PM Shelly Lowenthal <
>> shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry - Heartland is a publisher. Do you have bones to pick with Anthony
>>> Watts? He has his own site: https://wattsupwiththat.com/
>>>
>>> I was hoping that everyone had a chance to see all the photos and come
>>> to the understanding of UHI - Urban Heat Island Effect. You don’t even need
>>> to read the document - just look at the pictures. UHI is a real thing. In
>>> fact those awfully placed sensors track temperature rise at twice the rate
>>> of the reference group of sensors. Concrete and asphalt make cities hotter
>>> - mostly at night. Thank goodness for electricity (as long as it lasts) and
>>> AC! BTW - Eversource pays me $40 per summer to control my thermostat in
>>> Lexington. I let them because I’m usually not there!
>>>
>>> Shelly Lowenthal
>>>
>>> On Jul 28, 2022, at 4:38 PM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob, thanks for sharing government data. Anything out of heartland.org
>>> will be skewed towards an ideological belief.
>>>
>>> Shelly, I'm going to disengage from this conversation with you. You
>>> share biased and skewed information and casually dismiss any corrections
>>> provided.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:05 PM Shelly Lowenthal <
>>> shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Love these. First link expects a 1-6 foot sea level rise. This is a
>>>> wild and unproven prediction. Second link shows what happens if sea level
>>>> rises 2-3 feet. But we know that’s not the case. 3mm/year is 300mm in 2122
>>>> or less than a foot in 2100. Plus we know that not all that is caused by us
>>>> or CO2. Much of CO2 is released when Oceans warm and get sucked back in
>>>> when the Ocean’s cool. Sea level rises when the ocean warms as well, not
>>>> just from melting ice. (
>>>> https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/learn/project/how-warming-water-causes-sea-level-rise/
>>>> ). You can actually see this effect from lower tide readings in the 70s
>>>> when the earth cooled.
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to share with you how our government measures land
>>>> temperature. Report just came out and there are too many pictures in it so
>>>> it’s too large to be an attachment. I hope you all enjoy this quick read
>>>> with lots of photos. There is a chart of US temperature from the reference
>>>> network of good sites from 2005 to present. Enjoy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/2022_Surface_Station_Report.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Shelly Lowenthal
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 28, 2022, at 12:00 PM, Robert Primak <bobprimak at yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Massachusetts Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Viewer
>>>> Find interactive maps of potential coastal flooding of public
>>>> facilities and infrastructure developed by the Massachusetts Office of
>>>> Coastal Zone Management (CZM) StormSmart Coasts Program.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-sea-level-rise-and-coastal-flooding-viewer
>>>>
>>>> Climate change and coastal flooding in Metro
>>>> Boston: impacts and adaptation strategies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/Coastal%20Flooding%20Metro%20Boston_tcm3-31975.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Seaport Cost Billions To Build. What Will It Take To Save It?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/06/16/boston-seaport-fort-point-climate-change-sea-level
>>>>
>>>> There will be and have already been serious economic impacts on coastal
>>>> Massachusetts due to rising high tides and storm surges. This has been a
>>>> trend in built-up areas like Boston's seaport, as well as areas where there
>>>> has been little or no building, such as the North Shore and Cape Ann areas.
>>>> Cape Cod has been losing beaches not due to coastal subsidence, but due to
>>>> increasingly severe storm surges and increasingly high "King Tides".
>>>>
>>>> If you actually live in these coastal communities, you know only too
>>>> well what is happening. And you know it is unprecedented in MA history,
>>>> going back to the 1600's. When your house starts going into the Atlantic,
>>>> you quickly become a believer in sea level rise due to climate change.
>>>>
>>>> I deliberately chose government reports, as these contain lots of
>>>> references to data sets used.
>>>>
>>>> -- Bob Primak
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 11:39:46 AM EDT, Shelly Lowenthal <
>>>> shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please tell us what the big impacts are specifically. Also for each,
>>>> please tell us if issues are due to subsidence (for example, too much water
>>>> extracted) vs rising tides or other human/policy changes (building in
>>>> historical floods plains) outside rising tides.
>>>>
>>>> I can’t imagine destroying an economy or making people poor over 44mm
>>>> (1.7 inches) over 100 years.
>>>>
>>>> Shelly Lowenthal
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 28, 2022, at 11:00 AM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shelly,
>>>> A couple of quick thoughts. Sorry for the brevity of my message.
>>>> 1. The graph showing ice loss on Greenland (left one) is wrong. It used
>>>> the wrong data from the spreadsheet. The real # is double:
>>>>
>>>> [image: image.png]
>>>>
>>>> 2. The right-hand graph showing the total mass is pointless. (It's also
>>>> data not derived from the imbie.org dataset; they should tell where
>>>> they got it.)
>>>> 3. "At this rate it will take 1-2000 years for Greenland to melt" - do
>>>> you realize this isn't the point at which melting ice impacts humans?
