[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
Jerry Harris
jerryharri at gmail.com
Sat Jul 30 09:58:34 PDT 2022
Interesting. I won't be joining the other group and have sent my concerns
about these actions to a smaller group of people.
Jerry
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 4:53 PM Steve Isenberg <smisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/20220730/31ca0c42/attachment.html>
More information about the LCTG
mailing list