[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
Steve Isenberg
smisenberg at gmail.com
Fri Jul 29 13:52:41 PDT 2022
ENOUGH ALREADY.
Let's have no more discussion on this topic on the LCTG list.
Peter was polite in his earlier message asking that we stop sending
messages on this topic to the list. Look for his message "Climate
Conversation" sent today at 2:04pm.
I have created a second list, LCTG Extended, that should be used for
lengthy discussions like this.
I have subscribed Ted, Shelly, Jerry, and David to this list as they are
the primary discussants on this topic and I encourage them to continue the
discussion, on that LCTG Extended list, and I encourage others to join the
LCTG Extended list to continue the discussion.
To send to the extended discussions list, address your email to:
*LCTG-Extended at toku.us
<LCTG-Extended at toku.us>*
To subscribe to the extended discussions list, send an email to:
*LCTG-Extended-subscribe at toku.us
<LCTG-Extended-subscribe at toku.us>* or let me (Steve) know and I'll
subscribe you.
Please do NOT respond to this message including the LCTG list. If you have
comments or questions, email me directly.
Again, please continue this discussion on the LCTG-Extended email list and
NOT on the LCTG list.
Thank you,
-steve
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:39 PM Ted Kochanski <tedpkphd at gmail.com> wrote:
> David, et al
>
> You casually dismiss all of the highly respected professionals in
> atmospheric science simply based on recommendations by non-scientists --
> there are real issues being raised by these professionals who have signed
> onto several position detailed statements*1 and held serious
> scientific conferences not under the influence of the Davos-inspired
> Climate Catastrophists, governmental flacks, and their fellow travelers.
>
> Big-Climate is peopled by many actors such as AlGore, Gretta Thunberg,
> John Kerry, who are wholly incompetent in matters of: science in general,
> atmospheric science in particular -- they pray on the public's fear
> and become incredibly rich in the process. Yet if they believed their own
> pronouncements they wouldn't be investing many millions in sea-level
> estates on islands and exposed coastline. The frontpeople are in turn
> supported by the academics who sell out their integrity to lavish
> government funding and a media too ignorant to challenge any of the
> statements [even if less dramatic than the "the world will end in x " of
> the Thunbergs.
>
> Read some of what Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of
> Brenchley has written about the early history of the promotion of "Climate
> Crisis" and how the academics were hooked into playing along with what
> began a tussle between PM Margaret Thatcher and the Communist-controlled
> Coal Miners Union in the UK nearly 50 years ago. Moncton as a special
> advisor to Mrs. Thatcher promoted shutting down coal because of CO2
> emissions. Academics were bribed into participating by the UK equivalent
> of the NSF paying a bonus to someone whose research title included the
> effect of climate as in:
> original work -- "Study of the displacement of the European Squirrel in
> Her Majesty's Parks and Wildlife Preserves by the introduced North American
> Squirrel"
> newly refocused work -- "Study of the *effect of climate change* on the
> displacement of the European Squirrel in Her Majesty's Parks and Wildlife
> Preserves by the introduced North American Squirrel"
>
> This is not quite a real example but I heard Monckton of Brenchley discuss
> this topic on a Youtube and he used an example involving squirrels
>
>
> *1
> *THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY*
> SEPTEMBER 23, 2019
> By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
>
> Five hundred scientists signed a letter to the United Nations saying there
> is no climate crisis!
>
> The letter says:
>
> *There is no climate emergency*
>> A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this
>> urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate
>> policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the
>> uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming,
>> while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as
>> the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as
>> well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.
>>
>> *Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming *
>
> The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as
>> the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. ... Only very
>> few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is
>> chiefly anthropogenic.
>
>
>
>> *Warming is far slower than predicted. *
>
> The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and
>> at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic
>> forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from
>> understanding climate change
>
>
>
>> *Climate policy relies on inadequate models*
>
> Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as
>> policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of
>> greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that
>> enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
>
>
> *CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth*
>> CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth.
>> Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening
>> the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant
>> biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops
>> worldwide.
>
>
> *Global warming has not increased natural disasters*
>> There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying
>> hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them
>> more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are
>> costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and insects, and palm-oil
>> plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.
>
>
> *Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities*
>> There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and
>> alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy
>> proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to
>> reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide
>> reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.
>
>
>
> Ted
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:57 PM David Lees <joeoptics at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> ===============================================
>> ::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 s+lctglist at smistuff.com.
> Set your list options:
> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/s+lctglist@smistuff.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/5eb01490/attachment.html>
More information about the LCTG
mailing list