>>>> 4. The IMBIE study estimates that the ice melt between 1992-2018 has
>>>> resulted in mean sea level rise of 10.8 ± 0.9 millimetres.
>>>>
>>>> That may seem small to you, but it's a trend that's increasing and a
>>>> small increase has a big impact at different locations around the world.
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:11 PM Shelly Lowenthal <
>>>> shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One of the members posted the first scary slide so I posted the second.
>>>> At this rate it will take 1-2000 years for Greenland to melt. That’s long
>>>> enough to replace all electric generation with nuclear plants and adapt to
>>>> other consequences while we’re rich. Turning off electricity today will
>>>> make us all poor and not able to adapt to the coming changes, plus or minus.
>>>>
>>>> Shelly Lowenthal
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 27, 2022, at 1:49 PM, carllazarus at comcast.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The chart of sea level rise from tide gage data labels the 0.5 inch per
>>>> decade rise from 1880 to 1940 or 1950 as “Natural Rise”. This was all in
>>>> the industrial age, so why assume it was natural as opposed to the result
>>>> of burning fossil fuels?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, while the scale on the left chart of Greenland ice melt makes the
>>>> melt look much more significant than it has been, the one on the right
>>>> suffers from the opposite problem—the scale chosen makes it look like there
>>>> has been no change in the rate of ice melt. The title of the first graph
>>>> claims that is what the media shows us, but it cites no media. Reading the
>>>> fine print, both graphs were created by the same person, Willis Eschenbach,
>>>> a non-scientist who often speaks and writes climate change skepticism. In
>>>> these graphs he created a strawman that he could knock down.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Carl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* LCTG <lctg-bounces+carllazarus=comcast.net at lists.toku.us> *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Shelly Lowenthal
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 26, 2022 4:34 PM
>>>> *To:* Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com>
>>>> *Cc:* Lex Computer Group <lctg at lists.toku.us>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Great graph - pictures and statistics are wonderful to project views.
>>>> 48cm of water seems like a lot until you realize that Boston was under
>>>> 12,500cm of ice! Now that’s scary! Hence two views of Greenland:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: image001.png]
>>>>
>>>> Just to be more complete, ice has been melting for far longer before we
>>>> started pumping CO2 by inference of tide gauges. I wonder what could have
>>>> caused that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: image002.png]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be fair - global tides might be growing a little faster and we can
>>>> now also measure it by satellite radar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: image003.png]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/sea-level-rise-human-portion-is-small/
>>>>
>>>> Water level growth seems small enough for us to adapt to (my opinion).
>>>> In fact, those coral islands land mass is growing even though water level
>>>> is also growing - because that’s what coral islands do. Coral grows up to
>>>> the sun. In fact, coral loves heat. The most varieties grow around
>>>> Indonesia close to the equator.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No one agrees with NO global sea level rise, in fact beaches are
>>>> globally getting bigger!
>>>>
>>>> -No lack of ice on Greenland, ice is steadily increasing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, polar bears are doing great since Canada put them on the
>>>> endangered list which means hunters can’t shoot them. Big rebound in
>>>> population. Funny that they didn’t take long to adapt from brown bears and
>>>> have hollow hair fibers that allow them to float and swim 100 miles. They
>>>> are doing a little worse this summer because less ice has melted near
>>>> Alaska. They stuff themselves with seal pups in the spring while brown
>>>> bears stuff themselves with salmon and berries in the fall. Susan Crockford
>>>> is the expert on polar bears.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: image004.png]
>>>>
>>>> I hope this helps. Please check out this site if you have other
>>>> questions for the bigger/longer picture.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://climateataglance.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shelly Lowenthal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 26, 2022, at 12:29 PM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shelly,
>>>>
>>>> Good points. Thanks for sharing your source. However, if you'd read
>>>> further the PolarPortal tweets, you'd see a longer-term graph showing
>>>> massive gigaton loss on Greenland:
>>>>
>>>> "Today 20 years ago, the joint @NASA and @DLR_de #GRACE satellites "Tom
>>>> and Jerry" were launched. They measure the mass loss of the Greenland Ice
>>>> Sheet. From April 2002 to August 2021, Greenland has lost almost 4700
>>>> gigatons, enough to cover the entire U.S. with 48 cm of water."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: image005.png]
>>>>
>>>> To which someone responded with this denialistic anecdotal data:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Another alarmist headline without any foundation in reality🤮
>>>> Sooo Greenland is melting, yet we observe:
>>>> -NO global sea level rise, in fact beaches are globally getting bigger!
>>>> -No lack of ice on Greenland, ice is steadily increasing
>>>> -Polar bears and all life are thriving"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know...I suppose if the Greenland ice sheet had infinite mass,
>>>> it could be in a continual downward trend since the beginning of time. And
>>>> beaches getting bigger is certainly a sign the sea levels aren't rising!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 11:40 AM Shelly Lowenthal <
>>>> shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is summer, after all. In Greenland. Are you all shocked the same way
>>>> when Greenland adds 10Gigatons of snow in one day? Source:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: image006.png]
>>>>
>>>> Yes it’s weather. Check NH snow levels this past year - certainly not
>>>> ordinary. SH is getting hit now as we bask in our summer warmth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: image007.png]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After all. We’re in a low Sun Spot cycle and the jet stream does not
>>>> flow straight. Hot and cold where it normally isn’t. Cold Maunder Minimum
>>>> had almost no sun spots. Humans did not do well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shelly Lowenthal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 26, 2022, at 9:48 AM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ted,
>>>>
>>>> > 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think anyone feels "certain" (we've already covered how
>>>> certainty in science is hardly ever 100% possible in real life scenarios),
>>>> but I do think there's evidence to strongly support the theory that the
>>>> global warming trends are real and predominantly influenced by human
>>>> activity, namely the period after the industrial revolution. I realize the
>>>> use of absolutist language is relatively common on both sides, most
>>>> scientists involved understand the uncertainty implicit in their datasets
>>>> and models. (Perhaps except Dr. Roy, a legitimate expert in satellite temp
>>>> data, he believes the Earth has an infinite sink to suck away excess CO2:
>>>> "And it seem like it doesn’t matter how much MORE we put in each
>>>> year…nature still takes out an average of 50% of that amount.")
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for man's influence, I think the correlation of CO2 and temperature
>>>> rises with the start of humanity burning fossil fuels is pretty strong. The
>>>> temperature graph below highlights the Little Ice Age period swings in
>>>> temperature compared to what we're seeing now. (see graphs below)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And, lastly, what if you and millions others are making a mistake
>>>> pushing against taking any action? Greenland's ice pack shed 18 tons
>>>> of water in the past 3 days
>>>> <https://www.axios.com/2022/07/25/greenland-ice-melt-peak-season>. I
>>>> realize this may label me one of those merely interested in the
>>>> "psychological terror of the populace", but what are the consequences if
>>>> we're more right and you're more wrong?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One of my favorite science fiction series is The Three Body Problem
>>>> by Cixin Liu. In it, humanity is faced with an existential threat by
>>>> intergalactic aliens. But the aliens won't arrive on Earth for another
>>>> 200-ish years. I don't want to spoil anything since it's a great set of
>>>> books if you haven't already read it. Humanity bands together to prepare
>>>> for the impending attack. This is a common enough trope that if we were
>>>> ever confronted with an external threat from space, that we'd all unite and
>>>> work together like countries do when attacked by other countries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, with the social media-amplified rise of conspiracy theories
>>>> and disinformation, the fundamental re-defining of previous common facts
>>>> and derived meaning, the shifting explanations from climate deniers to
>>>> justify non-action, and with other examples, I no longer have this faith in
>>>> our ability to unite to tackle long-term threats. Our brains are simple
>>>> pattern-matching machines and too prone to re-programming by repetition and
>>>> appeals to fear and greed. We're just not equipped to deal with threats
>>>> much more complex and less immediate than a snake jumping out of the grass.
>>>> Perhaps this is why some attempt "psychological terror" to trigger fight or
>>>> flight, while others urge us to freeze.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: image008.png]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: image009.png]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 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: image010.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 shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com.
>>>> Set your list options:
>>>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/shelly.lowenthal@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 bobprimak at yahoo.com.
>>>> Set your list options:
>>>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/bobprimak@yahoo.com
>>>> [image: image004.png][image: image005.png][image: image006.png][image:
>>>> image007.png][image: image.png][image: image001.png][image:
>>>> image002.png][image: image003.png][image: image010.png][image:
>>>> image009.png][image: image008.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 joeoptics at gmail.com.
>>> Set your list options:
>>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/joeoptics@gmail.com
>>
>> [image: image006.png][image: image003.png][image: image007.png][image:
> image001.png][image: image.png][image: image003.png][image: image010.png][image:
> image007.png][image: image009.png][image: image002.png][image:
> image010.png][image: image006.png][image: image005.png][image:
> image001.png][image: image002.png][image: image008.png][image:
> image004.png][image: image009.png][image: image004.png][image:
> image005.png][image: image.png][image: image008.png]
>
> David Lees
>From Pixel 6 Pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/f4a3ba0d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 386025 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/f4a3ba0d/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 339932 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/f4a3ba0d/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 515558 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/f4a3ba0d/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 825159 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/f4a3ba0d/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 30282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/f4a3ba0d/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 118345 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/f4a3ba0d/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25733 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/f4a3ba0d/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 314717 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/f4a3ba0d/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 207480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/f4a3ba0d/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 451164 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/f4a3ba0d/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 588254 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/f4a3ba0d/attachment-0010.png>
More information about the LCTG
mailing list